Resources
Episode Transcript
Lisa: Ed, maybe if you could start by telling listeners a little bit about the work that you do and a bit about what’s been the kind of driver or the burning question that’s gone throughout the last 20 years or so with this particular topic that you’re interested in?
Ed: Yeah, I can go back to a particular event, a Friday night party that we had in London with a friend of mine who’s a school teacher in a City School in London. She was wanting to leave early and I said, “Where are you going? Everyone’s enjoying themselves.” She said, “I’ve got to go. I’ve got to take the kids to museum tomorrow.” So she’s gonna work on Saturday as well. I said, “Forget it, you’re not going. Where are you going exactly?” And she says, “Well, I’ve got to take them to see Damien Hirst exhibition.” I don’t remember what museum it was. I said, “But why are you taking them?” She teaches 9 to 11 year old kids. So, “Why are you taking these poor things to see Damien Hirst and what are you going to show them?”
I can’t remember whether it was the sheep in formaldehyde or it was the cow carcass where it’s got flies in between. I said, “You’re gonna horrify them!” But for her, the point was a lot of these kids wouldn’t ask the question, you know, “Where does bacon come from?” Have no idea, and their replies would be “Tesco.” And it’s quite a serious proposition. “So where does Tesco get it from?” “Well, Tesco make it.” “They just make it like anything else?” But no notion of what animals were.
I suffer from this notion that we are increasingly becoming detached from nature, and that young in age, there’s this risk that we never actually know what nature is. And play affords the ability not just for us to engage in nature but to engage with each other and develop the humans of the cultural artifacts that we need to progress.
So it’s driven by that moment, but I guess the burning question then becomes why that fascinated me, why her notion of kids playing, interacting with these rather horrific sculptures, if you like, from Hirst, why that lit something in me. And I think that goes to the realization that I grew up in nature. I grew up in the Nigerian Delta, and I’ve never lost that, but it’s because of my mother and also my dad that I’ve never lost that, because we were constantly in this environment that played to learn. So we were allowed to go and catch crabs on the beach despite the fact that they would nip at us etc., and that risk didn’t seem to come with a lot of my friends around me who were studying.
I was studying learning at the time, and for some reason when they talked about learning, they were quite emotionless — this notion of nature being a guiding force for learning about how we are relative to each other. So I think that’s what I’m quizzical about.
Lisa: And in terms of you know, “playing to learn” and that concept, how does that… because you’ve also spent some years now looking at that in relationship to executive leaders and high-performing teams, for example. So what’s the connection between play and, say, the business world?
Ed: Well, I was starting learning in businesses, and I was teaching and learning in business schools as well. So once what’s going on in the training and then what’s going on in learning at MBA level for example, and I was increasingly frustrated with what I thought I was imparting or what I was sharing with the students and audiences and what they seemed to be getting from it.
The frustration was that experience was missing. Today we’re familiar with the notion of experiential learning, but if we look twenty years ago, how to engage in experience, how to design for experience was only just being asked. And I think I was probably around at the time where folks who were my mentors were frustrated, and I was observing that. So that was the yourself, and I went out on a limb to try and sort of push this notion of experience. And at the same time, there’s this parallel world of how children learn, which was pointed to as play, and so the notion of playfulness and experiential to collide, I guess, yeah, about 20 years ago is when you start to see that.
Lisa: You’ve talked about how in society, children have lost all of their play spaces. I’m interested to hear about what your thoughts are in terms of the work environment because I think that is also devoid of a lot of the conditions necessary for play to happen.
Ed: The reason we got rid of play spaces for children was twofold. One is the legislators’ need to keep them safe, and that’s kind of going over the top. We started to rein that back a bit. And the others were, you know, budgets, economy. And I think the same has played itself out in the corporate world.
I guess it probably for the last thirty years, the need to sort of being in defensive mode, making sure that we’re risk-free. And of course, we’ve had, you know, two significant economic crises in the last 20 years which are going to force, at least in the Western world, people to rationalize how they engage in life at work. And so what you can say, the notion of humor, the idea of playfulness at work, I think is actually being squeezed out.
I’m very interested — there are signs that some companies are able to understand the need to bring play in because it’s been lost, but we’re really at the edge of the moment. Will my estimate is we’ll break through the next five to ten years because we’re slightly distracted by games and gaming, and that’s, you know, a different world. We’re not talking about that. That’s something slightly more spontaneous without walls, with the unknown future, and that is counter to risk in many ways. And it’s counter to the risk-free notion that we’ve been so used to for twenty, thirty years.
Lisa: And so when you talk about spontaneous play versus games like animals-based or structured play, how does that work in terms of how do you introduce that or integrate that in a kind of work context? For example, maybe you could talk about a little bit about the work you’ve done with executive leaders and how…
Ed: I’ll give an example of an Executive MBA program in London that I experimented with about two years ago. And I think the really important thing when you’re designing experiences, designing for play, is to remember that it’s got to be voluntary on the part of the participants. So in the first instance, you’re setting rules in play, but then you need to step back in order that they take on voluntarily.
So a lot of folks come on to programs because they’ve been sponsored, they’ve been paid for, they want to change careers. So there’s an element of, you know, obligation as to why they’re there. So how you design in those environments for the voluntary aspect… And I think the way you do that is with a lot of patience, and you give it one or two weeks to allow people to take on the objects that you design in front of them and then do what they want with them.
So I’ve done that with, for example, the case study. The case study traditionally in business school is a textual object, and there tends to be a canon of response that the professor might offer that is purely, if not the right and wrong answers, here are the limitations and structures within which you need to respond to the challenges of the case.
And my argument in this pilot experiment with executive MBAs is to say, “Well, no, this is a living object. If you don’t like it, destroy it. If you want to change it, change it the way you want to change it.” And there is no canon of responses. And I think that’s, you know, the professors themselves have to do a lot of learning from the audiences. But that’s one example of how you can bring play in. It’s this notion of creating the space for improvisation, creating space for folks to take control of their suggestions. And if that means changing the object, in this case changing the case, then so be it.
If you don’t do that, then you’re at risk of falling into gaming, which is very clear outcomes, very clear intentions. You turn to a few people dominating what become the new rules. And before you know it, you might take them out of one paradigm, which is the textual case study, into another one, which is the actual interaction that in the room itself is upset by a few. And the whole idea of play is that it’s a lateral, what’s called the horizontal pain of learning, not this one of vertical quest for the highest intelligence.
Lisa: And what is the benefit of that, you know, for those executive leaders that when you know in that program, for example, what is it that they get access to, or what are the benefits of learning in that kind of play, unstructured environment?
Ed: I think it’s the realization that with all the rhetoric that goes around the need to develop ways to deal with change in the first instance, and uncertainty increasingly now — the language of uncertainty is all over the place — that the first reaction is to set up a codified linear response.
So, “We don’t know what’s going to happen when we export to new markets, fine, we’re uncertain about it, fine, but let’s go and learn from others as to how we do that.” And then develop a sort of series of standards and codes and procedures, etc. Well, that’s taking risk out of the equation.
For these executives taking part, I think the realization is that they have to step in, literally step into the unknown with the others around them. And so, “What I have, you have. I don’t know what’s going on over here. Let’s see how we’re going to explore this new market. How do we do this without the burden of the rules and procedures that go on?” Because that’s the bigger game, and that’s what you actually try to break if you’re really going to move into your third space, what you talked about is breaking paradigms and going into unknown spaces. So why codify in the first place?
Lisa: I think that when you get the feedback a lot of times — that was one example that was, you know, using the case study — but with complexity, for example, the synergy model, a lot of the feedback is, “We have no idea that these were the heuristics that we were using individually or in partnership, and we have no idea that we have the capacity to develop this whole different set of heuristics which we find to be valuable.” And not just that we can take them back into our workplace, but “they change the way I see,” you know, whatever the challenge might be. And they resist forming the solutions.
So it’s moving away from a, you know, problem-solution based work to one that is, “Well, I have to see what the language of systems is, what the emergent properties are, but what are the surprises, what are the shocks, what are the rehearsals?” And I think those are the things they can take away rather than, you know, any predefined solutions to have it work. And that’s refreshing in many ways.
I think that how long it lasts is questionable. I think we have indications that executives in one of the banks we work with, the demand’s carried through for, you know, five, six years into it. You know, they’ve worked with it all the way through. In fact, they’ve brought us in a couple of times to work with the next wave of senior executives. And in other instances, we’re not sure. We have doubts whether it’s sustainable.
Ed: Do you find — I’m thinking I’m putting myself in the shoes of — you’re talking before about how a lot of organizations have squeezed down, you know, risk-taking, play, humor, and things like that. Is it difficult, do you think, to convince some of the people who are more cynical, who are maybe people who think, “Play, what’s that got to do with business and leadership? And, you know, isn’t that what children do?” And what do you say to — do you come across people like that?
Lisa: Not often. I think there’s many we don’t. It’s a — we don’t say to people we’re selling to, “This is play.” And the reason we do that isn’t because we’ll get that pushback, it’s because people aren’t familiar with the language of play. So they weren’t really familiar with the language of uncertainty 15 years ago.
So as folks become more literate in the language of play, then I think we will be able to say “play.” What we do is we present, we design, and then we help people realize that what they’ve been through is play. We say, you know, “Did you notice that, for example, you were spontaneous? Did you notice, for example, that was purely fantasy? And yet you’ve been able, with two or three other people across the desk, to find meaning in what we’re doing here.”
So it’s more the properties of the play that we’re able to reflect with them on. So there’s no, I don’t think there’s any pushback. It’s in the activity, in the experience they can’t but deny that they’ve been through something. There are risks attached to it, and I think it’s worth pointing out what some of the risks are in this whole world that play exists.
There’s a tendency to see only in a positive light. One of the risks is, I mean, I’ve got, you know, “God plays, but men play games.” One of the risks is we have this tendency to assume, in the middle of play, wanting to form rules and turn it into a game. And sometimes those games can lead to dark consequences. So there’s early work on that. It’s not work we’re doing; we’re not necessarily searching for what the consequences are, but we’re aware of it. And I think it’s worth listeners and others to be aware of. Yeah, there are risks attached to play itself.
Lisa: There seems to be a thread as well in this work around play about social and how as human beings we’re wired to be social, and we are a social species. And I write a lot about how social learning in schools has also been squeezed out, and we’re, you know, we’re made to know that we get… we’re made to work alone and discouraged from learning socially or together. And then that extends into the workplace where, you know, in the worst case, you literally have people in cubicles, you know, working in isolation, working in silos. You know, that’s a common challenge. What are your thoughts about social aspects and how that interrelates with play?
Ed: I think it’s ironic that we’ve become very aware that we’re moving out of the Industrial Age, that mass production and the old Fordisms are breaking down. And yet when it comes to the non-manufacturing sector or the non-production sector, see, it’s all about cubicles. Typically, the service sector, we still seem stuck in it. We still seem stuck in this — like, it’s getting worse. We’re not forming teams or cells; we’re actually forming cubicles which tries to… where’s the egocentric?
And this is exactly what play is there — to break down the egocentric sense of self and produce this notion of my only request earlier, which was, you know, we’ve moved from “I think therefore I am” to “You are therefore I am.” And there’s a lot of catching up on that to be done in the workplace.
You know, if we talk about cubicles, you can think about service centers or call centers, for example. And there are high stress, high anxiety levels, and folks are starting to address that. Why is that? Primarily, the performance targeted set around the egos and the individual, and very little attention is paid to your relationships with your colleagues.
It’s in the early days to know how to design to engage with the other. One of the notions that worries me is that the way to do that in places, for example, a call center is to gamify. And well, actually, that’s not helping at all. I mean, what you then find is you’re putting in exactly the sort of corporate rigid institutional structures and priorities that dehumanize. Nature learning is human; it’s natural to us, and we need to allow folks to develop their own senses of the others in these spaces rather than impose upon them the notion of gaming. That’s one thing.
The other thing that you have that’s been, you know, that worries me a little bit, it’s this notion of gaming for health, and corporates are taking on the notion of trackers and these fitness monitors for their staff to count the number of steps they go out for. Now, I’m not quite sure how that overcomes the real risk, which is sitting down for too long. So, you know, “I’ve climbed the stairs a hundred times at lunchtime” doesn’t really help the case if I’ve sat for another five hours anyway, and I haven’t moved, I haven’t spoken to anyone else, which is what it should be about, which is interacting with others in the lunch break.
So that seems to be, you know, canteens — you could talk about playgrounds — canteens have been ripped out, restaurants have been ripped out. Very difficult to find, you know, public spaces or common spaces for staff to go and be frivolous and improvised with each other. And so you are essentially taking the human nature out of and depriving people of the ability to connect with the other. That worries me.
There is work, I think there is momentum now going back to it. You know, when folks talk about the need for empathy, the need for trust, I think there is this work that, you know, fundamentally in play is very much about the other. And I can’t make sense of this world without you.
Lisa: It strikes me that there’s almost a paradox that things like gamification and incentivizing — I’ve read about companies that give people bonuses if they, you know, maintain their BMI or, you know, things like that like health bonuses — that seems to me quite parent-child and almost manipulative. Where is creating contexts for play… you’re talking about earlier the importance of on the programs that you’ve done with executives, getting them to choose to participate so it’s so they’re kind of taking ownership or participating in this thing, so it’s not like they’re passive consumers of it or, you know, children, so to speak.
So the paradox is that actually, this notion of play that we often associate with, you know, with childhood, actually requires you to give people quite a high degree of freedom and trust and autonomy and responsibility also, you know, give them the space and the parameters to try out different things, rather than limiting or constraining or coercing even.
Ed: I think we have to take a lot of our learning about how we do this from children. I think we’ve spoken before about the project it’s called “The Land,” there’s a documentary about it now in the UK where the biggest struggle is for parents to step back and leave it be. Because the point is, as the little girl says, you know, when asked a question, “Yeah, isn’t this place, you know, we’re dangerous because you can do what you want?” And her reply is, “Well, isn’t that the point?”
And I think we do well to remind ourselves that in the adult world, in the corporate world, folks… you know, this is paternalistic or maternalistic, whatever culture it is that says, “We’re gonna look after your health, and we’ll reduce your health insurance premiums because, you know, you go to your spinning class and wear the Fitbit,” whatever it is, is intervening in people’s lives at a level which I think your employees, your managers, your executives lose their sense of control and ownership of direction.
And if uncertainty really is one of the challenges of the future, then you need to allow folks to develop their own tools to engage with that as teams, not as individuals who are incapable in the social context, which we are still vulnerable in. We might be allergic to… in the futures, whenever things throw up, and wherever there’s a crisis, there’s a tendency to go to, you know, to defensive mode and develop monologues instead of dialogues, and, you know, to limit the diversity.
We have from the lessons we have in playing, from the lessons we have in other spheres, we should be doing the opposite. Now we really need to be developing a sort of a diverse series of options with not knowing how they will play out and with not knowing how they would engage, but knowing that this is how certain more crisis situations have been faced and actually built upon in the past. But it’s still difficult.
I mean, you see with the executives, we still do. We get a lot of “buts,” and a lot of times when you have executives who realize the benefits of what they’ve been through these spaces, they’ll say, “But it’s gonna be really tough to do this in this, you know, 18-month period.”
I think the notion is coming through now that, especially after the financial crisis — no crisis we had in 2002, 2008 — a lot of people have thrown caution to the wind and realized that training courses weren’t this kind of reckless act. It was an act that made sense to face, you know, whatever futures. And we’re not out of it; I don’t actually think we’re out of this kind of creative uncertainty that’s been brought on by that crisis. So there are new solutions coming up, new ideas coming up, you know, in this realm of play.
The paradox is for me this interaction between play and games, this notion of rules and no rules, improvisation and how would you say procedure. And that’s continuous. As long as we were aware of it and as long as we design spaces to account for that and allow it to flow however it has to, then okay. The problems when we play for a bit, we find rules, we set them, and we forget the play. And that’s where the risk is, because then you just reset in a paradigm which is irrelevant, so that’s counterproductive.
Lisa: Whether you need them or not, I wouldn’t know. Yeah. And you’re currently developing a new kind of play and environmental simulation that’s related to prisons. Is that right? Could you say something about that?
Ed: The sort of issue with crisis and how we do with crises is to create the notion of uncertainty. So there’s a difference between uncertainty and risk. Risk is, has a probability; to some extent, we can estimate it. At the point of uncertainty, we have no idea.
And so the prison challenge, if you like, that we’re using is borrowed from real-life experience in humanitarian work, and it’s based on a war zone. The prisoners are a mix of common criminals and insurgents, it’s a high-risk prison, and what we are hoping to do with it is to throw people into deep emotional experiences where they don’t have the option to calculate risk. So they cannot go into the sort of rationale for what a bit of a rational economic man would do, but they have to go more into sort of homo ludens, well, which is, “I have no idea what’s going on here.”
And so we have moments in there where they’re shocked, they’re lonesome, there are when there’s the unexpected. And so you stimulate uncertainty because the next step is, “I really have no idea.” And we’d like to see — part of it’s a lab, but the other part of it is we hope people learn, take these realizations away with them, that you have to guarantee this kind of almost relaxed state for a moment, anticipatory alert but relaxed state rather than, you know, this defensive type-one mode. And we’ll see.
When we’re designing around that, crisis is the focus, but the experiential part is the real sort of engine. We’re around emotions because we don’t find, we don’t find a lot of that around. It’s a mix of many things, a mix of bringing in drama, it’s a mix of bringing in high-pressure environments, it’s also bringing in the humanitarian work in particular rather than it being business-type crisis.
There’s all the work out there, business type crisis, if there’s an employee that does something, or all these sorts of issues. But we also think the humanitarian element, where you’re, you know, actually searching for disappeared people, or there are folks whose lives are at risk, changes the emphasis and sort of heightens the level of uncertainty we’re talking about. And we’ll see. We’ll see if it has… we think it has implications for business in working with it that way, coming at it from the humanitarian.
Lisa: I can imagine that it would create opportunities for people to confront or get an awareness of their default tendencies, you know, when you go into fight or flight mode, for example, when things are really uncertain. Do you have a tendency to become, you know, really totalitarian, or do you… or do you become… do you abdicate, or like, what do you do? Do you have biases in terms of decision-making or in terms of leadership, but do you shut everyone else down, or do you withdraw?
Ed: One of our big hopes is to give us the space to get focused, to reflect on exactly that — biases and heuristics and what are the prejudices you bring with you to the situation, and how do those prejudices evolve and play themselves out. But I hope the magic is, it’s absolutely unpredictable.
As designers, we’re open to design for the unknown that we have no idea where it will go. We hope we don’t burn anything, we hope we don’t blow anything up, but we have no idea what the participants are going to do in it. We’re testing at the moment, but I’ve made it very clear to the person I’m working with who’s helped me design it that we don’t want to control where it can go. We want it to go off into unknowns, and that would be learning for us as well.
That’s part of the fun for me. I particularly like engaging things that I’m not gonna enjoy. And it comes from what I was talking about earlier, the case as the object having these canons and principles assumed with it as the learning, and to break that notion. And people talk a lot about, you know, Socratic dialogue as a way of interacting, etc., and we’re almost wanting to cast that aside and throw it in the bin. So, in many ways, as facilitators, we’re not expecting ourselves to intervene. We hope to be mirrors at most and let folks see for themselves where they go unpredictably. And that’s the intention. Yeah, we’ve done a bit of work in that space before, but nothing that was developed especially for the corporate world.
Lisa: You and I also have a kind of common interest, and there’s some overlap with in terms of self-organizing and self-managing teams. And a lot of the things you talked about to me seem very relevant in that context in terms of, you know, in terms of self-awareness, in terms of conversations and dialogues rather than monologues, and being aware of the other, you know, “You are therefore I am.” What else could you say for the benefit of listeners about how this is relevant to people working in self-managing teams or aspiring to work in self-managing teams?
Ed: I think it may be a better way to be… it would be good to say this issue of leadership, which has sat for so long — you’re aware of it more than I probably — is we’ve sat so long in this notion of leadership being about a lot of time. This myth is around an individual, a person. And I guess, for us, work around distributed leadership and X teams is much more prevalent and prominent and important in our approach to dealing with self-management teams.
In my experience as instructing facilitation, I think I don’t know, I set out to develop self-management teams, but I allow for it, and then I enjoy it because you watch the folks shift their focus away from whatever the object is. The object could be me, the object could be whatever challenge they have in front of them, it could be a project, to themselves. You go through that period of transition, and then suddenly, whatever the challenge is, has been reformed, and they move forward.
And I don’t know that I’ve got necessarily clear insights or rules to how that happens. What I do know is my role is to sit on the windows a lot of the time and maybe protect folks from falling into rules. Like, I mean, I don’t know that Rick and I, who I work with in complexity, have… we’ve probably got insights that we’ve not had the chance to sit down and note on paper.
My take is intervening minimally, primarily to stop rules forming prematurely, and how skilled are we at that? I don’t know. I think they’re constantly changing, moving along with. But I think one of the, you know, one of the values we might bring is to get folks to reflect on their formations of different forms of leadership in the team. And I think that’s probably the most important.
If we can offer, you know, self-management teams or the notion of self-managing teams is to really recognize the ability of the other, and in that ability is their leadership quality. And if you can do that, and a lot of teams — we’re talking about a maximum eight, roughly five — if we can organize around that, there would be no… I will say to folks, if you’ve got a team bigger than Nathan, that’s a group, that’s probably another team, and split it and stop confusing this issue of groups and teams. Teams play where groups manage, sets that sort of…
The distributed team over, I think, has a lot to offer self-managed teams. I’m not sure how we will deal with uncertainties if we don’t have such self-managed teams, to be honest. I think without, we’re doomed. So it’s almost a case of speaking about the uncertainty. I hope that companies recognize that one of their only options, if that in order to allow teams to go ahead first and see what they come out with, is to trust them to do it.
Lisa: What would you say is your dream or metaphor for the future of work? What do you hope it will look like, how will it evolve?
Ed: No, I think the dream will be too strong, but certainly a metaphor for the futures. I’ve spoken about, you know, work with canvas, and I think it isn’t too far-fetched to think of organizations as sort of these notions of Carnival, which is where you have many types of people, you have many challenges in front of you.
The Carnival is multiple arts, so it’s poetry, it’s theater, it’s dance, it’s also storytelling. And if we embrace organizations, you know, in that sense, then they’re no more just about products and markets, they become very much sense-making narratives, humans interactive. You form teams of interest, you connect across teams.
And so I’ll encourage people to — I mean, I’ve said previously — there’s some brilliant work that was done by a guy called Simon at the MIT Media Lab, seventies and eighties, but he draws his inspiration from the summer vans in Brazil. And I’d encourage people to go to Carnival organizations in the Caribbean, in South America, to really understand what is possible for organization. And self-organizing is courted, and you have to wonder how it is that voluntaryism or volunteerism forms these magical things that we see as the end products. They emerge there, you know, and that’s not big corporate planning way. There are methods for sure, but these methods have come through the notion of play in the gaps, in the spaces.
And I think organizational users will be well served that they turn up and watch this at work because you’ve got kids from the age of five, folks from the age of 95 working together in various forms. You’ve got school teachers teaching kids how to stitch stuff at particular set of intervals, so there’s a notion of maths being used there. And you’ve got others teaching how to cut, dye, put fiberglass together, but it’s across all, you know, presumed divides. So ages, one genders, and other sexualities, and it just plays itself out. And for me, these are the challenges the modern organizations are facing. So yes, I think the… my metaphor for it should be carnival.
Lisa: I love that. And finally, what would be your words of advice to listeners who are, you know, interested in exploring new ways of working or distributed leadership, for example? How, where might they start?
Ed: Distributed leadership — I mean, my honest advice would be to go into community organizations, go into places that are disenfranchised, go into places that seem dangerous to you, go into places that apparently disconnected them. They’re, you know, they’re in every city. If you can afford it, you can go into even more, to poorer countries. I’m not suggesting you put your life at risk, but you know, there are many projects going on on the planet at the moment. And push yourself into those possible zones of discomfort to see how folks who have very little…
I mean, and this is relevant to, you know, I work with entrepreneurship as well, is to go with what you have. And we’re guilty a lot of time in business schools to say, “You need to do the market research, you need to do a segmentation,” and the sort of a rational linear approach to the future and therefore, we, you know, build a future this way. The truth of the matter is, and we say this in entrepreneurship, there’s a notion of effectual logic. You’ve come across that, the effectual logic is actually the reverse of causal logic.
So there’s no, “Show that I have no idea what the hell the future is, but I will work with what tools I have, what people I have around me, and what resources I have as character to move.” As a very good example for projects in South Africa, it’s called the Organization Workshop, and it’s spread across South Africa, which is where people in places like Soweto, deprived areas, just work the material they have to transform their lives. And I don’t think you can do that without being fully empathic with the people you have around you.
Allowing groups to become teams, as you said, self-organizing themselves. I think there were great reflections and learnings in corporate. Within the corporate world, I’m not sure. That’s my honest answer. I know there’s a lot of rhetoric, there are other people who you speak about them being, having self-managed teams. I’m yet to, and that could be me. You get to witness that at its best.
Lisa: Thank you, Ed, for this fascinating conversation about play and its role in both personal and organizational development.
