A crucial factor is whether the manager is in a position to discern individual contributions to team production. Sometimes it's this way, sometimes it's not.
For example, more often than not, college professors are not in a position to monitor individual contributions to team projects outside the classroom (take-home projects). Team production at a residential campus is complicated by the fact that various students differ in social status outside the classroom in ways that may unduly shape team dynamics. A potential remedy is to have students confidentially grade one another on their respective contributions. I'm not convinced.
By contrast, I suppose, in many settings in the firm, a manager interacts rather closely and continuously with teams, and might fairly discern and assess individual contributions to team production.
“…which will be measured by ___.” From my corporate experience, teamwork was measured and incentivized in performance reviews. Knowing that part of your evaluation was based on your interactions and helpfulness with others on your team did help drive desired behaviors (not always!). Even more important, however, as you point out, is hiring the right people. Part of the interview process was behavior oriented, asking questions such as, “Tell us about a time when you worked with a teammate that was difficult to get along with”, or “Describe the best team you ever worked as a part of, and how you contributed.” While not foolproof, these types of open-ended questions often were revealing about the candidates’ attitudes and experiences with others in working environments. Interviewer skills and diligence in follow-up discussion are also key.
I would not advocate skipping them. I haven't studied any research (yet), but can report that interviews make a difference in quality of new hires contingent on: pre-screening, trained/skilled interview team consisting of HR and hiring mgr, structured interview (built around job level/type), and post-interview debrief by interviewing team for next step. Most firms do not invest enough time, training or planning in their hiring process and they reap what they sow.
I wrote diagnostics for a new computer board, VMEbus, and it was only a couple of weeks because most carried over from previous projects. The hardware engineer did 90% of the work and did a fantastic job. The rest of us (3? 4?) worked mostly on other projects. During the next monthly employee meeting (about 120 employees), the President (an idiot) began talking about the employee of the month award, and we all knew the hardware engineer was going to get it, and deserved it. I suddenly realized the president was changing the award to a team award, but I was about two seconds too late heading for the door, and we all had to go up and get our awards. Really pissed me off, since we were just riding the engineer's coattails and he really had earned it. He didn't mind sharing and it was only a plaque, no money, no prime parking spot, nothing, but it diluted what he'd done, and like I said, the president was an idiot. My memory is we took the engineer to lunch.
Sometimes TEAM is spelled with a single capital letter. Here's to you, Jeff, wherever you are right now.
In the concluding section of his essay, Crawford writes:
“Tocqueville also saw a remedy for this evil, however: the small commercial enterprise, in which Americans reason together to solve some practical problem among themselves. I believe this remedy remains valid, especially if the enterprise provides a good or service with objective standards, as these may serve as the basis for social relations within the enterprise that are nonmanipulative in character.
One way of getting at this possibility is to ask: How is being part of a crew different than being part of a ‘team’ in the new mode of office work?”
This seems like a useful question. However, Crawford focuses on crews being “open about differences of rank, and there are clear standards” and having responsibility for completing a meaningful unit of work, but does not directly address the notion of individual autonomy which might seem to more directly influence the individual’s decisions about cooperation and effort.
Management journals have recognized the power of personal autonomy as contributing to productivity. Netflix is perhaps the most cited example:
“As an example of autonomy in action, Netflix employees operate in an environment of ‘no rules,’ characterized by a high degree of employee freedom and responsibility. In terms of freedom, employees make strategic decisions ‘in Netflix’s best interests’ without managerial oversight, do not need to seek pre-approvals for reimbursements, and can take unlimited vacation, which is not tracked. The culture of no rules is sustained through high levels of responsibility, in which all employees are charged with ‘question[ing] actions [of others] inconsistent with our values.’ A culture of freedom and responsibility not only allows employees to pursue ideas they find enjoyable and fun — increasing intrinsic motivation — but is also viewed as essential to Netflix’s ability to continue to innovate as the organization grows in size.”
But individual autonomy in group decision making has been a topic of study for much longer. Crawford cites Tocqueville, but I am much reminded as well of chapter 5 of Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid. Kropotkin cites as an example, a management ritual and crew building exercise perfomed aboard Hanseatic league vessels:
“When a ship of the Hansa had accomplished her first half-day passage after having left the
port, the captain (Schiffer) gathered all crew and passengers on thedeck, and held the following language, as reported by a contemporary:—
‘As we are now at the mercy of God and the waves,' he said, 'each one
must be equal to each other. And as we are surrounded by storms, high
waves, pirates and other dangers, we must keep a strict order that we
may bring our voyage to a good end. That is why we shall pronounce the
prayer for a good wind and good success, and, according to marine law,
we shall name the occupiers of the judges' seats (Schoffenstellen).'
Thereupon the crew elected a Vogt and four scabini, to act as their
judges. At the end of the voyage the Vogt and the scabini abdicated
their functions and addressed the crew as follows:—'What has happened on board ship, we
must pardon to each other and consider as dead (todtund ab sein lassen). What we have judged right, was for the sake of justice. This is why we beg you all, in the name of honest justice, to
forget all the animosity one may nourish against another, and to swear on bread and salt that he will not think of it in a bad spirit. If any one, however, considers himself wronged, he must appeal to the land Vogt and ask justice from him before sunset.' On landing, the Stock with the fredfines was handed over to the Vogt of the sea-port for distribution among the poor."”
Where control and top down hierarchy was necessary for operations, autonomy could still strengthen the effectiveness of the crew and give it qualities to which Taylorism could not aspire. As Kropotkin wrote “Self-jurisdiction was the essential point, and self-jurisdiction meant self-administration.” Chapter 6 of Mutual Aid by the way addresses the master-apprentice relationship in depth. Humans are social beings in ways that might defy conventional mathematical rationality.
It's very true that "the more that management can do to ensure that it is in the interest of employees to contribute to group work, the better an organization will function."
Nevertheless, the Arnold example of grading team work in school is far different than in an actual team in business. It's sad he didn't expound on his frequently mentioned work at the Fed or Freddie Mac, especially as a manager.
Company owners want maximum work results with minimum pay -- workers want max pay with min effort. This is always true, even when the workers love the work and are willing to work longer hours for the same pay, "just to do a good job." The team needs to feel that all in the team are working with reasonable effort.
There is a huge difference between a team doing "known" work, like call centers or marketing or status reports, and any project development team where something new is being developed. Few business teams are really developing such new things. When workers know what job they're supposed to do, and managers know, as well as knowing that workers know, the are of management is to get the most output of good-enough quality from each worker, but keep turnover down. Once a worker is hired, the pay is set until the next review (usually a year).
Lots of good stuff in the Bulls**t jobs post. "Work is necessarily toilsome and serves someone else’s interest. That’s why you get paid." As said above -- they pay you to produce stuff to be sold (by those paid to sell). And managers manage production teams, and sales teams, and accounting & data & reporting teams & call center customer support teams (many big companies have Slovak call centers for European support). But then the team becomes the almost interchangeable co-workers doing similar work, tho without much task interaction.
The actual tasks of workers are a key thing managers decide about-who does what, when, at what quality level. The biggest job a manager has is to let workers know they're being watched, and evaluated, tho also usually supported, plus the worker has somebody to whom they ask questions about new or very complex situations.
The monitoring of tasks is a bit different than an also description of the CYA actions of managers.
"Given the moral maze inhabited by managers, we can understand why those higher in the hierarchy must absent themselves from the details of the production process: such abstraction facilitates nonaccountability."
It's not a big wonder that managers make more money -- they don't get so much of the "job well done" feelings that a worker doing a good job has. But helping workers as people is part of the job.
The biggest mistake of my life was ever thinking I wanted a management position at a corporate firm. Took me 15 years and several very painful experiences to be cured of that delusuon.
In good times, anyone can be a manager. I applaud those persons who, in difficult situations, handle management responsibilities well. I've known a few who truly had grace under pressure - who demonstrated integrity even when it came with a cost - and I will always remember them in a good way for that.
Pace Crawford's excellent essay, team building has its times and places. There are many instances where managers, fresh from B-school, have the notion that building teams is THE goal.
It's not the goal. It's a step towards a greater goal. Lose sight of that greater goal, and you make an ass out of yourself.
It should be obvious that some things are hard to measure. Similarly, the measurement can negatively distort what gets done. Working in teams is but one of many ways that job performance measurement can be difficult but I'm glad to see you have touched on this difficulty with your mantra.
At Challenger School where my children used to attend, students with the best comportment and academic performance were given money at the end of the year, in the form of scholarships. These might be worth $500-$1000. Parents that knew and cared about these scholarships may have worked to inculcate better behavior in their children. This is similar to rewarding cooperation in the workplace.
At Thales Academy where my kids attend now, they are given green points and red points depending on their behavior. After accumulating enough green points they are rewarded with privileges and rewards depending on the number of green points they have earned. They can choose to save up for a big privilege by carrying over their green points from week to week or they can spend them each week. There’s no guarantee of getting any green points in a given week. It all depends on a student’s behavior. Red points are the opposite of green points. Eventually enough red points will get you kicked out of the school, but there are usually some steps/warnings before this happens. Associated with red points are certain punishments and disciplinary actions.
In my own home, I fine my children $1 if they violate certain well-known rules, like not putting away their lunch box when they get home from school or skipping out early from dinner clean-up. I find that this system of fines works much better than me raising my voice. A $1 fine isn’t forceful enough that they have to follow the rules. They have a choice. They can accept the $1 fine and not follow the rule. It’s up to them. They have agency.
I learned about the $1 fine method of behavior management from Roland Fryer on Econtalk. I would suggest that Thales currently uses a similar idea in their points system. Challenger School’s method of behavior management is a bit more sophisticated, appealing more toward prestige and honor, than carrots and sticks.
Are such ideas being implemented in public schools? Have they been tried?
For long-term personal growth a carrot and reward system like this shouldn’t be the only motivator. There should also be a conversation about character, respect, cooperation, teamwork and other virtues.
These ideas seem to be missing within certain universities. Or am I missing something? It seems to me that the purpose of school is learning. In order to be productive in school, there must be respect for the teacher to teach and the learner to learn. Can or should a university use a sophisticated carrot-and-point system like Arnold is suggesting that rewards virtuous behavior? FIRE, the free-speech focused organization is doing good work to promote learning in higher education but the extent of their efforts is largely limited to free speech. I find the scope of such free speech work rather narrow and limiting.
I think we need another organization that does same and much more that what FIRE does: promotes free speech, good character, cooperation, and respectful dialogue. And this organization doesn’t need to be limited to higher education. It can and should rate primary, secondary, and post secondary schools; non-profit, for-profit, private, public, governmental organizations of all types. It can also rate and rank discourse in certain courses, Substack sites, talk shows, podcasts, etc. Think of such organization as a Consumer Reports that ranks other organizations, classes, schools on their virtues, both internal work environments, learning environments, external actions, stated policies, communication, etc.
Can we use these ideas within our local communities and HOAs to promote cooperation and build better communities?
My reading of Albion’s Seed tells me that the Puritans used such methods somewhat effectively. Of course they went overboard in some areas, but in others I think we could benefit. Some of their methods might bring about tighter knit communities and better organizations.
A crucial factor is whether the manager is in a position to discern individual contributions to team production. Sometimes it's this way, sometimes it's not.
For example, more often than not, college professors are not in a position to monitor individual contributions to team projects outside the classroom (take-home projects). Team production at a residential campus is complicated by the fact that various students differ in social status outside the classroom in ways that may unduly shape team dynamics. A potential remedy is to have students confidentially grade one another on their respective contributions. I'm not convinced.
By contrast, I suppose, in many settings in the firm, a manager interacts rather closely and continuously with teams, and might fairly discern and assess individual contributions to team production.
You can't manage what you need to micromanage.
“…which will be measured by ___.” From my corporate experience, teamwork was measured and incentivized in performance reviews. Knowing that part of your evaluation was based on your interactions and helpfulness with others on your team did help drive desired behaviors (not always!). Even more important, however, as you point out, is hiring the right people. Part of the interview process was behavior oriented, asking questions such as, “Tell us about a time when you worked with a teammate that was difficult to get along with”, or “Describe the best team you ever worked as a part of, and how you contributed.” While not foolproof, these types of open-ended questions often were revealing about the candidates’ attitudes and experiences with others in working environments. Interviewer skills and diligence in follow-up discussion are also key.
My labor-economist friend tells me that, apart from clear misfits, performance in job interviews scarcely predicts subsequent job performance.
Multiple studies have concluded the in-person interview does little or nothing to improve selection.
I would not advocate skipping them. I haven't studied any research (yet), but can report that interviews make a difference in quality of new hires contingent on: pre-screening, trained/skilled interview team consisting of HR and hiring mgr, structured interview (built around job level/type), and post-interview debrief by interviewing team for next step. Most firms do not invest enough time, training or planning in their hiring process and they reap what they sow.
I wrote diagnostics for a new computer board, VMEbus, and it was only a couple of weeks because most carried over from previous projects. The hardware engineer did 90% of the work and did a fantastic job. The rest of us (3? 4?) worked mostly on other projects. During the next monthly employee meeting (about 120 employees), the President (an idiot) began talking about the employee of the month award, and we all knew the hardware engineer was going to get it, and deserved it. I suddenly realized the president was changing the award to a team award, but I was about two seconds too late heading for the door, and we all had to go up and get our awards. Really pissed me off, since we were just riding the engineer's coattails and he really had earned it. He didn't mind sharing and it was only a plaque, no money, no prime parking spot, nothing, but it diluted what he'd done, and like I said, the president was an idiot. My memory is we took the engineer to lunch.
Sometimes TEAM is spelled with a single capital letter. Here's to you, Jeff, wherever you are right now.
In the concluding section of his essay, Crawford writes:
“Tocqueville also saw a remedy for this evil, however: the small commercial enterprise, in which Americans reason together to solve some practical problem among themselves. I believe this remedy remains valid, especially if the enterprise provides a good or service with objective standards, as these may serve as the basis for social relations within the enterprise that are nonmanipulative in character.
One way of getting at this possibility is to ask: How is being part of a crew different than being part of a ‘team’ in the new mode of office work?”
This seems like a useful question. However, Crawford focuses on crews being “open about differences of rank, and there are clear standards” and having responsibility for completing a meaningful unit of work, but does not directly address the notion of individual autonomy which might seem to more directly influence the individual’s decisions about cooperation and effort.
Management journals have recognized the power of personal autonomy as contributing to productivity. Netflix is perhaps the most cited example:
“As an example of autonomy in action, Netflix employees operate in an environment of ‘no rules,’ characterized by a high degree of employee freedom and responsibility. In terms of freedom, employees make strategic decisions ‘in Netflix’s best interests’ without managerial oversight, do not need to seek pre-approvals for reimbursements, and can take unlimited vacation, which is not tracked. The culture of no rules is sustained through high levels of responsibility, in which all employees are charged with ‘question[ing] actions [of others] inconsistent with our values.’ A culture of freedom and responsibility not only allows employees to pursue ideas they find enjoyable and fun — increasing intrinsic motivation — but is also viewed as essential to Netflix’s ability to continue to innovate as the organization grows in size.”
(https://hbr.org/2021/10/how-companies-can-improve-employee-engagement-right-now )
But individual autonomy in group decision making has been a topic of study for much longer. Crawford cites Tocqueville, but I am much reminded as well of chapter 5 of Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid. Kropotkin cites as an example, a management ritual and crew building exercise perfomed aboard Hanseatic league vessels:
“When a ship of the Hansa had accomplished her first half-day passage after having left the
port, the captain (Schiffer) gathered all crew and passengers on thedeck, and held the following language, as reported by a contemporary:—
‘As we are now at the mercy of God and the waves,' he said, 'each one
must be equal to each other. And as we are surrounded by storms, high
waves, pirates and other dangers, we must keep a strict order that we
may bring our voyage to a good end. That is why we shall pronounce the
prayer for a good wind and good success, and, according to marine law,
we shall name the occupiers of the judges' seats (Schoffenstellen).'
Thereupon the crew elected a Vogt and four scabini, to act as their
judges. At the end of the voyage the Vogt and the scabini abdicated
their functions and addressed the crew as follows:—'What has happened on board ship, we
must pardon to each other and consider as dead (todtund ab sein lassen). What we have judged right, was for the sake of justice. This is why we beg you all, in the name of honest justice, to
forget all the animosity one may nourish against another, and to swear on bread and salt that he will not think of it in a bad spirit. If any one, however, considers himself wronged, he must appeal to the land Vogt and ask justice from him before sunset.' On landing, the Stock with the fredfines was handed over to the Vogt of the sea-port for distribution among the poor."”
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4341/pg4341-images.html )
Where control and top down hierarchy was necessary for operations, autonomy could still strengthen the effectiveness of the crew and give it qualities to which Taylorism could not aspire. As Kropotkin wrote “Self-jurisdiction was the essential point, and self-jurisdiction meant self-administration.” Chapter 6 of Mutual Aid by the way addresses the master-apprentice relationship in depth. Humans are social beings in ways that might defy conventional mathematical rationality.
It's very true that "the more that management can do to ensure that it is in the interest of employees to contribute to group work, the better an organization will function."
Nevertheless, the Arnold example of grading team work in school is far different than in an actual team in business. It's sad he didn't expound on his frequently mentioned work at the Fed or Freddie Mac, especially as a manager.
Company owners want maximum work results with minimum pay -- workers want max pay with min effort. This is always true, even when the workers love the work and are willing to work longer hours for the same pay, "just to do a good job." The team needs to feel that all in the team are working with reasonable effort.
There is a huge difference between a team doing "known" work, like call centers or marketing or status reports, and any project development team where something new is being developed. Few business teams are really developing such new things. When workers know what job they're supposed to do, and managers know, as well as knowing that workers know, the are of management is to get the most output of good-enough quality from each worker, but keep turnover down. Once a worker is hired, the pay is set until the next review (usually a year).
Lots of good stuff in the Bulls**t jobs post. "Work is necessarily toilsome and serves someone else’s interest. That’s why you get paid." As said above -- they pay you to produce stuff to be sold (by those paid to sell). And managers manage production teams, and sales teams, and accounting & data & reporting teams & call center customer support teams (many big companies have Slovak call centers for European support). But then the team becomes the almost interchangeable co-workers doing similar work, tho without much task interaction.
The actual tasks of workers are a key thing managers decide about-who does what, when, at what quality level. The biggest job a manager has is to let workers know they're being watched, and evaluated, tho also usually supported, plus the worker has somebody to whom they ask questions about new or very complex situations.
The monitoring of tasks is a bit different than an also description of the CYA actions of managers.
"Given the moral maze inhabited by managers, we can understand why those higher in the hierarchy must absent themselves from the details of the production process: such abstraction facilitates nonaccountability."
It's not a big wonder that managers make more money -- they don't get so much of the "job well done" feelings that a worker doing a good job has. But helping workers as people is part of the job.
The biggest mistake of my life was ever thinking I wanted a management position at a corporate firm. Took me 15 years and several very painful experiences to be cured of that delusuon.
In good times, anyone can be a manager. I applaud those persons who, in difficult situations, handle management responsibilities well. I've known a few who truly had grace under pressure - who demonstrated integrity even when it came with a cost - and I will always remember them in a good way for that.
Pace Crawford's excellent essay, team building has its times and places. There are many instances where managers, fresh from B-school, have the notion that building teams is THE goal.
It's not the goal. It's a step towards a greater goal. Lose sight of that greater goal, and you make an ass out of yourself.
It's really pretty awful to grade students on anything of the demonstrated performance.
It should be obvious that some things are hard to measure. Similarly, the measurement can negatively distort what gets done. Working in teams is but one of many ways that job performance measurement can be difficult but I'm glad to see you have touched on this difficulty with your mantra.
At Challenger School where my children used to attend, students with the best comportment and academic performance were given money at the end of the year, in the form of scholarships. These might be worth $500-$1000. Parents that knew and cared about these scholarships may have worked to inculcate better behavior in their children. This is similar to rewarding cooperation in the workplace.
At Thales Academy where my kids attend now, they are given green points and red points depending on their behavior. After accumulating enough green points they are rewarded with privileges and rewards depending on the number of green points they have earned. They can choose to save up for a big privilege by carrying over their green points from week to week or they can spend them each week. There’s no guarantee of getting any green points in a given week. It all depends on a student’s behavior. Red points are the opposite of green points. Eventually enough red points will get you kicked out of the school, but there are usually some steps/warnings before this happens. Associated with red points are certain punishments and disciplinary actions.
In my own home, I fine my children $1 if they violate certain well-known rules, like not putting away their lunch box when they get home from school or skipping out early from dinner clean-up. I find that this system of fines works much better than me raising my voice. A $1 fine isn’t forceful enough that they have to follow the rules. They have a choice. They can accept the $1 fine and not follow the rule. It’s up to them. They have agency.
I learned about the $1 fine method of behavior management from Roland Fryer on Econtalk. I would suggest that Thales currently uses a similar idea in their points system. Challenger School’s method of behavior management is a bit more sophisticated, appealing more toward prestige and honor, than carrots and sticks.
Are such ideas being implemented in public schools? Have they been tried?
For long-term personal growth a carrot and reward system like this shouldn’t be the only motivator. There should also be a conversation about character, respect, cooperation, teamwork and other virtues.
These ideas seem to be missing within certain universities. Or am I missing something? It seems to me that the purpose of school is learning. In order to be productive in school, there must be respect for the teacher to teach and the learner to learn. Can or should a university use a sophisticated carrot-and-point system like Arnold is suggesting that rewards virtuous behavior? FIRE, the free-speech focused organization is doing good work to promote learning in higher education but the extent of their efforts is largely limited to free speech. I find the scope of such free speech work rather narrow and limiting.
I think we need another organization that does same and much more that what FIRE does: promotes free speech, good character, cooperation, and respectful dialogue. And this organization doesn’t need to be limited to higher education. It can and should rate primary, secondary, and post secondary schools; non-profit, for-profit, private, public, governmental organizations of all types. It can also rate and rank discourse in certain courses, Substack sites, talk shows, podcasts, etc. Think of such organization as a Consumer Reports that ranks other organizations, classes, schools on their virtues, both internal work environments, learning environments, external actions, stated policies, communication, etc.
Can we use these ideas within our local communities and HOAs to promote cooperation and build better communities?
My reading of Albion’s Seed tells me that the Puritans used such methods somewhat effectively. Of course they went overboard in some areas, but in others I think we could benefit. Some of their methods might bring about tighter knit communities and better organizations.