Many people of my generation have little respect for video game players, and this applies to job interviews. We might respect an applicant who plays competitive bridge or chess, but video games? No way.
My own children have helped me see more respect for the pastime. One of my sons came off of a game talking about his challenges: “I was getting ready for an attack, but first I wanted to make an investment of resources in a mine, which would give me more resources in future turns. But then I got attacked from the south. I had to deal with that, while still trying to build future resources. And the guy I had an alliance with to the west started acting like he might sever our relationship. But I still saw the opportunity for that attack I was planning. I had too many priorities, and they were all urgent. I needed to prepare for the future, but also defend myself today. It was harrowing.”
Does that sound like a job to you? It certainly does to me. The simplest games may seem to be all about reflexes and aim, but many modern games have economic challenges. Resources today or resources for the future, is a fundamental issue of humankind. Hunters-gatherers decided whether to build tools that would ease future work burdens. The industrial revolution was built on capital that could have been spent on current consumption. Corporations today can invest in research and development to bring new technologies into production, or they can buy back more stock to boost shareholders’ current income. These are just like the gamers' choices.
Fortnight: Battle Royale is one of the most popular games these days, and the Guardian has a parents’ guide to the game. Players start on an island where they must find weapons, but they must also explore the territory. They can find one weapon and use it, or they can try to delay conflict until they have found better weapons. They can use resources to build defensive structures, or go on the attack right away. Choices, choices, choices.
One version of the game has players in teams. People are getting together with their friends to work together. Inevitably, they must reach a group consensus about the best strategy to employ. There will be differences of opinion. Some players will want to be cowboys while still part of the team, while others will want all team members to align their activities to the group strategy. Anyone ever been in a corporate meeting?
Businesses are starting to see the value of video game experience, as the Wall Street Journal recently wrote. One manager said that his company was looking for “trainability,” and that gamers had usually learned not just one game, but dozens. They knew that each game had its own rules, which must be learned. The strategy that works best in one game may not work in another, so players have to evaluate their own work to see if they are on the most effective path. Ever see employees on a job grumble that software forces them to work differently than they used to?
Job candidates should do more than say they play games. They should “provide context and evidence-based stories that can demonstrate why their gaming experience is valuable,” according to Cori Bernosky, a human resources executive quoted by the Wall Street Journal. Interviewers should be ready to draw out gamers, asking about things such as cooperation, evaluation of strategies, when to shift paradigms, and so forth. Some games do fit the old stereotype of simply reflecting aim and reflexes, so probe about the type of gaming the job candidate likes.
One key ingredient in business success is persistence, or grit. Some gamers clearly have this, as shown by high ambition and long work to achieve those high goals.
Earning a 4.0 grade point average can usually be accomplished with a single strategy. Winning at multiple games will require multiple strategies, along with the same diligence exhibited by those honor role students. The gamer job applicants might turn out to be much better employees than older managers now imagine.
