Group think can absolutely lead to more productivity – it’s far easier to get things done when a group gets along and works in a similar way. You may, however, find that the quality and originality of ideas decreases.

If you’re interested in Semco, pick up a copy of The Seven Day Weekend. It’s by Ricardo Semler and it’s his attempt to figure out what, exactly makes Semco so productive.

I’d be interested in your thoughts on how organizations can create more accountability in the workplace.

Funny you mention Semco. I hadn’t heard of them until just a month ago, and now they seem to keep coming up in conversation. I’m absolutely fascinated by their model!

When I left the Marines in 1968 and went into business, the dominant model for thinking about management was Professional Manager as Organizational Engineer. Planning had pride of place. That was followed by a shift to a computer-like model, with emphasis on process, but with planning still the dominant discipline. Now I think we’re moving more toward biological and anthropological models.

I’m coming from the anthropological side of that. If you have a workplace that’s “tribal” in the sense I’m using the term, several things would be different from the way things are in most places today.

Leaders would probably be selected from by the group, not by some power above the group. In addition to some general leadership, there would probably be task specific leadership for some work (hunting party). Hiring would probably be by the group. The group might divvy up bonus money for group performance rather than have assigned bonuses.

There are some companies already doing bit of this. In the US there is SW Airlines, Whole Foods, and WL Gore. In Brazil, Semco. I’m not sure where this will all go, but I intend to ask a gazillion more questions along the way.

Getting good leadership, management and supervision requires better selection, more focused training, and more intentional development than most companies are doing today. It also involves holding those we choose as bosses accountable for team results.

It may be that in the future we will develop workplaces that are more like tribal culture. Bosses may not be selected from above or selected to permanent positions.

The other observation is that what you describe as an outcome, increase in home based workers, I see as a driver of change. Supervising people that you can’t see directly requires different kinds of work than line-of-sight supervision. We’ll make the changes because the workers we supervise won’t be where we can see them.

Training professionals need to figure out how to calculate ROI. Not by smile sheets, but company results.

This is so key! The norm for many HR pros seems to be, “Did they enjoy it? Did they learn something?” Those are both important, but if that’s all you measure, you’re missing the point of training. It needs to:

1. Actually change behavior, and
2. Change behavior in a way that delivers results.

Well said!

Does that mean that the future of perks and benefits might become cafeteria-style? As an employee, I could pick the things that are of value to me. If so, this could really change the way we think and design rewards.

How cool would that be? You get a bank of benefits money, a list of possible benefits and perks, a “cost” for each. “Buy” what you want. I’d love to see that in action!

The real question is – what does flexibility look like?

YES!! I think the answer might be, “As flexible as you can be and still get the work done.” Obviously, that looks very different for a hospital worker than it does for a computer programmer.

Why Boomers Can’t Quit

I have nothing to add – you nailed this!

The future of work is not about ‘where’ you work but ‘how’ you work. It’s about productivity.

Maybe people wouldn’t get off the ladder if more organizations adopted this attitude.

Sharlyn, thanks again. This was an awesome post!