Hack:
Free Staffing - The Future of High Performing Teams

I love this idea – this is entirely the opposite from the old playground rules where the biggest kid, the captain, chooses the team, and you are hoping you don’t want to be picked last, or just even be the odd man out. However, as I was reading this I was more concerned about teamwork and collaboration, and low and behold, David comments about that! As you mentioned that in top sports clubs, they have specialists that perform their jobs that allow them to succeed at a greater level than other teams. However, there are many recent examples in professional sports (Lakers ’04, Heat ’11) where the successes through individual talents are outweighed by the opponents’ group effort, or the synergies between the group’s teamwork. I believe that teamwork is as big of an issue like David commented, and I think it shouldn’t be a secondary thought. In line with David’s comments, would “referrals” be a possible way that can be applied to free-staffing? This is one way to take into the factor of who people want to work with, however, I’m not sure how that might tie into this hack.

As I was reading, while it seems like this hack is based entirely on established employees within a company, I’m wondering if your team had thoughts about “free staffing” within the process of recruitment and hiring. Similarly, a company is looking to fill a need and are looking for specialists, however, instead of trying to hire one specialist that can fit into, for example, the programming team, why not hire an entire programming team based on the specialist’s recommendations . Obviously this would assume resources are available and the levels of experience are appropriate. Through my collegiate years, I have worked with teammates across various classes, some were good experiences, and some were not. However, naturally, as I went through more courses, my teammates remained the same because we liked each other, we specialized in different parts of the project, and we knew how to work with each other. From a management class that I took, I learned that the most effective way to see if a potential employee can complete the tasks is to have the employee try it out with the team. I believe this idea would eliminate that “risk”: in one sense, you don’t have to teach us how to work together.

I think this is a really good concept and if applied correctly can definitely would be revolutionary in our workplaces. Thank you for sharing.

Hi Stephen,

I really enjoyed your ideas and like Sairam, thought the Surgery Analogy was a great way to get your point across.

The idea of Free Staffing you discuss is very refreshing to me. I recently started a new job with large consulting firm where I only have partial say in determining the projects I work on and I agree that there would be benefits to allowing employees to form their own teams and make their own staffing decisions. I know you covered a number of different challenges associated with this idea but was wondering if there is also a concern that like-minded or similarly skilled employees would want to work on similar projects and thus be on the same team. Could we be confident the employees would be able to build teams that had people of different expertise(similar to the Invasive Surgery team)?

Thanks again for sharing your idea.

I completely agree with your comment that most teams in an organizational setting are comprised of similar people with similar skill sets. Your list of high performing teams that consistently deliver under immense pressure is an excellent analogy. In my experience I’ve found that meetings with my department (Marketing) it feels like there are many like-minded people that give, not surprisingly, similar solutions to problems. However, the majority of my work includes the involvement of cross functional teams that provide a diverse set of opinions and skill sets.

Do you feel like cross-functional teams meet the requirement of a high performing team? I believe these types of teams get us part of the way there, but we still need to incorporate your suggestion of letting employees choose which projects they work on. Another interesting part of your write-up is the idea of employees having a say in which manager they are assigned to. This would be an impactful change to the way teams operate and I’d venture to guess this would greatly improve productivity and employee morale.

Stephen points out very valid and valuable points, which I can wholeheartedly agree to.

When I consider my team, they all are specialists in their own way, come from totally different backgrounds and career paths, and as individuals are a G, a K, a Z, rather than 3X.
They get the same amount of 1:1 airtime with me per week, and of course ad hoc when there are burning issues or when a project has a peak time.

There is no competition in my team that I am aware of, and there is a willingness to help one another in case of bottle necks.

Rather than have a standard job profile per employee, I prefer to consider the team as a whole. What are the main jobs and tasks to get done, ie who are our clients? What skills and experiences does the team bring along?

For me it is essential to match tasks and skills. For one, people work best if they like what they do. And secondly, by rotating tasks and allocating projects in an open team discussion ensures continued individual development.

This creates a dynamic environment, open communication, respect and trust - prerequisites for individuals to perform as a team.

The examples in the High Performance teams "Fire Fighting Teams. Invasive Surgery Teams. Bomb Disposal Squads. NASA Space Mission Teams. SWAT Teams. You get the idea " - if you notice are in the execution phase of those endeavors.
Usually, the 10X teams that Mr. Remedios has mentioned, deal with planning/strategical phase of any endeavors.
It makes a lot of difference, what the team is expected to do/solve. If the problem has been solved and only execution is needed your example situations make sense and that is all is needed. Specialist you can trust.
Unfortunately, teams are needed not only for the execution of tasks. Teams are often assembled to deliberate, such as the US Congress. I am not saying 10X teams are the only solution; but that there are things to consider such as the phase/tasks involved for any team to determine how best they need to interact. What is needed is a process for the team members to be effective - a processes that is analytic and moves the discussions away from just the points-of-view (or perspective) to substantive conclusion by providing direction. Team composition be they specialists or generalists does not matter as much as the process of management. Successful team leading/building uses an unspoken yet very clear process to get the best out-of who ever is assembled.

I loved your surgery analogy Steve! The concept of having "like minded people" seems to be a template that many managers follow when forming teams. Somehow, there is a perception of ease in managing people if they are similar. What is lost however is the value that someone with a different perspective can bring.
Free staffing is a great concept, but I think there is one more challenge that needs to be looked at. While trust is a main consideration, equally important is the fear of business continuity. In a dynamic environment, there are bound to be contextual changes and with a free agent, the fear of losing someone at a critical juncture is very high. This insecurity that leads to managers clinging on to people and is a huge factor that will be a barrier to adoption.

I do not understand what you mean by the statement: "When you have 10 Xs in a meeting room even if half of them are women, chances are you will have the same solutions to the same problems every single time."Could you please elaborate? Thanks.
When you have 10 Xs in a meeting room even if half of them are women, chances are you will have the same soultions to the same problems every single time.

I really enjoyed your list and would add one more to it:

"Fire Fighting Teams. Invasive Surgery Teams. Bomb Disposal Squads. NASA Space Mission Teams. SWAT Teams. You get the idea. What's common about these teams?"

1. Each person on the team is a specialist or master in a very narrow area.

2. Each person trusts every other person on the team totally.

3. Each person feels safe and assured about their importance on the team.

and my addition would be

4. The work being done matters on a deep level.

Leaders and teams must understand 'why' they are committing their talents before they will engage fully. Particularly for the younger generation, understanding the deeper purpose for work will improve engagement beyond any incentives or flexible work structures. Great post!

Hi Stephen,
Another interesting trait of the high-performing teams you cite is that, in addition to being composed of experts, they have all been trained to work as a team. I think in most organizations, people focus on developing their own expertise, or if they are managers they learn to manage others. But I think it's less common to see explicit training in how to function as a collaborative group. That's something that organizations are going to have to increase their investment in.
- Dave