|
Role Design is one of the things
you might not expect in FLOW, but since each of us has
particular identities, which are like a program of assumptions
and beliefs that switch in and out with what we perceive to be
success requirements in a role, these identities all link back
as in network effects like a power node, to the larger nodes
that link to everything.
Happiness FLOWS to and from our
roles, throught these multiple identities, such as mother,
father, employee, manager, etc. as they are matched to
success requirements.
Roles are almost always driven by
success requirements, rather than Happiness.
This presents significant design,
scaffolding and support opportunities.
Remember, our happiness has evolved
as combinatorial set of virtue points. These virtue points, if
not maintained within a particular range, which is mostly
programmed into us, rather than constructed, as is our means,
we have to be careful that we take into consideration, our
happiness portfolio as we choose roles, or allow them to
choose us and the manner in which we match up, and work with
the tensions in those spaces.
As a person having multiple
identiies/roles, we may be piling up a lot of success
requirements, depending on how much energy we have and how
many virtue points are required to keep us happy, this
includes also those parts of our happiness portfolio which
seem to have negative consequences as well.
So, just a warning, or perhaps a
shot across the bow... Be careful what you wish for, as it will
endanger your happiness in many ways.
Simplifying based on happiness
reduces consumption, because we serve fewer masters and seek
compounding and leverage in our behavior-->where a single
action, also has connections to many nodes in our networks of
happiness and success requirements. If we can, and more so, if
we reach out, often we can find ultra simple ways to solve
very complex problems, even as what I'm
suggesting-->prevention, not solving problems that don't
matter.
Ok, back to Role Design.
As stated, role design is made up
of success requirements. Often we see roles as having an
Integrated Strategic Intention System (ISIS). In other words,
the strategy has a tactical set of components which are
intended because we believe those are the things that will
meet or exceed the work, or behaviors required in the role.
It's probably necessary to write a
book on role design, but for now, let's make it a TPOV.
Because we already have a design
that emerges based on assumptions and beliefs which emerge
from trial and error experience for the most part, we have to
be careful with roles, or we get roles that are skewed not to
success, but our happiness, which means we can't meet the
success requirements naturally.
Example:
If I have a role as a managerial
leader, and I perform this role according to what I want and
need to do from the viewpoint of happiness, I may be
ill-suited to this role (as most of us are to most of our
roles), which means automatically I sub-optimize the role. Say
my role success requires me to work with people a lot,
especially let's say, if we are implementing FLOW Primes as a
part of the system, and I am low social contact? I will need
to have less contact with those people, than they need, and
the success of the role as a managerial leader will not be
successful enough, most of the time to reach FLOW.
While this is a simple example, it
brings home the point that most roles, not designed in FLOW,
will not emerge FLOW easily and therefore we have to be
careful in my view, with role design by defaul, and role
design on purpose. MOST roles are designed by default. Leaders
feel that by making the roles clear, the success requirements
clear, that they have done their job as long as they coach and
train along the way. Yet, this is a mostly BS approach,
because we know that no matter how well we've done in
alignment and matching, that scaffolding has to be a part of
the role design, not just making resources available, but the
actual scaffolding and support being an integral part of the
role design.
How might this look in the example
above?
Since low social contact is a need,
what the managerial leader might do is to find someone to
extend their social contact to make sure that particular parts
of the scaffolding remain in place and at least the person has
a contact with which to be an advocate. Sure this isn't always
possible because we don't want to create surrogate management,
however, design can produce many ways around what is a need
for happiness that has negative consequences in particular for
a particular set of conditions, as is mostly the case.
This lends itself to scaffolding
the person in the role, rather than changing the person, or
trying to get them to feel motivated to do things that are not
going to make them happy and ultimately sap energy available.
|
