Case Study: Yvette
Background: There Is No "I" in Delegate
Yvette was promoted to art lead on a project of 10 artists after two years as an
artist in a mid-size company. She was an especially active artist, contributing
assets and ideas above and beyond her specific responsibilities. In concept
meetings, she was very vocal regarding creative ideas and best practices for the art
pipeline.
Moreover, she enjoyed a very effective collaborative relationship with
the lead designer, who many considered to be exacting and sometimes disengaged
with the team. At about the one-third point in development, the original
art lead was removed to kick off another project, leaving a vacancy for Yvette,
who was approached about the possibility. Yvette accepted the role and the team
was very supportive regarding the transition.
The project's art production was just getting underway, and Yvette threw herself
into almost every aspect of the art-asset pipeline-updating practices and personally
editing or requesting re-dos on a number of art assets. The net effect after
a few months was a considerable improvement in the graphical look of the game.
The high degree of rework was seen as a minor negative by the art director, but he
trusted Yvette to manage the overall schedule appropriately. Yvette had also
wanted to redo the opening movie, done by a contractor, and see it expanded in
scope and completed by an internal team. The art director vetoed that idea in
favor of having the same contractor rehired to make edits to the original piece.
As the project proceeded, Yvette continued the practice of editing or, in some
cases, redoing sub-par assets. She also assigned herself the task of completing the
user interface (UI) alongside her management duties. This was a huge undertaking
whose true scope was not fully appreciated until it was too late. The UI
component of this, as well as many other games, is a fluid asset that can change
substantially up to the last minutes of development time. In this particular game,
the UI was also more complex and robust in terms of features.
At this point, an
art director should have intervened, asked for a time estimate on the task, and
suggested strongly that the UI be delegated to a team member. In this case,
however, the art director was also the art lead on another project, and was not
fully aware of the specifics of the task assignments on Yvette's project. The result
was that Yvette's time was increasingly devoted to production tasks and less
focused on overall team performance and team contribution.
As an example of the negative effect of this focus, an artist on the project at one
point deviated from the set pipeline and created a complex asset with an
unproven and, it turned out, buggy plug-in for the 3D application used for asset
creation. The result was a piece of art that caused headaches for months until the
problem was diagnosed and a fix could be made. The fix required the asset to be
rebuilt almost from scratch. Proper attention to timely asset reviews would have
spotted the error in early development and perhaps prevented the loss of production
time associated with it.
As the project reached completion, Yvette was staying roughly on schedule, but
regularly working 80-hour weeks. The art director had been pulled into production
to help finish the user-interface tasks and was also unable to keep
attention on the team and the department as a whole.
The resulting game was attractive and commercially successful, and the company
was proud of their effort, but morale in the art department had suffered in
noticeable ways. During the project, individual artists didn't put the same level of
care into their own contributions, feeling that the art lead was just going to
change it herself if she didn't like it anyway.
Prospective leaders in the department
were now wary of the time commitment involved in accepting a lead
position. And most damaging, Yvette was now completely burned out. She
resigned from the company a few months after the game released. The result was
that the art department was missing a senior artist, and an experienced lead, and
had a department full of artists who needed coaxing -- of the financial and
emotional variety -- to consider a lead artist role.
Analysis
Inexperience
Yvette was a dedicated and accomplished senior artist who may have made a
great lead on the project -- if she'd had experienced support available to her.
Some of Yvette's performance issues, such as her taking over sub-par assets,
shows a commendable commitment to the quality of the product; properly
channeled, that energy could be an extremely positive force on a project.
As the
energy was applied, however, it led to a disassociated team and a burned-out
lead. The management team, especially the producer and art director, should
have enforced a limit to production-schedule commitments. The art director in
particular should have been more involved in mentoring Yvette, and should have
required her to delegate asset edits to the artists who created them. That they did
not is probably a case of simple inexperience.
The assumption of the user-interface element of the game by the lead also
contributed to the problems late in the game's development, but the blame for
that does not rest on Yvette's shoulders. Rather, it rests on those of the management
team. No lead should be tasked for production code or assets more than
a certain percentage based on the number of direct reports; moreover, no lead --
art or technical -- should assign themselves any task that involves major
dependencies for other team members. An example of this might be developing
an animation pipeline or leading visual-effects creation.
Understanding and Supporting the Role
The lead's primary job is to make sure that everyone on the team is working at
peak efficiency, and that they have no resource needs or obstacles preventing them
from completing their tasks. Critical management and review work can far too
easily take a backseat when the lead is tasked in the production schedule -- and that
eventually makes the entire team work at less than peak performance. It is vital
that this shift of mindset, from production to management, take place for a leader
to be effective.
In the case of Yvette, she went from 100 percent production one
week to being named the art lead the next, without any real adjustment in work
practices or scheduled tasks. As a compounding factor, there was never an
opportunity for Yvette to explore the role of the lead or to learn leadership skills as
a specialist lead on a project before diving into the full lead role. This situation is
sometimes unavoidable in small or mid-size companies that do not have great
staffing flexibility or resources, but the absence of this step should not be overlooked
as a reason for Yvette's problems. Given that Yvette was a new lead, she
should have beenmentored andmonitored muchmore closely by the art director.
Note
By "mentoring" and "monitoring," I mean meeting one-on-one with the lead as opposed to
hovering over the lead's shoulder. The new lead must be given the opportunity and latitude to
truly lead the team on his or her own; having the director physically there undermines the lead's
authority, and usually causes the lead to simply defer decisions to the director if present. Mentoring
and monitoring should be done away from the team for this reason.
After Effects and Corrective Action
Following the completion of the project, and for many years afterward, the
company in question was forced to offer a "lead bonus" to candidates in order to
get staff to consider lead roles. While many companies follow this practice, I
consider it to be a bad idea; instead, I try to foster an environment where a senior
artist or programmer is every bit as valued, appreciated, and compensated as a
lead with comparable experience and contribution levels. It's bad enough that the
lead on the organization chart gets a bigger box -- and is at the top of the
credits -- but if one side of that equation is also getting a salary bonus, even a
temporary one, it further erodes any attempt to equate their importance to a
project.
And besides, sometimes even the money wasn't enough of an incentive.
Some of the most accomplished artists at the company refused to consider lead
roles due to the perceived lack of support for the position, the associated personnel-
management headaches, and the amount of overtime that was required.
Over the course of a few years as the company modified its practices, that
perception did change, but it was certainly a challenge that the management team
could have done without.
Other practice changes that the company adopted in part because of this
experience included external management training, role and responsibility
clarification, and weekly one-on-one art director asset reviews.
The management training was made available to every new lead and director in
the company. An external leadership forum focusing on new managers and
leaders was selected for the first try. While it wasn't an overnight success, it did
lead to a more professional approach to management in the company, gave
managers a heightened awareness of their new responsibilities, encouraged
further education (mostly through the reading of management books), and gave
new managers a starting vocabulary and skill set with which to do their job.
The clarification of lead responsibilities included a different approach to personnel
management. Hereafter, the lead was responsible for basically as much
personnel review or performance critique as he or she wanted. Typically, this
took the form of the lead giving an initial performance talk to the employee when
warranted due to underperformance in some area. The director would then take
the situation over if further corrective or disciplinary action was needed.
This was
more or less the way it worked before, but communicating that to prospective
leads turned out to be very helpful. One of the most difficult things for new leads
to figure out is how to give feedback from a position of authority to people who
were formerly peers. With the potential personnel-management aspect removed,
senior management found new leads felt much more comfortable.
The art director reviews began immediately, but were only truly successful and
productive when the art director stopped also being a lead artist and could devote
his or her full attention to the needs of the other projects Unfortunately, this
development did not occur until there was a personnel transition at the art
director position, some four years after Yvette's departure.
|
Many times, we have the notion that a good team is enough to develop a high quality product. By excellent I mean having good practices and good communication skills. But this is false: it is necessary and always will be, a person who takes this specialized convoy of troops to an imminent victory.
I also liked the Q&A with veteran Joe Minton, they were clear and precise. Even thought, I have an objection. Seth asked if a leader could be trained or is it merely an innate ability. Although Joe's response is clear, I feel that there is something more about it. What I mean is that we are beings of habits, which can lead us to success or failure, both personally and professionally.
This reminds me of an anecdote of the acclaimed book by Goleman: Emotional Intelligence; which discuss a case about a middle-aged woman who had many problems in her life: she was fearful, with the inability to make decisions and lead a life worthy of progress and development. Fortunately, one day she has a car accident and strangely, she looses some portion of her memory but only that related to her ineptitude. As soon as her wounds were healed, her life changed. She got very interested in what had happened to her mind and began to investigate the issue, soon becoming an expert and a national leader. What suggests this?
Undoubtedly, the skills of a leader to bring a team to success are surely innate and often go unnoticed in our lives, but at what point? Only those who could be born with this ability, are unique?, if I'm determined to be a leader but I feel that I didn't born with that ability, I'll never know what it means to be a leader? I feel not, I feel is upon us.
One of the treaties by Brian Tracy (in particular 21 ways to become an outstanding manager) suggests some great ways to be an excellent leader. Practice makes perfect: I'm sure that by first have the decision to be a leader and then learn and practice the process of being one, we will become the person we want, without necessarily having an accident to open our eyes.
Sin lugar a dudas, las habilidades de un líder por llevar a un equipo al éxito son seguramente innatas y que muchas veces pasan inadvertidas en nuestras vidas, pero ¿hasta qué punto? ¿Sólo las personas que podrían nacer con esa habilidad son únicas?, si estoy decidido a ser líder pero siento que no nací con esa capacidad, ¿nunca sabré lo que es ser un líder?
Siento que no y esto va muy de la mano con nuestro entorno en que nos desarrollamos y cómo nuestras habilidades van madurando. Uno de los tratados de Brian Tracy (en especial, 21 formas de ser un excelente manager) sugiere 21 caminos para ser un excelente líder. La práctica hace al maestro: estoy seguro que siguiendo esos pasos y con la decisión de ser un gran líder, llegaremos a ser la persona que queremos; sin necesidad de tener un accidente para cambiar nuestra vida.
Excelente artículo. En cuanto termine de escribir ésto, iré a comprar el libro.
Muchas veces, tenemos la noción de que un excelente equipo de trabajo es suficiente para desarrollar un producto de calidad. Excelente me refiero que tengan buenas prácticas de comunicación y buenas habilidades técnicas. Sin embargo esto es falso: es necesario y siempre lo será, una persona que lleve a ese convoy de tropas especializadas hacia una inminente victoria.
Me gustó mucho también las preguntas y respuestas con el veterano Joe Minton, fueron claras y precisas. Sin embargo tengo una objeción. Seth pregunta si un líder podría ser entrenado o es meramente una habilidad innata. Aún cuando la respuesta de Joe es clara, siento que hay algo más acerca de esto. Me refiero a que somos seres de hábitos, los cuales nos pueden llevar al éxito o al fracaso, tanto personal como profesional.
Esto me recuerda una anécdota del aclamado libro de Goleman: Inteligencia emocional. Comenta un caso sobre una mujer de mediana edad que tenía muchos problemas en su vida, era temerosa, con la incapacidad de tomar decisiones y llevar una vida digna de progreso y desarrollo. Afortunadamente, un día tiene un choque automovilístico y, de forma muy extraña, sólo se borra de su mente su pasado relacionado con la ineptitud de su persona. Una vez fuera del hospital, su vida cambió. Se interesó tanto por lo que le había pasado que empezó a investigar sobre el tema, volviéndose una experta y pronto una líder nacional. ¿Qué nos sugiere esto?
Sin lugar a dudas, las habilidades de un líder por llevar a un equipo al éxito son seguramente innatas y que muchas veces pasan inadvertidas en nuestras vidas, pero ¿hasta qué punto? ¿Sólo las personas que podrían nacer con esa habilidad son únicas?, si estoy decidido a ser líder pero siento que no nací con esa capacidad, ¿nunca sabré lo que es ser un líder?
Siento que no y esto va muy de la mano con nuestro entorno en que nos desarrollamos y cómo nuestras habilidades van madurando. Uno de los tratados de Brian Tracy (en especial, 21 formas de ser un excelente manager) sugiere 21 caminos para ser un excelente líder. La práctica hace al maestro: estoy seguro que siguiendo esos pasos y con la decisión de ser un gran líder, llegaremos a ser la persona que queremos; sin necesidad de tener un accidente para cambiar nuestra vida.
What a great article. As soon as I finish writing this, I'll buy the book.
Many times, we have the notion that a good team is enough to develop a high quality product. By excellent I mean having good practices and good communication skills. But this is false: it is necessary and always will be, a person who takes this specialized convoy of troops to an imminent victory.
I also liked the Q&A with veteran Joe Minton, they were clear and precise. Even thought, I have an objection. Seth asked if a leader could be trained or is it merely an innate ability. Although Joe's response is clear, I feel that there is something more about it. What I mean is that we are beings of habits, which can lead us to success or failure, both personally and professionally.
This reminds me of an anecdote of the acclaimed book by Goleman: Emotional Intelligence; which discuss a case about a middle-aged woman who had many problems in her life: she was fearful, with the inability to make decisions and lead a life worthy of progress and development. Fortunately, one day she has a car accident and strangely, she looses some portion of her memory but only that related to her ineptitude. As soon as her wounds were healed, her life changed. She got very interested in what had happened to her mind and began to investigate the issue, soon becoming an expert and a national leader. What suggests this?
Undoubtedly, the skills of a leader to bring a team to success are surely innate and often go unnoticed in our lives, but at what point? Only those who could be born with this ability, are unique?, if I'm determined to be a leader but I feel that I didn't born with that ability, I'll never know what it means to be a leader? I feel not, I feel is upon us.
One of the treaties by Brian Tracy (in particular 21 ways to become an outstanding manager) suggests some great ways to be an excellent leader. Practice makes perfect: I'm sure that by first have the decision to be a leader and then learn and practice the process of being one, we will become the person we want, without necessarily having an accident to open our eyes.