Sunday, December 14, 2014

A taste of...

Recently my peers and myself had to attend a team building session with human resources to try to mend things with our new boss. So all of us including our boss and his boss were subjected to an exercise that I found kind of interesting because weeks later I am still trying to make sense of it.

The premise was simple enough: we were on a balloon ride, which was unfortunately having an accident and was falling down to earth at a dangerous speed. And the supposedly only solution to slow down was to throw things overboard. On top of that we were to choose a character among a list (or off the list, which could have been more advantageous). And we had to argue to each others why oneself was needed instead of being thrown out.

So at the beginning we had  the folowing characters on board:
Roger Federer
Nelson Mandela
Marie Curie
Pere Noel (Father Christmas or Santa Claus)
Neil Armstrong
Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin
Thomas Edison

Each of us defended ourself as their character for a minute, basically emphasizing our own strength (physical strength, knowledge of air navigation, speed of movement, engineering skills) and the benefit our lives and  achievement would have on humanity if we survived.

Then each of us would vote (for someone other than ourself) for the character that we choose to stay in the balloon. It wasn't a big surprise in fact that the Count von Zeppelin had the most vote since he pioneered the rigid airship idea and claimed to know how to manage the balloon. Roger Federer and Thomas Edison had no vote and were thrown out.

However that was not the end of the exercise. A second round took place, and the remaining characters had to convince the others again why they were still needed alive. This time, some strategies and pleading came into the arguments: Von Zeppelin still knew his things and asked to be trusted, while claiming to be ready to sacrifice himself if needed. Mandela was promoting himself as a negotiator and having experience dealing with opposite characters. Curie didn't have much to say but insisted she was not too heavy. Pere Noel indicated that faith and hope was needed during these hard times. Neil Armstrong promoted his engineering skills. For the second round voting, Federer and Edison characters could also vote. And the Neil Armstrong character got the boot.

Personally, as I suspected at least a third round of voting would take place, I voted for the one I though would not get any vote, and who made a weaker argument than my character. I was tempted to make a weak argument myself but since I was first to present my argument, it would have become too memorable and too risky. So I had to reach out to the guts feelings.

The third round was even more desperate and the remaining characters resorted to pleading mostly. At some point it became difficult for me to listen to the others as I had to find my own arguments to present and convince. I tried to offer a miracle solution as I was last to present my argument.

The result of the last round turned out to be surprising: Mandela and Curie had a vote each, Von Zeppelin had a few votes, but the majority went for Pere Noel.

As the HR mediator indicated, it was a nice result before Christmas as it seems the majority still believed in Santa Claus!

For me though it was an exhilarating and somewhat revealing that the least realistic character among the bunch would get so many votes. I expected the character to be the first to be carried overboard.
-First round: "You know I can get to billions of chimneys and families in 24h every year, ending time and space dimensions.  I can get this job done."
-Second round:"in this time of panic and despair, you need to believe in miracles and what seems impossible. Put yourself together and don't loose hope. I have summoned my reindeers from the North Pole and they are on their way and will be here soon"
-Third round:" The reindeers are here. Some of us can leave the balloon without danger and go inside the carriage to be flown back to the ground. The rest of us can do the same after the first group is safe"

I picked the Pere Noel character from the list. My colleague said I sold the character very well and they could not have defended it like I did.  I enjoyed trying to grab the other's attention by appealing to their feelings. I know these arguments would have made more impact with me if I were in that situation, as logical and rational reasons were indeed reassuring, but not grabbing me by my gut feelings: engines, chemistry reaction, gravity...sure, but miracles and magic were better.

I still wonder what was the point of the exercise from HR's viewpoint. For me anyway I found out I was easily engrossed in character and totally invested emotionally.

After the exercise, one colleague confessed he just voted for me, not my character. Which made me think that many people would also vote for a candidate that not necessarily argues or present well or has a solution, but above all a candidate that they champion/support, or just a candidate that is not someone they do not like/not want to win.

So although I was happy somehow that my character was popular, it was not necessarily thanks to the arguments I presented, but my own persona. It made me doubt my own arguments. I wonder if elected candidate could experience those doubts.

Weeks later I realized I should have picked GOD from outside the list...