The Dancing Organization

We are currently reorganizing at work. This means we are taking a bunch of boxes with lines between them and making a different pattern. There is still hierarchy and a clear top-down structure. The bosses are still in charge and those below them do what they say. This is the traditional organization, the way it has always been done.

Watching the dance floor at a recent wedding made me realize, though, that there are other ways to organize. I am not sure how to put this into practice, but what if organizations were run more like dance parties? In essence...self-organizing chaos?

In this organization, there would not be bosses, there would be DJ's, providing the music that sets the mood and pace of the group. Context is defined, but not structure. The "music" taps into the shared psyche of the group, uniting and encouraging ongoing movement, but not dictating anything.

The individuals in a dancing organization would be free to improvise, but under the influence of others. Movement is initiated by some, and followed by most, with smaller groups forming and breaking up as needed. No consistent leader exists, but initiators come and go.

What do you think? Could a dancing organization exist? Would you want to work in one?

(Photo credit to Matt Andrews Photo)

Rules of Thumb

I just finished Alan Webber's Rules of Thumb. I liked it for a couple reasons. The first is that each chapter covers one of 52 rules of thumb. Each one is short and self-contained. That makes it easy to read in bits and spurts while watching kids...a big plus for a book these days.

The second is how he validates carrying 3x5 cards in your pocket. The rules that the book covers are simply bits of business wisdom that Webber has picked up over the years and recorded on 3x5 cards that he carries with him everywhere. My father does the same thing, and I never really understood it...until I started to as well.

The 3x5 card is not really the point. The point is that our brains are pretty bad at actually remembering things. Which means when you have an idea, or read a powerful quote, or hear a rule of thumb, you better write it down...pronto. Use 3x5 cards, a Moleskine journal, an iPhone app, whatever. Just write it down.

Who knows, maybe someday you can write a book.

Don't trust the nice

I recently had a revelation about the reorganization and downsizing at work. There are two broad categories of people now working...those that will continue to work, and those that will be laid off. The revelation was that for most of the people in both groups, today is about the same.

They come to work, they do what they are asked to do, they eat lunch, they gossip and worry and try to predict the future. Those that will no longer be working do not (for the most part) have "Short-Timer" on their badge or a day-to-day lease on their office. We are all just doing our jobs as best we can.

Yet behind the scenes, there is more going on. The managers and decision makers have opinions and thoughts. Whether they can articulate it or not, they already know if they really want to keep you (and me) or not. At the same time, they may not know what they think until the question is asked, and even if they do, it is unlikely that they will share it with us.

The conclusion? You cannot trust the nice. Nice is what everyone will be until they hire or fire you. Taking confidence from someone's outward demeanor is completely unfounded. Rarely is anyone truly evil, but rarely will they be open and honest with themselves or with you from the beginning.

So what to do? First, stop being mediocre. The excellent ones get genuine praise, not ambivalent niceties. Second, base your thoughts, emotions, and actions on your reality, not others'. This goes for positive and negative stuff from others. In the end you get to live with you, I get to live with me, and others live with themselves. No one gets to trade places.

People vs. Titles

In the midst of the giant reorganization at work, I have been thinking about the difference between people and titles. Specifically, the fact that in large organizations, titles are expected to do work. That is, I (David) am not asked to do something, I (Process Engineer) am asked to do something.

Who cares? I do. I am expected to do things because I hold the title of "Process Engineer", not because I want to do them, or am even able to do them. As a result, we have a bloated system of competency tracking and development that defines what the person holding the title should be able to actually do. After all, it is the person who does the actual work, not their title.

Unfortunately, this puts everyone in a bind. A large organization needs defined roles with titles to prevent chaos, but rarely does a job description fit an individual's strengths and desires perfectly. So we are forced to fit square pegs in round holes, or at best elliptical pegs in round holes.

The take-home message? Beware titles. Remember that when you ask for work, an individual will do it, not a title. When you are doing work, remember that others are usually just looking at your title, not you as an individual (unless they're reading this blog). Overall, keep in mind that you work with people, not titles

Relationship budgets

Seth Godin recently posted about Dunbar's Number, which is the number of productive relationships most people can generally maintain at any given time, essentially a relationship budget. The number is about 150, despite social networking's attempts to convince us that we have 400, 1000, 2500 "friends."

This got me thinking about organizational design and how a relationship budget could be applied to leaders in a large organization.

Take an executive and give him a budget of 150 relationships. 10 go to his family (spouse, kids, parents, siblings, etc.). Another 10 go to personal friends. If he has been around for a while, he has networking contacts to maintain as well, maybe 50 throughout his industry. That leaves 80 for his job, of which another 30 are devoted to peers and bosses, leaving 50 for subordinates...his span of control. (Note that all numbers here are arbitrary, but the central concept of a limited number of relationships is independently valid.)


The span of control will not only consider direct reports, but also those reporting to them. This means that if you lead an organization larger than this, you will not have a relationship with everyone. Additionally, they will not have a relationship with you.

What are the implications of all this rambling?

• Consider spans of control in light of productive relationships during organizational design.
• If leading an organization larger than you can directly relate to, deliberately and continuosly monitor the transfer of information and the transfer of relationships down the line.
• If you use up your relationship budget at work, there will be nothing left outside. Beware the curse of the workaholic.
• Do not over-reach. Trying to expand too far past your relationship budget will cause everything to collapse.

Are there other implications?  Have you seen this concept used well or poorly in your experience?

What's your system?

If you interact with other people and have responsibilities, you need a system. Your brain counts, but if you tell me that is all you are using, I will nod politely and never trust you with anything. Whatever the system, it needs to answer some key questions.

1. How do you capture the things coming at you? This includes requests, orders, questions, internal desires, spam, whatever.
   
2. How do you know what to do right now? What if nothing is scheduled?
   
3. How do you keep from missing deadlines?
4. How do you keep track of things you have asked of others?

I highly recommend GTD, but despite some opinions, it is not The Way. Use what works for you, just have a system.

Out-of-sight, Out-of-mind

Out-of-sight, out-of-mind (OOS-OOM) is a fact of nature. Are you taking advantage of it?

Much of the time, we seem to use it as an excuse. I didn't see something, so I didn't think about it. If I didn't think about it, I probably didn't do anything about it. As a result, we keep things where we can see them so that they get thought about and done.

This leads to cluttered desks, full inboxes, and general information overload.

What if, instead of using OOS-OOM as an excuse, we could take advantage of it? What if we could clear our minds simply by moving things out of sight?

This is a central tenet of GTD (Getting Things Done). Using this technique results in a clean desk, an empty inbox, and a clear mind. Why would you not want this?

Check it out. You'll be glad you did.