Organizational Structure and the Culture of Creative

Note: A version of this post has appeared at  TalentZoo.

There has always been pressure in the workplace to perform — but the quality and measure of that pressure seems to have increased significantly over the last few years. With greater emphasis on ideas and innovation, organizations find themselves wondering: How do we stay on the cutting edge? How do we encourage creativity and innovation?

Organizational Form Should Follow Function
While organizations have explored strategies over the years to make positive cultural changes to enhance creativity, it remains they will vary considerably in terms of their ability to do so. Most organizations do have the potential to increase their level of creativity. But, this may require a redefinition of organizational structure. Where creativity and innovation are concerned, organizational form may need to follow function.

Organizations are realizing this connection. One exciting example of this evolution, is detailed in Valve’s Employee Handbook. Valve, a video-game developer located in upstate Washington, has a flat organizational chart that allows talent to flow freely within the organization. One of the basic tenets at Valve is that ideas have tremendous value and these ideas should be explored by those who have a real interest. Employees at Valve are not limited by a reporting structure – they are  free to gravitate to the projects where they can make the greatest contribution. Projects are never assigned, as employees determine how they dedicate their time.

Work Swarming & Talent Utilization
Work swarming, similar to the talent utilization process operating at Valve, has been discussed previously by Gartner. Swarming, a type of spontaneous teaming borrowed from nature, emphasizes an organic flow of energy to a particular task. You’ll find examples of work swarming operating in various workplace cultures — for example, in hospital emergency rooms. Swarming allows needed resources to focus upon a task of real importance or potential value.

Work swarming has the potential to encourage creativity and innovation. However, there is hesitancy giving up the security of prescribed levels and roles within a traditional organizational hierarchy. Common sense tells us that Valve’s way of doing things won’t work for all organizations. But, we could adapt the process so that it can be applied. Yes, organizations may need some aspects of a hierarchy, and yes, many would reap benefits from the implementation of “work swarming.”

A Hybrid Structure
Job descriptions and reporting relationships within organizations prescribe specific activities and relationships. But in creative environments it may be advantageous for employees to function outside the realm of their “day-to-day” routine. Not unlike the 70-20-10 concept pioneered at Google, during this time new projects, ideas and trends could be explored. Employees would be allowed to “unhitch” from the organizational hierarchy and work flexibly for a percentage of their time. In this way, employees could contribute to worthy projects in which they have interest; new ideas are explored, and employee engagement might be enhanced.

This process would require a clearinghouse of information concerning trending ideas and projects — possibly through an internal crowd sourcing platform — in that way employees can make decisions concerning where to spend their time. If there is enough interest in a new project, a team is organized and employees can plug into the action and contribute. Not enough interest? The project dies before an inordinate amount of resources are devoted.

There are certainly logistics that would need to be addressed to modify an organizational form or structure. However, in the case of creativity and  innovation, changes to enhance these processes may prove to be a worthy endeavor.

Dr. Marla Gottschalk is a Workplace Psychologist and career coach located in East Lansing, Michigan. Connect with her on Twitter and Linkedin.

The Art of Project Transparency: How Not to Bait & Switch Your Clients

There are many old adages about how businesses can take advantage of a client. Last year, I found myself to be one of them, on the receiving end of a really frustrating experience. I was the victim of the old bait and switch. Not product wise – but, talent wise.

Omission not volition

In my case, the issue developed quietly during the transition from the selling process to the actual completion of the tasks at hand. The problem that I experienced,  a lack of communication concerning as to who was actually working on my project, was an important one.

Often the owner, or a senior level contact of an organization, may not be available to complete the nuts and bolts of a project – this is well-known. But if they are not at the very least overseeing the project, the client must be informed as to who is actually managing the work.  No one means to anger a client, but if there is a lack of information, frustration can and will set in.

First sign of trouble: Who was running the show?

The first contact with Company X was with its owner. She appeared well-informed and I was very interested in working with her further. There was a discussion among other things, about the steps to take in the future and how we should proceed. As she was aware of  the goals of the project, I assumed she would be running the project.

As the project got underway, I was completely left in the dark as to what was happening. I had to write the owner to determine who was actually running the project. When she offered up a project manager, I inquired as to her rate of pay in comparison to her own.  She said the employee was billed at the same rate as herself. (As a former project planner, I found this odd).

The lack of contact continued. I offered to provide guidance and supporting materials to the designated project manager, but she was difficult to contact. Suddenly out of the blue, I was told we were ready to meet. When I asked to review any materials before we spent resources on an unnecessary meeting, the owner (not the project manager) replied that the work had to be presented in person. I relented and we set a date, even though I had little idea what the “project manager” had been up to.

The big reveal

To my dismay a team (Yes, 4 of them – all billed at the owner’s billing rate) emerged at the meeting. They had done exactly the tasks that I had asked not to be emphasized and none of those that I originally had asked for help with. The biggest surprise? The team seemed completely baffled as to why I wasn’t ecstatic about the completed work. I spoke to the project manager later that day, quite concerned as to the direction the project had taken.

From that point on, the tone of the relationship changed completely. A few weeks later the owner wrote to tell me that “my limited budget” had run out and that promised pieces of the project could not be completed. (Interestingly enough, the retainer I provided was never meant to be my entire investment. It was a bit of a test to see how the whole relationship would work). As you might guess, I planned on running in the other direction, thankful I had not committed more resources.

How owners can avoid the problem

The reputation of your business is tantamount to any other goal. If you are relying on your team to carry out a client’s vision be aware of the following:

• Identify the eventual project manager to the client at the start of the process.
• Review billing rates early with clients.
• If you are handing off a client project to your team, review client notes with the them carefully. Don’t ever leave them in the dark.
• Review materials with the clients before you proceed with time-consuming meetings.
• Don’t agree to work that you really cannot deliver. For example, If your strength is in one area, don’t promise expertise in another.
• Check in with the work to be sure your team is on target.
• If you have to change the project plan, even with good reason, include the client in the loop.
• Do a post-mortem on project/client failures. Ask yourself what has gone wrong?

As a final note, when all was said and done, they were quite available to communicate with me that they gone well over the hours that my retainer allowed. I was unmoved by this admission – and I can only assume they ate the overage. I later received a note from the owner how “life was good”, but our relationship should “end”.

I am still shaking my head in disbelief.

Dr. Marla Gottschalk is a Workplace Psychologist located in East Lansing, Michigan. Find her on Twitter and Linkedin.

What do we really think about teams?

If we listen, we can learn a great deal from teenagers. They are honest – sometimes brutally so – and are not as concerned about appearing politically correct.  When it comes to discussing a common practice utilized in organizations and schools today, working on a team, the opinion in my home is quite clear: team projects are despised.

We Have Secret Concerns About Teams

It is difficult to admit that we may not have total confidence in the team process. From my early days as a team researcher in the auto industry, to my experiences with small businesses, the doubts were certainly there. Overall, just like students assigned to a group project, we find ourselves worried about the prospects of working on a team. Why is this the case? We tend to ignore essential principles of teams and team building. Assembling, managing and motivating teams is not something to be taken lightly. The end result of the oversight is that things can, and will,  go wrong – and the entire team process shoulders the blame.

Being a Team Contributor is a Learned Skill

One contributing factor is that we assume that all individuals, including students, have an innate ability to collaborate and work effectively on a team. In reality, effective team membership is a complicated skill set (active listening, sharing confidently, tolerance) that requires training and practice to perfect. For many employees, serving as a team member can be a completely challenging and stressful experience -  especially without the advantage of adequate training.

Here are some common team concerns:

• I will end up doing the lion’s share of the work – Considering skill levels within a team is crucial, as an equitable distribution of tasks is highly important. One real concern, is that the strongest team members will end up working the hardest. Have the skill levels of those involved been carefully considered?
• The pace of the work is simply too slow – Dealing with a large group can be time-consuming. Overall the more people involved, the more time it will take to make progress as issues such as scheduling become a factor. Some begin to feel they would rather forgo the added trouble of the team and go solo – even with the largest of tasks.
• I won’t be a strong contributor – Being on a team can be stressful. Even highly skilled employees might avoid a team, if they fear they will be made to feel less competent. The entire process can be a jolt to the ego of team members if they are not properly prepared. Experiences such as having their ideas challenged in an open forum, can be difficult for some to process.

Paths to Mitigate the Inherent Weaknesses of a Team

J. Richard Hackman’s,  A Normative Model of Work Team Effectiveness (1983), highlights some of the basic elements that should be considered when forming a team. The specific skill levels of team members, size of the team, team autonomy and performance feedback, are all key to outcome attainment.

The Right Mix of Talent is Required

Haphazardly designed teams, which pop up in organizations today, often meet with failure because these components are not be considered carefully. As discussed recently in Forbes, you can actually do more harm than good (and even risk your top talent), if those assigned to a team are not the right mix to fuel progress. Choosing team members so the synergy of the group is maximized is critical. Assembling a group without adequate consideration as to member skills and personalities, is ill-advised.

Closely Monitor Team Growth

It is also necessary to keep a close eye on the growth of a team – as members tend to be added over time. This uncensored growth can be counter-productive.  For example, when innovation is a key goal of the team process, the group may need to be quite small. Above all, when teams grow too large, they can start to mirror the same problems in the larger organization, such as lack of progress and a failure to meet milestones.

Team Success Requires a Leader

The role of team leader has a very unique and critical function. A leader can bring together tasks and help the group gain perspective, as larger tasks are often broken down and assigned to various team members. As described by Dr. Steve Kozlowski, a leading researcher on teams at Michigan State University, “When you break up a task into discrete elements – such as assigning students to look at the specific decade in history, the synergy that occurs between the time periods can be lost. ” Leaders not only lend this perspective, but they also help modify team goals over time and offer feedback concerning task and goal attainment – essential components of the team process.

An effective team requires careful planning and adequate training for its members to reap the many benefits of the process. When contemplating a team approach, be sure to consider all of the elements that will contribute to success.

Dr. Marla Gottschalk is a Workplace Psychologist. You can find her on Twitter and Linkedin.