A couple of weeks ago I came across the statement: „AI has no skin in the game.“ (Actually I can’t remember who wrote that and I couldn’t find it any more, so I’d be happy for a hint.) That stuck with me – ever so often I get wrong answers from AI, and when I point it out, it’s like „Oopsie! Sorry, I was wrong, here’s another answer.“ – and that’s it. There’s no way I can hold AI accountable for the output. (I consider this a good thing, btw.)
Then I thought: how about humans in the role of Facilitators or Agile Coaches? They typically consider themselves responsible for the process, not for the outcome. They have skin in the how, but not in the what. Do we need them to have skin in the real game? And: do we all need to have more skin in the game? And even: could this be a reason why agile has some reputation issues lately and is in crisis mode?
At that point I did what every reasonable person would do: I brought this to the wonderful, wise, and generous community of crea[gap]lab and offered a session.
Can we even choose to have skin in the game? Sometimes we can’t – being affected isn’t a choice. A POC in a racist environment has skin in the game whether they want it or not. Being able to choose NOT to engage? That’s privilege. Systemic dynamics and context matter a lot.
Power comes into play as well, of course. There’s formal power, rooted in positions and rules. There’s also the power of initiative, being able to act, to create, to move. So here’s a scheme we came up with during the session:
- „not my problem“: no power, no skin in the game; there’s nothing we want or can do in this quadrant.
- „privilege“: we could do something, we have the power, but we choose not to have skin in the game, we choose to stay quiet
- „sovereigns and activists“: we have skin in the game, we are really invested and we have the means to do something about it. Either we are in a powerful position, or we use the power of initiative to change the situation.
- „suppressed“: we are affected and we don’t have the means to change it.
Coming back to the initial question: do we need more skin in the game of those, who are able to choose? In terms of the scheme above that would translate into the question: do we need more privileged people to speak up and use their power of position and initiative, and get some skin in the game? – Hell yes! But how? How do we move from privilege to active engagement, and do it in a way that distributes power rather than just performs allyship?
Having skin in the game, wanting something to change, having something to lose is not necessarily a wellness experience. But it gives everyone around us a clear signal that we are invested and serious. We can make use of our power to have an impact beyond „I’m the one for the process“. This goes beyond the usual facilitation, which is why Katrin and I introduce the catalyst in our fresh and new book „MACHT! Mit Co-Creation von guten Absichten zu echter Wirkung“ (Amazon link). The catalyst is a behavioural archetype who creates the space and conditions for a group to step into their creative power. In our book we provide the concept and methods to systematically use and distribute the power of creation, so that a group can co-create with impact.
Our crea[gap]lab session opened even more questions: How much „skin“ do we actually have? How do we resist escapism and distraction? How can AI strengthen (rather than replace) our agency? Thanks to Olena, Fabian, Andy, Jochen, Katrin, Conny, Lenka, and Mona for co-exploring this with me!
PS. I asked Claude about his AI perspective on this article, and this was his comment: „You’re right – I have no skin in the game by design. But here’s the risk: humans using me as an excuse to move from ‚active engagement‘ to ‚comfortable distance.‘ I can help you think. I can’t help you care. That’s your job.“