I mostly agree with the sentiment that "the enthusiasm-enhancing way to allocate people to tasks is to let the people allocate themselves." However, I was left mulling over a thought after reading this - when is it appropriate and/or justified to intervene?
Sometimes we don't have the "courage" to take the initiative and work on novel projects. I feel that part of the human condition is to have a tendency towards fearing the unknown, whether that fear is warranted or not. This can come at the cost of working on more fulfilling projects. Given that, isn't there a balance to be found -especially for our less experienced geeks- between "autonomy" and their "mastery"?
One way I have been trying to help the geeks around me feel safe in the world is by pushing them towards more challenging endeavors. I noticed this often requires limiting some of their autonomy, but it is always with the intention of helping increase, respect, and foster their sense of self-efficacy and mastery. I have found that, for the most part, they seem to be more fulfilled that way.
"part of the human condition is to have a tendency towards fearing the unknown" there are others in the tribe who seek novelty, so maybe this is projection a bit.
Where I'd intervene:
* Someone isn't getting enough done to remain employed.
* Someone is deep in sunk cost fallacy (one team had a rule that if you'd failed to deliver a task in one planning cycle you were forbidden from working on it in the next).
Thanks for the additional context, Kent. I appreciate you pointing out that my previous comments may have been somewhat projected. We tend to alternate between archetypes, don't we? The one seeking novelty and the other more inclined towards security and exploration.
The 'social referencing' phenomenon in toddlers, where they look to their caregivers for a sense of safety before venturing forth, is a fascinating analogy to the adult experience. We crave that same balance of autonomy and support as we tackle unfamiliar challenges.
Striking that delicate balance, with mutual respect and the intention of helping each other progress, seems to be at the crux of the problem. It's about managing our legitimate fears, not eliminating them entirely. Your writings opened my eyes to this issue, and I'm really grateful for that.
I'll be careful to respect others' autonomy when nudging them in our shared interests and responsibilities. Thank you for your efforts that have even given me the optionality of this choice. We truly gain so much from trying to pay it forward to others, don't we?
I was thinking about this too but from a different angle. E.g. what if a junior enthusiastically takes a task that is very suited for a senior who is experienced in a particular messy/incomprehensible part of the system. If time is a constraint, you may be inclined to give the task to the senior instead. This is indeed acting like playing chess. Sometimes teams actually make such wise decisions (I'm saying it's wise, but I could be wrong) on their own. But potentially the junior is very eager and the appropriate senior hasn't seen the list.
I would expect the team to pick up that the signer upper might be over their head and offer to help. Maybe they’ll do fine and then you’ll have one fewer bottlenecks.
Love it. Letting people choose what they work on would be a huge quality of life upgrade for many workers. And letting people work on what excites them can only boost productive as well. Seems like a win/win. I wonder why so few organizations practice it?
There is an analogy here to centrally planned economies vs. free markets. With free markets the system leverages talents, enthusiasm, and resources to create efficient system of supply for the demand. The invisible hand works things out. When someone "knows better" and tries to force it, they miss out on the magic market effects. The same is true of assigning work to people instead of letting them choose.
Your comment: "What if nobody signs up for a task? Maybe the tasks really isn’t all that important" also demonstrates market effects -- less important things getting starved of resources.
I love the reference to Daniel Pink's book "Drive." It's so true. For me, this comes to trust.
When a project manager assigns a task to someone, there is someone who is accountable for the task. Assigning a task to an entire team makes the project manager's job harder, because when the task has defects or isn't completed on time, who is accountable? The Project Manager has to trust the team will get the work done. This is empowering and gives the team a sense of autonomy.
“Treating it like a game with rules ignores…” Interesting that this was exactly what XP did with the Planning Game, and in my experience that worked well, probably because it deliberately involved those with skin in the, erm, game.
I should have said “first-person game”. Of course there are social norms & expectations. But who makes which decisions when? And what are the consequences of those decisions (Thinkie And Then…)?
Thanks for another great article!
I mostly agree with the sentiment that "the enthusiasm-enhancing way to allocate people to tasks is to let the people allocate themselves." However, I was left mulling over a thought after reading this - when is it appropriate and/or justified to intervene?
Sometimes we don't have the "courage" to take the initiative and work on novel projects. I feel that part of the human condition is to have a tendency towards fearing the unknown, whether that fear is warranted or not. This can come at the cost of working on more fulfilling projects. Given that, isn't there a balance to be found -especially for our less experienced geeks- between "autonomy" and their "mastery"?
One way I have been trying to help the geeks around me feel safe in the world is by pushing them towards more challenging endeavors. I noticed this often requires limiting some of their autonomy, but it is always with the intention of helping increase, respect, and foster their sense of self-efficacy and mastery. I have found that, for the most part, they seem to be more fulfilled that way.
"part of the human condition is to have a tendency towards fearing the unknown" there are others in the tribe who seek novelty, so maybe this is projection a bit.
Where I'd intervene:
* Someone isn't getting enough done to remain employed.
* Someone is deep in sunk cost fallacy (one team had a rule that if you'd failed to deliver a task in one planning cycle you were forbidden from working on it in the next).
Thanks for the additional context, Kent. I appreciate you pointing out that my previous comments may have been somewhat projected. We tend to alternate between archetypes, don't we? The one seeking novelty and the other more inclined towards security and exploration.
The 'social referencing' phenomenon in toddlers, where they look to their caregivers for a sense of safety before venturing forth, is a fascinating analogy to the adult experience. We crave that same balance of autonomy and support as we tackle unfamiliar challenges.
Striking that delicate balance, with mutual respect and the intention of helping each other progress, seems to be at the crux of the problem. It's about managing our legitimate fears, not eliminating them entirely. Your writings opened my eyes to this issue, and I'm really grateful for that.
I'll be careful to respect others' autonomy when nudging them in our shared interests and responsibilities. Thank you for your efforts that have even given me the optionality of this choice. We truly gain so much from trying to pay it forward to others, don't we?
Truth. One of my most powerful consulting phrases is, "Okay." I think it serves to create safe space for risk taking.
I was thinking about this too but from a different angle. E.g. what if a junior enthusiastically takes a task that is very suited for a senior who is experienced in a particular messy/incomprehensible part of the system. If time is a constraint, you may be inclined to give the task to the senior instead. This is indeed acting like playing chess. Sometimes teams actually make such wise decisions (I'm saying it's wise, but I could be wrong) on their own. But potentially the junior is very eager and the appropriate senior hasn't seen the list.
This is an exception I am talking about
I would expect the team to pick up that the signer upper might be over their head and offer to help. Maybe they’ll do fine and then you’ll have one fewer bottlenecks.
That's fair. We are after all talking about empowering teams to make decisions
Love it. Letting people choose what they work on would be a huge quality of life upgrade for many workers. And letting people work on what excites them can only boost productive as well. Seems like a win/win. I wonder why so few organizations practice it?
Someone believes that their needs would be met less if they did.
There is an analogy here to centrally planned economies vs. free markets. With free markets the system leverages talents, enthusiasm, and resources to create efficient system of supply for the demand. The invisible hand works things out. When someone "knows better" and tries to force it, they miss out on the magic market effects. The same is true of assigning work to people instead of letting them choose.
Your comment: "What if nobody signs up for a task? Maybe the tasks really isn’t all that important" also demonstrates market effects -- less important things getting starved of resources.
I love the reference to Daniel Pink's book "Drive." It's so true. For me, this comes to trust.
When a project manager assigns a task to someone, there is someone who is accountable for the task. Assigning a task to an entire team makes the project manager's job harder, because when the task has defects or isn't completed on time, who is accountable? The Project Manager has to trust the team will get the work done. This is empowering and gives the team a sense of autonomy.
“Treating it like a game with rules ignores…” Interesting that this was exactly what XP did with the Planning Game, and in my experience that worked well, probably because it deliberately involved those with skin in the, erm, game.
I should have said “first-person game”. Of course there are social norms & expectations. But who makes which decisions when? And what are the consequences of those decisions (Thinkie And Then…)?
Matching people to tasks can *be* like a bin?
Beautiful! Like water in the desert.