It was 2 AM on a Sunday, and instead of sleeping, I was online, ready to launch a virtual siege in a Massive Multiplayer Online game. Normally, sleep claims me by 11 PM at the latest, but tonight was different. The objective: conquer Dragonia. I was assigned to the Blue Team, led by GrayFalcon, a veteran player of considerable renown within our ranks. Game strategy dictated our strongest player lead the charge on the turret, and GrayFalcon was to spearhead the attack on the south turret. Precisely at 2:00 AM, I watched her begin her virtual march and followed suit moments after. Then, an unexpected development – an enemy march appeared, targeting the same turret. It was immediately clear, as it must have been to GrayFalcon, that the enemy would arrive first. Her attack would meet a substantial, unforeseen defense. The enemy claimed the turret just seconds before GrayFalcon arrived, and her troops faced fierce resistance, suffering significant losses and failing to secure the objective. My forces, and the rest of the Blue Team, continued the assault, with similarly disastrous outcomes. Confusion and questions filled the team chat, seeking direction, but GrayFalcon remained silent. Finally, word spread that GrayFalcon, disheartened by the initial setback, had logged off abruptly after her failed attack. Some of us persisted, losing more troops, but weakened and leaderless, the Blue Team crumbled. We eventually conceded, recognizing that the enemy’s control of the south turret jeopardized our allies in other towers. Without leadership, the Blue Team had fallen apart.
This leadership breakdown in a Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG) is not an isolated incident. These virtual environments, rich with teamwork and strategic challenges, frequently mirror real-world leadership dynamics, highlighting principles vital for success in any organization – trust, communication, and focused leadership. Decades ago, Robert Fulghum’s book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, offered simple yet profound life lessons. In a similar vein, the experiences within MMOGs provide compelling, if unexpected, lessons in leadership. This exploration delves into the leadership failures (and occasional triumphs) witnessed in these online games, drawing parallels to the corporate boardroom or any team-based environment. Consider this, “Everything I Needed to Know About Leading, I Learned from Storming a Virtual Castle in a massive multiplayer online world.”
The Bedrock of Teamwork: Trust
A lack of trust is a primary catalyst for team disintegration in online games, a stark reflection of the trust-building challenges in real-world collaborations. Failure in an anonymous online setting is easily rationalized because fostering trust is inherently difficult. Trust, academically defined, involves “a willingness to make oneself vulnerable to another person despite uncertainty regarding motive and prospective actions” [1]. For many, trusting others is a general challenge, amplified in the virtual realm where “knowing” teammates becomes significantly more complex. The usual trust-building activities in real teams – getting acquainted, understanding strengths and weaknesses – are hindered when individuals can alter names, avatars, and communication styles, projecting fabricated identities at will.
Despite these unique online challenges, the fundamental components of trust remain constant. A widely recognized model in business and academia posits that trust in a leader hinges on three pillars: integrity, ability, and benevolence [2]. Integrity and ability are relatively transparent through observed actions, both online and offline. Integrity erodes when deception or unfair behavior is perceived, regardless of whether it’s directly targeted. Ability, in a leadership context, refers to the perceived competence to guide, manage, and direct the team effectively. Leaders seen as unskilled or incapable often struggle to earn trust.
Benevolence, the third pillar, is frequently overlooked yet critically impactful. Its absence often manifests as prioritizing self-interest over team success. Our trust decisions are significantly influenced by whether we believe a leader genuinely prioritizes our best interests. If self-interest appears paramount, trust diminishes, and team members become hesitant to embrace vulnerability at the leader’s behest.
GrayFalcon’s leadership downfall stemmed from a benevolence deficit. Confronted with a significant loss in her initial assault, she succumbed to self-interest. Instead of maintaining composure, continuing leadership, and strategizing subsequent attacks, she lamented her losses and the cost of rebuilding, then abruptly quit for the night, abandoning her team in disarray. Her concern for the team’s welfare was demonstrably absent. Consequently, GrayFalcon’s leadership credibility within the alliance evaporated. No one would readily trust her leadership again.
Effective leaders must demonstrably prioritize their team’s well-being. The most successful leaders exhibit vulnerability, fostering a culture of trust. Genuine care for team members and prioritizing collective success over personal gains are cornerstones of trust-building in any organizational context, whether in a massive multiplayer online game or a corporate environment.
Communication: The Lifeline of Leadership
The online gaming environment presents unique communication hurdles, making clear, timely, and consistent communication even more crucial for effective leadership. These challenges are amplified by time zone differences and language barriers, particularly in massive multiplayer online settings where teammates are globally dispersed. In one MMOG alliance, a single chat conversation encompassed seven languages: English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Ukrainian, Russian, and Italian. Other alliances have featured a diverse mix of Asian languages. Navigating multilingual discussions underscores the ongoing gap to achieving the seamless universal translation envisioned in science fiction.
Overcoming these communication obstacles is paramount for mission success because leadership is inherently about communication. Communication breakdowns significantly increase the likelihood of failure. In one game, long-term plans involved relocating the entire alliance to a different kingdom to consolidate power—a complex and confidential strategy unknown to most of the 100-member alliance. Leaders, fearing unpopularity or time consumption, withheld this crucial information. Consequently, uninformed members inadvertently acted against the uncommunicated goal, hindering progress. Leaders who hoard information or fail to communicate intent might eventually reach objectives, but inefficiently. Effective communication ensures organizational unity and coordinated action.
Consistent communication is vital because no leader can be perpetually present. It establishes shared understandings of conduct standards, reporting protocols, and goal priorities. Frequent, clear communication ensures continuous leadership, even in absence. This shared understanding drives team cohesion towards common goals, a product of deliberate leadership communication. In the gaming context, teammates within similar time zones and language groups often collaborated during convenient hours. Clear communication of leadership intent transformed language and timing challenges into manageable planning parameters rather than insurmountable obstacles in this massive multiplayer online world.
Beyond Success: The Essence of Good Leadership
In leader development courses, a recurring question arises: “Who is typically the last to recognize a toxic leader within their organization?” Often, the answer is “their superior.” Toxic leaders can excel in upward management, presenting strong performance metrics and mission accomplishment, masking the detrimental impact on subordinates. Their success might be built on the backs of their teams, manifesting as abuse or neglect of subordinate needs and leadership development.
My initial alliance leader in a dragon-slaying massive multiplayer online game, GrumpyPete, was a top-ranked player. His dominance propelled us through competitions. However, he offered minimal communication or guidance. He reveled in his superior status, dominating the game world but neglecting his team’s growth. Most members, including myself, remained in his alliance only to leverage his dominance temporarily, leaving for more nurturing environments as soon as we could stand independently. We migrated to an alliance with a “growth mentality.” This new alliance, led by SigmaMonkey, maintained comprehensive resources on strategy and player development. SigmaMonkey himself was unassuming, approachable, and helpful, though not the strongest player individually. Yet, his alliance’s collective strength dwarfed GrumpyPete’s. SigmaMonkey understood and cultivated the power of teamwork that GrumpyPete ignored. While GrumpyPete might have appeared successful based on performance metrics, he fundamentally failed as a leader in fostering long-term organizational health.
The distinction between a successful leader and a good leader is often subtle in the short term but profound in the long run. This is particularly relevant in hierarchical organizations. Superiors might prioritize immediate results, overlooking the long-term damage inflicted by toxic leadership. Counterproductive leader behaviors erode morale, drive away valuable team members, and negatively shape future leaders who learn by observing these behaviors. A leader might achieve short-term success while simultaneously sowing seeds of long-term organizational decay, difficult to rectify even over generations of leadership changes. Frequent leadership turnover within organizations can exacerbate this issue, as toxic leaders can move on before the consequences of their actions become fully apparent, potentially repeating the cycle elsewhere.
Good leaders prioritize how they are perceived by their subordinates as much as by their superiors. They measure their success by the development of subordinate leaders, the overall team morale, and the collective commitment to shared goals. While not all good leaders achieve conventional success metrics like rapid promotions, many recognize that prioritizing people ultimately drives mission success, especially considering long-term organizational health. One three-star General aptly stated that while the military emphasizes “Mission first, People always,” he found that by genuinely prioritizing people, the mission invariably succeeded.
Leadership challenges are context-dependent, varying across organizations and missions. However, whether leading a military unit, a sports team, or an online alliance in a massive multiplayer online game, the core principles of effective leadership remain constant. Cultivating a culture that values both immediate results and the development of future leaders is essential for building enduring, healthy organizations.
[1] Werbel, J.D., & Henriques, P.L. (2009). Different views of trust and relational leadership: Supervisor and subordinate perspectives. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 780-796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940910996798
[2] Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258792
