The Good Kind of Stretch
I’ve danced all my life. One of the few recommendations that has remained consistent over the years is the idea of the ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ stretch. We all know the good kind of stretch. We are able to distinguish that stretching tingle from ‘pain,’ though it is on a continuum. It is very clear when that stretch moves into ‘bad’ territory, on the verge of injury.
This week was prototyping week in the Practical Self-Management Intensive, and I’ve been thinking about starting small. Frederic Laloux in his video series shared a few great examples of companies starting small in the self-management realm:
· Small Pebbles Committee: the Belgian Ministry of Transport’s committee dedicated to addressing small, fixable organizational issues within one week
· Open meetings: anyone can join any meeting
· Hiring: staff decide on their future manager (rather than the ‘boss’ making the decision)
These examples are low(er) risk ways to stretch an organization, to prepare the ground for deeper self-management transformation. By embodying fundamental self-management principles (e.g., transparency, autonomy, etc.), they build confidence and unleash energy blocked by traditional organizational structures and processes.
These ‘prototypes’ struck a chord, as I have been wondering recently about the tipping point when self-management practices are introduced too early — when organizations, like bodies rejecting an organ transplant, cannot absorb and perhaps even actively reject the practice. Are there certain practices which naturally ‘fit’ into a later stage of the self-management journey? Are there certain practices which require more mature communication, deeper self-awareness, more robust trust, or even more complex understanding of the very idea of self-management?
I have been grappling with this idea in the context of a current client, a mission-driven organization with whom I have been consulting for the past year. While the organization has a fairly traditional hierarchy, team members are naturally collaborative. Each individual is highly capable and feels valued for their unique skill sets and expertise. The organization tends towards autonomy in its discrete work areas and collaborative decision-making around macro-organizational issues, but has not yet been exposed to self-management thinking or practice. Recently an opportunity arose for the leader of the organization to go through a performance evaluation, and sought advice for what this might look like, tending towards wanting some type of 360 degree appraisal (this team is far from the point where it would do away with performance appraisals all together).
In reflecting on the leader’s request, three things come to mind:
1. Shared ownership: Is this an opportunity for the team to co-design how they would like their performance assessed? If so, to what degree would the team even have energy for curating an appraisal process like this?
2. Knowledge: How much ‘knowledge’ would be beneficial for the team to have on alternatives to traditional performance appraisals? If the team is not steeped in alternative ways of working, what is my responsibility as a consultant to share that knowledge with them? Where does that outside ‘knowledge’ detract from the natural creativity of the team?
3. Building the muscle of feedback: To what degree should the team already have robust feedback practices before it seeks to revamp its performance appraisal system? Performance appraisals in self-managed systems have at their heart a healthy ongoing feedback process. If staff are not practiced or comfortable with offering peer feedback (and not just manager-to-subordinate, bilateral feedback), then an annual review with the colours and textures of self-management (e.g., transparency, group feedback, etc.) might be rejected and fray the trust that already exists within the organization.
There are indeed practices that are not safe-to-try at early stages of organizations’ self-management journeys. At best, the practices might just not ‘work’ (remember the too-many-to-count failed corporate innovation efforts?). At worst, a rash intervention can do real harm to both individual mental health and organizational viability.
While my client is likely not ready for a complete transformation of performance appraisals typical in self-managed systems, there might be low risk experiments that it could embark on to stretch the organizational system. Some ideas:
· Modeling: The leader could decide to share the results of their appraisal process/results with the rest of the staff, thus embodying authenticity, transparency, and openness to growth and learning.
· Learning: The team could embark on shared learning of alternative ways of holding each other accountable/supporting each other’s growth.
· Building the feedback muscle: The team could opt to try out a peer model of quarterly feedback, where they each have a partner tasked with supporting their growth.
There is no stage-by-stage playbook for how to build self-management practices within an organization. And yet I do wonder about examples — and maybe the possibility of a taxonomy — of self-management experiments that went too far and extended an organization beyond its readiness. As organizations embark on self-management journeys, there seems to me an optimal stretch zone in the prototyping process. A fragile balance of stretch beyond a comfort zone, the unleashing of a new energy, but not so far that the stretch disrupts the elemental tissues that hold the organization together.
Part 4 of a series of reflections during my participation in the Practical Self-Management Intensive with Better Work Together.
