Entertainment at Events, part 1: Getting People to Join In

[jducoeur]

So as previously mentioned, I had a very good time at 12th Night. That said, a lot of people complain about that event -- specifically, they argue that there is nothing to *do* at 12th Night. There's something to that: if you aren't in the orders that are meeting, and you don't have any particular investment in Court, it can be a somewhat empty event.

The staff did try to do something about that: specifically, they set out a large number of chess and backgammon boards on the tables. They were quite pretty, but largely ignored by the crowd: far as I could tell, the total number of games played was a lot less than the number of boards that were out. This put me in mind of the issue of how to enjoy yourself at events (given that I am arguably a Participatory Entertainment Laurel, it's something I spend a lot of time on), resulting in this pair of linked essays.

So part 1: Why weren't those games being played more?

Autocrats often come to me to put out some games at their events. Almost universally, they assure me that it won't be any work for me: all they want me to do is bring the games themselves. More often than not, I sigh and do so, knowing that few or none of those games will actually be played, the autocrat's good intentions aside. Because the fact is, if there isn't *somebody* doing a bunch of work around those games, they won't be used.

Why not? Well, the main reason is that folks aren't used to it. Some of them have been exposed to some of those games, but not enough -- they don't know the games well, and they're shy about admitting that. Frankly, they aren't sure where to *start*. And they're not in the habit of taking the bulls by the horns themselves. (More on that in the second part.)

The fact is, for pretty much any activity, teaching is somewhat necessary -- more important, *cheerleading* is necessary. If I'm just bringing games but not really pushing them because I'm busy with other things (often the case), we might get a few people playing something. By contrast, if I'm actually spending the day being the Ace of the Low Company, I'll often have 20-60 people spending anywhere from 20 minutes to a couple of hours playing.

What's the difference? Well, some of it is teaching, but like I said -- much of it is essentially cheerleading. It's me wandering around, looking for people who seem a little aimless, and asking them if they'd be interested in learning a game. I tell them to get one or more other people to play with, and I'll teach them something. They do so; I do so. And the result is that they have something social to do, rather than just sitting around. (Note that I actively resist actually playing myself, because that's a full-time activity. I can be a lot more effective if I'm outside ten different games than inside one. So I generally don't play if I'm "on duty"; I only do so if I'm unofficially having fun myself.)

The key here is that I'm not just available to teach, I'm actively "cheerleading" -- gently encouraging folks into the activity. I don't push -- if folks aren't into it, that's fine. But simply having me make the suggestion makes a world of difference in how many people participate.

So if you're a leader of an activity, especially a participatory one like games (or, for that matter, dance), keep this in mind. Too many activity leaders are too passive about their activities. They make themselves available, and make *announcements* to that effect, but they keep it impersonal. That's not surprising, given that most of us are kinda shy. But really: the essence of leadership is getting people involved personally, one-to-one. If you ask *individuals* whether they'd like to give it a try, you'll get five times as much response as when you simply make an announcement and wait passively for folks to respond. And it can be the difference between a bunch of people sitting around the event, and them instead having fun...

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

If you ask *individuals* whether they'd like to give it a try, you'll get five times as much response as when you simply make an announcement and wait passively for folks to respond.

This is the key insight...

Of course, asking people individually takes N times as much effort, or possibly more. But it's perhaps >N times as effective!

[cellio]

This is also true of getting people to teach classes and write articles. Sure, go ahead and announce that the A&S issue is looking for contributions or teacher registration is open for Academy -- that's the only way you find out about new people. But that doesn't fill pages or classrooms; you have to approach specific people and sometimes be ready with specific topics that you think they'll respond to ("would you teach a class? how about on Tudor underwear?").

Ironically, just yesterday I was having the other side of this conversation with someone: the new head of adult ed is looking for teachers, I said I'm interested in principle but I don't know what of the stuff that I know is interesting to anyone else, and she... didn't pick up the ball. Yet, anyway. I really don't know what people want me to teach...

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Useful observation, which dovetails well with your "how to get people to attend a party, or do cleanup" posts.

Do you have any particular advice about asking someone to do a larger commitment task than being entertained or helping out for an hour?

[jducoeur]

Honestly, it's basically the same -- you just have to be prepared for a lower success rate. When I'm asking someone if they want to learn a game, half of them are likely to say yes; if I'm asking them to take a job for my event, that might be as low as one in four or five. But that's still a lot more than you get if you simply make an announcement and wait for them to respond.

Also (and I'll credit hfcougar for reminding me of this recently), social capital is very helpful. The more you are involved with other peoples' projects, the more they're likely to help you with yours. Partly that's a matter of debt, and that shouldn't be pushed too hard, but a lot of it is simply that, the more they know you, and the more they know they like *working* with you, the more likely they are to take it on.

In general, it gets harder the higher the commitment level involved. For something really big, like a major local office, it can be a long multi-step process, and sometimes isn't easy -- it can involve gradually bringing several people in as potential candidates, having them all help out, and encouraging the ones who seem to have a taste for it. But the basic principle is the same, even if the scale is larger: it requires active work on the part of the leader, to cheerlead folks into following along. Really, it's one of the hardest parts of leadership, but one of the most rewarding...

[laurion]

Let me know the next time you need another cheerleader. To be honest, I often have no idea whether or not games will be at an event or not, until I get there and stumble across them.

Maybe it's time to ask for a more active role from those subscribed to the passive mailing list.

[jducoeur]

Hmm. That's not a bad idea at all -- the question is mainly whether I'm willing to *do* something with it. Low Company has kind of toddled along as a semi-fiction for a bunch of years, mostly because I haven't been coping with the stress of really leading it in any meaningful way and no one else has asked to take it over and make it more active as a group again.

One of the odd things I've slowly come to realize is that I get much more stressed over the theory of leading than the reality. That is, I rarely have a problem actually *doing* any of it -- but psych'ing myself into doing so is remarkably stress-inducing. It's even true of dance practice: I almost always enjoy running it, but knowing that I *have* to run it each week gets tiring after a while...

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

knowing that I *have* to run it each week gets tiring after a while...

I feel much the same about my office as well.

[jducoeur]

I think it may well be the most common cause of burnout. It's not that most of the jobs are all that large in terms of actual work -- it's just that the *responsibility* wears after a while. Not at all obvious until you've been through it a couple of times...