Beyond Agency

the inner shift from Game A to Game B

Lately, there’s been an ongoing conversation within the liminal web about the apparent lack of agentic individuals - people who can organize, lead, and act effectively. Some have implied that many in this space weren’t particularly successful in Game A - the competitive, status-driven world of modern institutions - and are therefore trying to build something new out of necessity rather than conviction. While there may be some truth to this observation, I don’t see it as a criticism so much as a reality born of cultural development. As the old paradigms begin to dissolve, it’s only natural that those who’ve been marginalized or disillusioned by the old system would become early explorers of the new.¹

I’ve experienced this myself. Not long ago, I tried to organize a metamodern retreat. And despite the clarity of vision, the effort fell apart. Collaborators proved unreliable. Coordination unraveled. The energy just wasn’t there. This isn’t a complaint, but an honest reflection: building something new requires a coherence that many of us are still learning how to embody. We’re unlearning old modes of extraction and control while trying to birth a new way of being, together. This transitional space is messy, slow, and often marked by failure.

What’s less discussed in our circles, however, is the inverse problem: those who have been highly successful in Game A - the skilled, polished, and agentic ones - may also struggle in the shift toward Game B, not because they lack capacity, but because Game B doesn’t necessarily reward the same instincts. The very traits that brought success in Game A - like strategic dominance, personal branding, and scaling efficiency - can become liabilities in a relational paradigm. In Game B, power is not taken or earned; it is entrusted. Leadership is not a title; it’s a function of trust. And that trust must be mutual, not performative.

To move meaningfully into Game B, those who have succeeded in Game A will probably need to do something deeply countercultural: they will need to step back. To let go of status. To move with humility. To enter with a beginner’s mind. This transition is understandibly not easy. In fact, it may be the most spiritually demanding work of all, not because it lacks sophistication, but because it requires the cultivation of inner stillness, relational intelligence, and sincere respect for those whose wisdom may not have been visible in the world of dominance hierarchies.

In my upcoming book, I write about the shift from fragmentation to wholeness, from abstraction to presence. This shift is not just personal; it is cultural. And part of that cultural shift means recognizing that the people who will help midwife the next stage of human and thus, cultural development may not be the ones with polished resumes or high-status platforms. They may be the quiet ones, the relational ones, the ones who have learned to hold complexity without collapsing difference. They may not be fluent in strategy, but they are fluent in relational intelligence, that of both fairness and care.

What I’ve found most difficult when interacting with high-status actors from Game A is not their ambition or assertiveness; it’s their lack of loyalty to those outside their class. There is a subtle, often unconscious belief that people who haven’t “proven” themselves in Game A are less valuable or less relevant. This is a tragic misperception, because in Game B, value is not transactional; it’s relational. The skills that matter most are not persuasion or speed, but the ability to be attuned and responsive while rooted in presence.

Game B isn’t just about imagining new systems. It’s about becoming new people together. And that means we will each need to do our part. Those of us who have long walked the margins will need to step into our own agency, not from a place of reaction, but from proper grounding. And those who have held power and success will need to learn how to be in relationship with those who haven’t, not as saviors, but as equals.

I imagine our future won’t be built by the most agentic people. It may not even be built by those who are the most awake and wise. It will be built by those who can relate well, who can stay in the room when things get hard, who can repair after rupture, who can honor difference without needing to dominate it. That is the path of the Communal Heart. And as far as I can tell, it’s the only path that leads us home.

1. Game A and Game B are conceptual terms used in metamodern and sensemaking communities to describe two different paradigms of social organization. Game A refers to the dominant system shaped by competition, extraction, individual success, and hierarchical control. Game B, by contrast, envisions a future-oriented paradigm rooted in cooperation, relational intelligence, mutual flourishing, and regenerative practices. While there are many ways to describe the paradigm shift currently underway, at its core, I believe it involves not just changing systems, but transforming how we relate to one another and to the world around us.