|
[What happens when designers have no clear career path, and there's no culture in the studio that helps nurture them? You get an old grumpy designer. In this article, design consultant Alexandre Mandryka identifies the causes and symptoms, and prescribes treatment.]
You've done it all. You've moved up through the ranks of associate and junior designer. You have been through crunch to ship games. You've mastered the internal tools, pioneered new pipelines and techniques, and trained other designers to use them. But now you are tired of waiting for that promotion to senior level and lead positions: it is getting on your nerves, and it is starting to get old.
Or maybe you are a manager, lead designer, producer, or HR, and you don't understand why that highly skilled and very promising designer turned into a negativity beast. You know he's good, but you are at a loss to turn him back to the path of success and create the team pillar that you need.
Having been myself on both sides of this potential career dead-end, I want to share with you my recent study on what I call "Old Grumpy Designer Syndrome".
Symptoms of the Syndrome
An Old Grumpy Designer is generally quite experienced, has developed knowhow and has achieved some status for it -- owning some part of the tools or processes and being a reference on them. The problem is that instead of using this recognized knowledge to help the team and project move forward, he's constantly showing how wrong others are and how doomed their efforts.
You'll often find that the ideas the OGD is most likely to devote his knowledge and energy to burning down ideas that are not his or that challenge what he has established himself. He has become resistant to change and evolution, he just doesn't want to have to learn new tricks or to reconsider his current ones, and he will do everything he can to prevent that from happening.
Not only is the team wasting valuable energy and insight interacting with him, but as long this toxic behavior persists unchecked, creativity gradually goes down, as it can only exist in a positive environment where ideas are nurtured instead of shut out. A failing creative dynamic within a team is definitely a sign that should ring a bell and trigger further investigation.
Another trait that can appear in an OGD is extreme ambition that is disconnected from the realities of your project. An OGD can compare the current sprint with the actual end results achieved by the reference blockbuster game and develop negativity as a result. They might think they need to win the Super Bowl in one play and get paralyzed by it, when all that is asked is to gain a few yards.
The last frequent trait of OGDs is that they consistently ask for a higher position, either for a senior rank or lead. Because of their experience and skills, this is a perfectly valid progression, but as these designers usually don't get promoted because of their attitude, it leads to a frustration buildup that of course worsens the other symptoms.
Establishing a Diagnosis
 When trying to identify if you are facing an OGD, it is important to look for the symptoms discussed earlier. Study the way a designer communicates with his peers, gives feedback and proposals.
Generally, a grumpy designer will be trigger-happy with the reply-all button and tend to be quite present in mail threads and flame wars. Brainstorms or group discussions are also opportunities to notice his tendency to shut down others' ideas and try to impose his own.
Another thing to look for is career dynamic. Has the designer been at his level for some time now, or has he been stuck too long in the past? It is only natural that stagnating at a given level is bound to create a perpetual bad mood and can be a catalyst for the other issues, especially if no adapted growth path has been offered.
Ultimately, browsing all archived performance reviews is going to give perspective and help monitor the appearance and evolution of many of the issues that have most probably been already recorded and communicated to the grumpy designer.
Often, you will see a discrepancy between self-evaluation scores and those given by the manager. I have found that this is often ignored, especially if the overall appreciation is that the designer performs satisfactorily, but it is actually important to discuss the reason behind this divergence of opinion.
I witnessed a case where a designer received high marks and was noted as exceeding expectation, his self-evaluation, though, was even higher than this. This shows that the praise is not perceived, and this can lead to a dangerous and unnecessary self one-upmanship that will actually hamper designer performance and progression.
Of course, if this situation has been going on for too long and the same problems keep appearing in the report, you generally see overall performance go down -- sometimes to critical levels.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
I would say there is also another kind of old grumpy designer that is more covert and harder to spot than the type mentioned in the article. One who just lets their frustration build up internally and never speaks up about it.
These type tend to resort to more passive aggressive actions to vent, such as becoming completely detached from the decision making, not "really" caring about the end results—but smiling agreeably all the while—and taking excessive or long breaks. All of these things can similarly lead to a reduction in their overall productivity and slowly damage or undermined a project overtime if the behavior is not caught and addressed.
-Kaz
One suggestion: if you're the lucky soul who gets to counsel the OGD, having concrete examples and data to share is important for avoiding the inevitable rebuttal that you're just being subjective.
But you also want to be prepared with a list of some specific (and, as far as possible, objectively measurable) positive actions that the OGD can take. Identifying problems is one half of the task; setting clear and achievable expectations is the necessary other half.
The best way to help someone get out of negativity is to give them opportunities to build on small but meaningful successes. That's how positive habits get set and maintained.
(Incidentally, I wondered why these folks weren't being called Grumpy Old Developers until I realized what their acronym would be....)
Shifting all of the blame to the "grumpy designer" for having a "bad attitude," especially after explaining their potential history, seems short-sighted and not likely to solve the problem in the long run.
The solution always seems to be to make the "problem" designer the problem that needs to be solved rather than perhaps seeing that they may not be the problem at all, but that the work environment itself and the attitudes of others towards designers is what is toxic ;).
under-utilized.
Says it all.
I couldnt have said it better myself!
I wouldn't say it wasn't largely my own fault, only that the environment shouldn't be overlooked.
I don’t either believe that designers don’t have precise skills and just come up with game ideas, actually quite the opposite as explored in my previous article. What a bad use of irony that was, sorry for the confusion.
So, you hit 3 out of 4, IMHO, on a topic that is rarely breached. That's extremely helpful in the context of a larger conversation about these issues.
It's just the missing "last part" of the studio and manager's role in the manifestation of OGD I had an issue with. Like I said, this hit close to home. I hope you address it at a later time. =)
It takes time, effort, experience, and a genuine desire to understand what's actually going on with your teams. This is asking a lot of any manager so its far easier and convenient to label a person as a "problem" and move on to other things. This is just something we tend to do in life, unfortunately.
While your article was an interesting read, I felt it was definitely more on the side of team management 101. But I can still see how some designers might fall into the bucket you've described.
I personally don't take offense to the term Old Grumpy Designer (I think the term is endearing), but I do find that this article prescribed a generic solution to a what is presented as a specific problem. Frankly, I don't see any real benefit from identifying that some designers suffer from a lack of appreciation or understanding. That can be anybody in any situation, and saving logs of frustrating conversations and examples of lack of cooperation doesn't do anything more than present proof that there's a communication problem.
The beef I have with this article is that the problem seems to be squarely on the designer, when I don't think that's necessarily the case. This kind of situation is ALWAYS circumstantial.
You're right - designers do have a hard job. They have to communicate that they know what they're doing, and what they're doing is a soft skill, especially compared to programming and art. And that is a completely valid discussion point, but the way you go about viewing the problem seems to be a major part of the problem itself.
You wrote:
"I think that the root cause of the syndrome is a widespread problem: low self-esteem."
"It is safe to say that designers aren't generally great managers, thus I would recommend that producing staff and HR assist and advise the lead designer facing a case of OGD in his team."
Are you telling me that you believe the root of the problems for all grumpy designers is low self-esteem? Could it not be something personal? Maybe his wife left him, or he's been diagnosed with cancer, or he's having money problems, or his children hate him.
And "it's safe to say" designers in general aren't great managers? Seriously? If one's specialty is in design, that person is less likely to be qualified to lead a team, or manage more than his own time/tasks? Do you have any idea how completely ignorant that sounds?
These short-sighted generalizations completely hurt your otherwise 'impartial' article. But more than anything else, what it really shows is that this article is written by someone who believes he has seen it all based on a few interactions with a handful of designers.
If trying to talk the OGD down off the ledge is all you can practically do, it's better than doing nothing... assuming you don't suck at it. :)
Or worse, can trigger a response to squash a perceived attempt to "one-up" the designer.
It's been my experience that a confused perception of responsibility can create power struggles where none would otherwise exist. This perception is inflated by praise (or brow-beating), external or internal, or often from a team pep-talk where praise/anger is directed to the OGD that the OGD isn't responsible for. This can create the perception that the praise indicates a further responsibility into those areas, and the OGD may not feel they are in a position to affect those new areas... thereby fostering the perception that they are letting down their employers and teammates if they fail to oversee these areas of responsibility.
Or, directly telling the GDC that they're being held accountable for things beyond the scope of what they themselves feel able, or even willing to address.
The example given where a OGD recovered overnight, due to being told he was not expected to create ultimate perfection, but to merely work within the confines of the real limitations facing them... This put the OGD into a position where success is possible again. They likely felt that the confines they were in, was something you expected them to somehow rise above, and they didn't see any clear path to it, or possibly very far outside their sphere of influence.. meaning that it was unrealistic expectation.
The talk would have grounded his expectations of THEIR expectations to a more realistic level, and released him from responsibilities he likely felt unfairly tethered to. It has to be remembered that the perspective of a talk like that is not always the same on both sides of the table. Of COURSE it worked overnight, you really have to put yourself into their position.
What that conversation suggests to me, is that for whatever reason, this was not being appropriately communicated to the team/OGD and SHOULD have been a more commonly know thing within the team before anyone became OGD.
Sometimes it's important to give open recognition to limitations facing the design team. Certainly, working to remove/overcome limitations is something to pursue as well, but it needs to be discussed and approached openly to indicate awareness, and clearly lay-out expectation levels for everyone associated with it. In this way, no one is given responsibility, without authority and ability to back it up. It's a symptom of a simple leadership/delegation issue.
Otherwise, the perceived expectation that everyone will just "deal with it" puts people into a position where they feel like asking for assistance on the matter is an indication that they aren't adequate for the tasks they face... A sign of weakness. Worse, a solution, coming publically from an unexpected source, quickly becomes a nail in the OGD's coffin, because even if they don't show an obvious adverse reaction to it, they are likely internally adding fuel to the fires of feeling inadequate.
Suggestions of inadequacy, coupled with an extensive resume that "proves" they are good enough, means internal conflict and resentment. This provides the low-self esteem, and/or fear for their future with the project, or even future projects.
So in summation, I feel that the environment does affect the OGD situation very strongly, and that although you CAN directly "rescue" that individual to repair their perspective of the environment, you have an entire team that is likely affected in a similar fashion. Once you're high on the food chain, you go the OGD route.. lower on the chain, you're ok, because you typically have a better sense that you aren't responsible for everything. However, having the matters clarified, invites the team feeling to build and can inspire teamwork solutions, and lower chain people feel better able to impact the higher chain people.
Lack of clearly stated and realistic metrics for success definitely lead to tension and frustration, and that's definitely the role of leadership.
In order to prevent this from happening, I also agree that it relies on studio structure to provide an environment where expectations are properly described and tools & training provided as well as career path established.
Treating an OGD case is crisis control, setting up your company so it doesn't happen is prevention. Both are needed.
Thanks for the thorough writeup!
Aside from that, I am afraid that I don't agree with you very much at all. While there are certainly cases of GOD syndrome that stem from poor attitude, I don't think you have identified the root of the problem(but you came pretty darn close).
First, while there are certainly exceptions, I would lay even money that most designers are probably highly introverted people. While we introverts can be sociable, we find it stressful, and we have a much lower tolerance for crap than others. Designers also tend to be very intuitive. There role is to bring a game into a unified system, while the rest of the team is working to separate it. That separation is built directly into the way the game design process is set up. And with directors for every compartmentalized discipline over which the designer has little control, his job can be incredibly frustrating.
When working with design teams for other projects, I would often find myself frustrated because I couldn't EXPLAIN to them how I knew there idea wouldn't work, I simply knew it wouldn't. It might take me weeks to finally put my finger on what the problem was so that I could find a way to bridge their idea into the design in a way that was unified with the rest of the system. Designers do not have a hard language like the other disciplines do, and even when we do have good words that convey the right idea, they are often not sufficient to explain it to someone who is not a designer.
Another variation on the theme that I would be willing to wager on is that the designers KNOW their project is going to tank, or is at least severely hamstrung, and feel helpless to do anything about it, either because of the language barrier mentioned above, the hierarchy in the company, or because of time/financial constraints. It is frustrating to not be able to do the best that you know you are capable of.
And last, if you are dealing with in Intuitive iNtrovert(for those familiar with Jungian typology), they are generally very susceptible to the atmosphere. Make sure they have privacy and a quiet space when they need it. Make sure that they are not needlessly interrupted if you can tell that they are lost in their own heads. You will be amazed at how big of an impact those two seemingly simple things make.
(And, for any team/HR/Manager that has not already done so, have your team do the free Jungian typology tests and analyze the results. Not only would it be a benefit to you as team leaders to gain insight into their personality, but it would be good for the individual, perhaps giving them insight into themselves. After all, we take metrics on our games, our businesses, and on our players, why not ourselves?)