I am hypnotized by the discussions revolving around that funny closing session on Friday 2014 at Sudweb. Don’t get misled by the title (of this article), for which I couldn’t resist making a little allusion to a well-known movie, SudWeb 2014 was a great success (I’ll let you refer to all the blogs that talk about it, particularly here). I won’t go back over that, but keep it well in mind.

My vision of events

My vision of events: the Sudweb organization through Thomas asks me to do a joint debate session with David Bruant. A session that starts with an interruption. Basically he asks me to interrupt a techies’ session, me! Then, with David, to lead a debate around a theme that’s dear to us. It would be about technical fulfillment, we wanted to discuss what led to technical fulfillment. David was supposed to start a session on a technical solution, implementing high-level technical skills, we wanted to question people not about this technicality, but about what would enable it, upstream. So we prepare -too little- with David, and the session arrives. And the interruption happens, and… from my point of view, it works really, really well: everyone believed it, a real discomfort was established: hop imbalance, hop opening, hop disorder, hop emotion, hop opportunity to think differently. Revealing sign: the most applauded person of the day (all speakers combined) was the one who tried to stop me by explaining that the subject of my interruption was fallacious (and she was right).

By the way, I didn’t feel bad about interrupting David, he himself being part of the game: he did not have a session.

The drift

Then comes the drift, perhaps due precisely to too great an imbalance (is that possible? we were still in an ultra-secure environment)? And the debate goes in all directions. Perhaps I tried too quickly to frame it by proposing a foundation that I really appreciate and believe in enormously? Perhaps a lot of words were waiting to be able to express themselves? Be careful to understand: I’m talking about “drift” in relation to what I had imagined. That doesn’t mean the debate wasn’t interesting. It was but it was going in all directions.

A mistake

I also made a mistake: I personified technical fulfillment in David Bruant. I wanted to discuss how to become David Bruant. In my eyes David himself doesn’t matter, but he represents a person who has managed to flourish technically. This was a mistake because first it made David uncomfortable, then because I discovered that some didn’t hear the message that way: not knowing how to flourish like David in technology, but being “as famous” as David. And that, becoming famous, was the last of our concerns.

What we wanted to say, at least me

The subject that I hoped to develop most was that of technical fulfillment. The words clearly indicate the meaning: “technical fulfillment”, fulfillment first, technology coming afterward. Instead of chasing technology it’s better -in my eyes- to flourish beforehand (uh and yes this is better in expanding: we flourish, this brings overall and therefore technical progression, we flourish again, etc., a virtuous cycle). It’s important to understand -in my opinion- that we must first be in order to do, and not do in order to be.

To flourish, I was bouncing, as often lately, on the teachings of Dan Mezick, himself drawing them from several readings including Reality is broken by Jane McGonigal.

To make it short, know that the gaming industry has questioned itself a lot about these notions of engagement and fulfillment, which it brings down to:

• A feeling of control (not control of others, but control of one’s action, mastery of your work tool if you prefer).
• A feeling of progress (if you do 10 projects simultaneously, no matter if they go well, you advance so little that it undermines your engagement).
• Belonging to a community
• Working, playing, acting for something greater than oneself.

And which it makes possible with a framework that offers:

• A clear objective
• Clear rules
• Constant feedback
• The invitation (to participate, to play, to act, etc.)

I hoped, but I didn’t really get it, a discussion on the means, ideas, feedback from each person to promote this type of framework, and this type of effect, in order to aim for personal fulfillment. Some have written that this is Care Bear-like (and that it’s surprising given my “bottle”), but the more experience I accumulate the more I reduce my answers to simple things. Everything appearing more and more complex, the answers can only gain height by simplifying themselves (by returning to their essence). So, not only do I not think this is really Care Bear-like, but in addition I’m convinced of the merits of Dan Mezick’s synthesis. Those who were present at Kevin Goldsmith’s session the next morning (Saturday), will have heard a completely identical message from him.

On non-motivation

Several people argued that among their acquaintances some weren’t and wouldn’t be (ever?) motivated, that it was in their nature. No, no and no (even if it irritates some others, I prefer to say no when I disagree), or else 1% (that’s where I place the 1%, and not elsewhere Xavier). The vast majority of human beings naturally seek motivation, involvement. Motivation, from Latin, motivi, motive, in a way: reason to do, and therefore reason to live in my eyes. When we can’t, we feel a great frustration that has a strong impact on us. So yes sometimes we don’t want to be motivated at work but I think it’s because: a) we have problems elsewhere, and we no longer have the strength to commit at work b) we no longer believe (rightly or wrongly) that commitment at work is possible (but if we believed in it and if it were possible, we would seek it).

On industry

Several other people also mentioned the probable upcoming industrialization of their professions (in the web), alluding to worker status comparable to other professions. I imagine it’s because we’re still close to the industrial era that people still think with this reference. In my opinion, the industrial era we knew is behind us and will not be repeated, just as there was only one Middle Ages, only one Renaissance, only one prehistory, etc. We are on the verge of a great cycle change, and yes the system resists as much as it can, but we won’t go backward.

And I’m super delighted

I’m delighted because I got all kinds of possible feedback. People who came warmly to thank me, others, by other means, shared their discontent. We had an interesting debate, well a debate… rather an escape, or an outlet, as if we had burst a pocket. Many wanted to seize the floor, that’s nice. It’s a bit like the meteorite that explodes at the end of the day. Inexplicable resignations, idealists (we’re all someone else’s Care Bear), and I observe that it’s still stirring on this subject. So, what can I say, I’m delighted.

2 actions for Monday

I still noted two “for Monday” actions proposed by participants during the debate: if you want to flourish technically: monitoring, reading are essential. But it has a price and you must know in advance that you can’t know everything, otherwise you risk vertigo, drowning. Finally, in the absence of living in an environment that offers clear rules (of conduct, of knowing how to be, etc.), forge your own.

Thanks to Brice & Thanh for turning me for the time of a weekend into Richard Gere.