The SCARF social model: for life, and project management

Nandrew

Who here is familiar with the SCARF management paradigm? It's kinda my flavour-of-the-month and I'd like to hear from people who've explored it (or better yet, have a shorter summary article than mine):

http://the-mouse-trap.com/2009/11/16/the-five-domains-of-human-social-experiencethe-scarf-model/

It seems to make a lot of sense as a lens, and like many such models seems to have applications both in and out of the workplace. Are there any project leaders here who incorporate SCARF into their thinking? And would it be valuable to start considering SCARF more for interactions with our fans and beta testers?

francoisvn

Finally got around to having a look at this. It's probably an over-simplification, but this seems like a good mental bullet-point list to have, so you can run through it (first consciously and then later subconsciously) to help empathise with someone you're in conflict with. Is that more-or-less how you also see it?

I think I subconsciously do some of these, but I don't think I do them all. It seems like a natural continuation of my cobbled-together ad-hoc management style. I think I implicitly think about C,A,F already, but I think R gets a backseat and S has very little thought-time. I think more about R (and somewhat S) in social dynamics tho. I want to see if I can try consciously go through the entire list (not necessarily in the SCARF order) both during and outside work, and try turn it into a bit of a habit.

I found this other article that's a bit shorter, but I'm not sure if it's any better (could be worse): http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/mainframe-world/managing-people-the-scarf-model-65668

Would you maybe be keen to give a very quick run down of the 5 letters, and what they are related to, at the meetup next week? I think it could be a useful thing :)

Nandrew

Interesting thought. Yeah, I could probably do something short. I like the idea of SCARF as a framing device, especially for its simplicity. I'll do some deeper reading and try bring something to the table there.

... unless, of course, somebody more comfortable with the concept itches to speak on it!

EvanGreenwood

I think the findings about SCARF, that the reward or threat parts of the brain are triggered in the same way by these social gains or losses as primary losses and gains (like physical pain or receiving a monetary prize), are really interesting.

i.e. that operating in an environment of uncertainty is similar in terms of brain activity as operating while under threat of physical violence (or similar existential threat).

I feel like I consider most of these things in decision making (when I'm thinking optimally)... But I'm uncertain how "Relatedness" works on a practical level. What kind of managerial situation increases or decreases relatedness?

(I feel like I know how relatedness works in a social situation, but I don't know what the a manager should do differently when baring relatedness in mind).

Nandrew

That's an interesting point, @EvanGreenwood -- I think the teams we exist in right now have less trouble with relatedness than larger groups, where it's easier to slip into fracturing, a sense of not feeling like a part of the final goal, and those unfortunate cases where negative internal competition between teams is pushed forward.

I think we'd have to look at rather fine details to understand where we may be going wrong with relatedness, and I don't think I could construct a reply right now without talking out my ass :D

EvanGreenwood

One thing I do consider a bit in decisions that doesn't seem to be a part of the SCARF model is "Purpose", in the Dan Pink sense. I'm not sure if this is what SCARF is about, but it does seem that removing something someone cares about from them is some kind of loss, or providing them an opportunity that lets them do something they wanted to anyway is some kind of gain (and probably maps onto reward/threat structures).

@Nandrew I think you're right about relatedness in general being less of a problem in indie game development (where team members tend to be quite friendly). Maybe we're just doing that part well :)

It might be more of a thing to consider when posting online (like here for instance). Even though SCARF is for managers of teams those same kinds of social exchanges clearly happen in online forums as well. People have expressed feelings of not feeling like they belong in MGSA, and that's clearly to do with relatedness.

Edit: That last paragraph may be pushing this thread into meta territory :(

Nandrew

If we want to reclaim game dev relevance, something I'm considering doing with the SCARF talk on Wednesday is looking at how it applies to the way games interact with players, and how *maybe* it could be a useful framing for developers, designers and artists to think about their work.

I haven't had much time to think about it, but I've already been investigating UI and mechanics to see how they scratch these itches and I think the results look promising so far.

francoisvn

I see the most immediately-available utility as a framing device for communication (not limited to managerial situations), but I do think it isn't a catch-all solution (eg: it might be missing purpose). What got me interested is how it already somewhat aligns with my approach (I think) but seems to take it further, so it seems like something I might actually use in practice (vs staying in theory).

My gut feeling is that both Relatedness and Status are a bit less of an issue with small tight-knit groups and relatively flat structures. That said, maybe I really should be thinking more about these in my interactions. I wanna see if just running through the list in various situations helps me see things from another perspective or articulate something better.

@Nandrew: Cool. I'm gonna add you to the programme for Wednesday. I think a fairly high level overview will probably already be useful, but I very much like the idea of looking at how it can be applied to game design :)