Flipping the channels the other night, a good friend and I found a show called something like “Minute to Win It” on the television. Something about the show caught our attention. If you haven’t seen it, contestant teams play against the clock to win money.
What I found intriguing about the show is a few distinct features not present in many other shows. First, the prospective contestants have the opportunity in advance to prepare for the exact challenges they will perform on the show. These exercises are things like threading a series of increasingly smaller needles, removing small items from underneath bottles without causing the bottles to fall, using one spoon to flip another spoon into an open container and the like. The challenges do not take extraordinary skill, education, or expense. They are within the reach of anyone who is willing to practice in the context of her or his own home.
Contestants do not compete against any other person or team. There is one team of two, who either knew each other or didn’t before being selected to play. They win or lose together as a team, playing only against a clock. AND the team decides who will do each challenge, openly expressing either their desire to do it, their success in practicing in advance, or the readiness they feel in the moment for that particular challenge. The only constraint is that one player cannot perform more than three successive challenges without alternating with the other. In other words, both are needed to win, if they choose to play past three attempts.
Here is what struck me about the show. First, both my friend and I found ourselves really engrossed in the team’s success, cheering whenever they beat the clock. It was so easy to be drawn into their personal stories about why they wanted to play for the money and to hear of their preparation to play on television. In other words—cheering for their success is easy because it not a zero-sum game (no one has to lose for someone else to win). Second, I love that in these economic times, when people feel demoralized and at wit’s end to provide for themselves and their families, the meaninglessness of the task is obvious and therefore more fun, AND in this game they can know what it takes to win, practice at home until they feel successful, and—if selected—believe that they have the potential to win at something that can help them. They are hopeful.
A side effect, based on observations of only one show, was also that the players did not get greedy. Neither of the teams I saw risked losing the highest amounts they could guarantee themselves by playing for more money.
I wonder what we might learn from the structure of this simple game about how to design workplaces that inspire people to master something because it is fun and they can see themselves being successful, AND no one has to lose for people to feel successful, AND the way the game is structured makes it easy to support and appreciate others’ success AND enjoy rooting for them to win? It’s upbeat; it’s fun; it rewards preparation and focus; AND it brings out the best in people. Sounds like a winning combination for a weary workforce to me!
