Instead of organizing people into "functions" we may take a cue from some of the greatest games, and organize around "quests". That may sound very designed, but what it means is ad hoc, problem centric organization in which people are allowed to organize themselves around what they perceive to be meaningful, important problems in need of solving.
- "Lock in" of talent may squelch passion, demoralize employees and of course lead to worse fit of talent to problems.
- Top down delegation of tasks utilizes fewer minds thinking about what problems are actually important, making the organization less adaptable, less able to correctly identify dangers or opportunities.
- Utilize the power of the many by, to some degree at least, letting everyone create "quests" for themselves and others. A quest is a description of a problem that needs solving, together with a reason for why it is important.
- Make quests visible to as many people as possible. Default: whole organization. Possibly even more visible, to customers or the public, where not inappropriate. Visibility enables serendipity. The point is to facilitate the match of person and task. For the right people to be able to self-select to the right tasks, the quests need to be visible. Depending on the size of the organization, this may mean different things, but for example you could keep a quest board on the intranet. Draw inspiration from Open Space technology. You need a grid, with the "what needs doing" (quests) visible to all. Then, whoever comes is the right people. Maybe some things turn out to not be that important after all. Or people agree it is important but nobody wants to do it - that would be yet another quest to solve. Perhaps outsource that task.
- Make people visible the same way. Of course, one of the best ways is if people actually know each other and have met face to face. Other than that, intranet profiles with skills, interests and current and completed quests may be helpful.
- Allowing people to "go" where the organization resonates the most with them enables what Lynda Gratton calls "hot spots" and makes sure everyone ends up, for the time being, exactly where they need to be - ie no under-utilization of peoples passions and skills!
- Roles are quest specific, which still allows people to be very specialized if they want - taking similar roles in all quests they participate in - or more generalized, synthesizing knowledge acquired from playing many different roles in different quests.
- From an employee point of view, being organized in a "function" or department simply isn't all that fun. I remember, as an employee, several times hearing about something they did in another department that I got excited about, thought I could contribute greatly to but had no way of helping out on while still doing "my job". Letting me decide what quests I embark on changes that.
- From a management point of view, a big reason function lock-in is a problem is because it squelches passion. You already have bright & talented people (right?) and if there is a place in your organization that resonates really strongly with them, you should let them go there. You need them to go there. That is when the magic happens.
- Essentially the point to create a kind of market for ideas, tasks & people inside the organization. The "currency" is the time and effort that people are willing to give to a particular cause, or quest.
By letting people self-select to quests that resonate most with them, and design their own quests, we allow both for passion-driven development of individuals and aggregate the wisdom of the crowd as people have the independence to use their judgment about what is meaningful and where they will have impact.
I think this is wise and timely, and makes me think of crowdsourcing applied to internal HR. I've been thinking about this for a while, and it turns out that a number of Silicon Valley tech companies are considering moving, tentatively, in this direction.
These days, we don't work on production lines, and the nature of knowledge mananagement-oriented work is that it's inherently "lumpy," with some days busier than others. So if we want to maximize the usefulness of everyone within an organization, quests (or you might call them projects, but "quest" is more novel and aspirational) allow people to gravitate towards what they desire. What I love about this is that it gives employees more power in the equation; rather than the traditional hierarchical model where employees are "told" what to do, they get to move to the areas to which they are most attracted. And perhaps companies have to work a little harder so that employees are "sold" on a given quest. In other words, companies need to make the quests attractive. Personally, I see this as a way to even out the power dynamic between employees and employers. It's really more like artisans (employees) and patrons (employers), going back to the Renaissance. Perhaps this also means that people will be apprentices on certain quests, developing their skills from those who are masters, and masters will move on to other quests to develop new skills themselves.
- Log in to post comments
I also very much like this. Partly because it provides a practical application of gaming. And also because I think it could be a real advance on 20 / 10 % time. One of the things employees often struggle on under these arrangements is what they're going to work on. The quests / open space approach provides a good organisational approach to help employees identify, choose and share areas to work on.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Hi Gesla,
This is a lovely idea! With the explosion of social media contests, this is an idea whose time has come. The point that employees themselves can choose what is a good quest is another way of democraticing businesses.
Now, I am quoting you for a book I am authoring on co-creation. Hope that is fine. I can send you the soft copy of the book. Please mail me your email address to sankar@younomy.com.
- Log in to post comments
I love the idea of quests for work. I wonder whether there might be more buy-in if the quests stayed at higher levels (not individual for most situations).
- Log in to post comments
You have an interesting idea.
Maybe I can recommend you a three-stair management.
Three-stair management is a new model (or a new system) based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
The model is the same as ordinary stairs. The first step is called the management of regulations with special implication (discussed more fully in the part of solution). I use it to establish a high productive organization that can meet employees’ existence needs.
The second step is called the management of emotion with special implication. I use it to meet employees’ relatedness needs.
The third step is called the management of innovation with special implication. I use it to meet employees’ growth needs.
Then integrating first, second, and third create a new model of three-stair management. I use it to meet all employees’ needs (or Maslow's hierarchy of needs).
So three-stair management can be briefly summarized three points: First, I use the management of regulations to establish a company. Then I use the management of emotion to let employees love this company. And then I use the management of innovation to continue to improve this company.
Please note! A new model means at least two aspects of meaning (they are the key of this hack). On the one hand, every one of these three types of management is Indispensable. On the other hand, these three types of management must be complied fixed order, that is, bottom-up.
A new model,
A simple model,
An orderly model,
A dynamic model,
An open model,
Of course,
It is also a very useful model for various organizations!
- Log in to post comments
Thanx for this Gisela! I may try this with my team. I feel this may work very well for small businesses and not large organizations because of the culture shift that is needed.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
You need to register in order to submit a comment.