Figuring out the Basics

I was just reading “Poker for Dummies” and was delighted at how they distilled a section of “The Basics” for a game of seemingly infinite possibilities. I thought about the authors’ history and command of the game. For instance, at what point of experience do you have such command of the game that you can write down the rules? At what point are you able to describe – with clarity – the subtleties of a game? (Of course, describing with clarity is one trick in itself!)

The Rules of the Game
This got me thinking about the ‘rules’ at work. Let’s treat work like a game, and then think about it like we’ve got to write a book about it.

I work in User Experience (UX), so I’ll favor that example here. At what point can I (will I?) be able to distill “The Basics” of UX? Beyond The Basics of UX, at what point do I have such a command of UX that I can describe the subtleties of that game? At this point in the lifetime of UX as a field, it is even difficult for many of us to agree on what the basics are. 

I have worked inside and now work with large F100 corporations, too, so at what point would I expect to distill “The Basics” of my company? Our vertical industry? Or, should I assume I will be able to? After all, there are whole fields of study devoted to vertical industries. So, a better question might be ‘what basics do I need to have command of in order to succeed?’

Seeing the Field like an Athlete
The commuting of these principles is to say that I believe they all have common structure. Of course, I might have gleaned this from some applied economics and game theory, but theres more to it – a certain subtlety. It’s having a certain command of the field that gives you the vision to see multiple perspectives simultaneously. I consider that enlightenment. You might think it’s a pedestrian version of enlightenment, but it’s the difference between truly appreciating what you do and just going to work*.

Just like I wrote in “Work: The Musical“, this is about detecting the level of subconscious commitment you – or your colleagues – have to the game. If they can recite the rules, then they know the game. If they can recite the lyrics, then they know the music. It’s about shared vision, a solid understanding, a stable agreement. This level of agreement is important for team cohesion as much as it is for advancing the level of competition. 

Whenever I hear sportscasters talk about athletes who “see the field”, I wonder what that mental model would be. In most cases, it’s an athlete who knows where his players are, how to get to them, where the opponents are relative to him and his players, how to avoid them, what rule limits he and his players are pushing, what rule limits his opponents are pushing, how much time he has, where he is onl the field, and perhaps a few other aspects depending on the sport. Have you ever worked with someone like that? Someone who is just an absolute marvel when performing? 

When you get into a company, you realize that talent isn’t always prized above loyalty or adherence to rules. And, I think in many cases the Official Rules give things like The Basics a bad name. Playing by the rules can mean you’re weak or manipulative. However, when I think of rules, I see the game – and the field of play – as ever-changing landscapes. I see the challenge always progressing. And, at some unique points in the game, a whole new dimension appears.

Seeing the Field like a Coach

It seems that in the championship game of the season, the team who wins is the one who makes the fewest makes. The team who wins is the one who nails the basics. 

Coaches bring a system for teaching, instilling, practicing, and applying the basics. Games require athleticism for performance. Of course, there are coaches who can see the field but can’t play the game to the level they can coach it. Coaching the game requires experience, perspective, and the ability to simulate possibilities and decide what to do now and next. 

Who are the coaches around you? Are there any around you? Who are the champions in your mind? Who made them what they are?

While studying cognitive science, I learned that ‘expertise’ is commonly regarded in the field as being attained at ten years’ experience. I wondered how broad this was – you know, is that ten years in a field? at a task? How broad is the domain? 

I soon realized that expertise comes with what you practice. While this seems like a tautology, or just simple, the brilliance of it is that we can always practice something that’s never been done before. And, then, we can become the first expert at that.

Teaching Seeing the Field

I now evaluate the people I work with as to how well they see the field. I also evaluate myself on how well I see the field. I look for people who get the basics, people who practice the basics, and people who coach others.

Working in UX means the field is largely an abstraction. Allow me to amend that to illustrate the complexity: We work in helping businesses optimize how their customers interact with them through software and websites and devices other devices with interfaces. This means that the ‘field’ for that interface to be designed is abstract, insofar as our client typically not been in this situation before. And, that the ‘field’ of this relationship between business and other people via hyperspace and bits is abstract. 

I find that I am often teaching others how to see the field – even if my vision is not (yet) expert. This is a philosophical and existential challenge: To help others take an allocentric perspective. That it is to be done under the pressures of deadlines, budgets, ignorance, expertise, business-meets-technology, and hyperspace is just that much more invigorating and stressful. I must challenge others – and myself – to stretch our imaginations so that we can sense nuance in what has become routine. The routine distorts the field, and work is full of routine. Routine makes it seem as if where we stand is where everyone stands, as if our perspective is the perspective.

I find that the positive pressures in the world force me to better see the field. Even is sometimes this means being aware of things I have seen before. 

From this experience, I derived a goal that will be the basis of my career path: I want my work to be teaching organizations how to make better decisions, how to be (and get) better at problem-solving. At the heart of it is seeing the field, getting the basics, and saying them with clarity.

 
*An advanced topic: highlighting the double entendre here. A) appreciating what _you_ do = self-centered; going to work = enlightened humility. B) appreciating what you _do_ = enlightened perspective; going to work = surrender to ignorance or self-centeredness.