Choose your own adventure…
For our first prototype cohort, first assignment selection was, well like “being in the jungle”, as one participant described it. We wanted to provide both participants and host managers with a high level of autonomy so that they could make the best choice for them.
The Construct
For selecting their first assignments participants were given the following two choices:
Path 1: receive assignment opportunities submitted to the program for consideration that align with their functional gaps and meet with two-three possible managers before selecting their assignment.
Path 2: create an opportunity on their own that aligns with their functional gaps. NOTE: if this option was pursued the host still needed to speak with me before an assignment could be established.
Of our current 10 participants, two took path 2 and eight took path 1. For those in path 1, it was very interesting to see how the assignment selection happened in the end, as in many instances participants/host were considering multiple or the same options.
What Worked
In discussions following this process, participants and hosts expressed that they really liked the autonomy and the ability to consider multiple options before making a final decision.
In the end, all participants did land in assignments that are in new functional areas and are a subject matter/area of work that is of interest to them.
What Didn’t
We did not foresee how much time these discussions would take and how uncomfortable or challenging they could be.
Firstly, participants struggled to have their discussions in a timely manner. Host managers sometimes needed to reschedule, which caused delays in participants making their decisions, which at times was frustrating for hosts who were ready/wanted to move forward.
Secondly, we had instances where participants were interested in the same opportunity and it came down to the host. Or hosts who could not have their first or second picks because participants had accepted other opportunities. Or participants who couldn’t decide between multiple opportunities.
In addition, participants expressed a lack of consistency in how these conversations were approached by host managers. Some were very formal and involved multiple people, while others were informal and didn’t even take place in an office.
Needless to say, we learnt A LOT in this first round of matching.
Round Two
So what are we changing? For our next round of assignment selection, we will be taking a different approach for the host conversations.
Participants will have the opportunity to have two-three one-on-one 20–30 minute discussions with host managers during a ‘speed networking style’ event in late July/early August 2019 (pending availability of hosts).
Participants will be provided opportunities for consideration that align with their functional needs at the end of June/early July 2019. They will be asked to identify by mid-July which hosts they would like to meet with at the event.
If you are curious, second assignments begin the week of October 7.
Take Aways
One of the biggest takeaways for me from our first round of assignment matching, was that you can still provide autonomy to participants/managers while having structure.
I have noticed throughout my time in the Public Service, that there is sometimes this notion that structure takes away freedom of choice, creativity, etc. But what if structure can be an enabler and create a space that allows for greater freedom and better results?
I know we are going to continue to keep learning, but I am curious and excited to see how the tweaks in our assignment selection approach go for round two!
Who knew prototyping was so much fun? :)
