On headline alone, I anticipate some will reach for the pitchfork. That is inevitable when questioning a status quo that benefits some more than others.
But I want to stress my north star, the genesis of these thoughts, is an interrogation of what makes work joyous and super-productive. I share this thought of decoupling status & pay from hierarchy because the norm of lazily relying on the structure of the organisation to define who gets paid more, creates epic junk for systems of work.
This is a build on my last post about managers being relieved of the burden to assure performance of other individuals, and instead, to serve as guides. I am continuing to ask, 'how does the default set-up of a manager role help or hinder the creation of joyous and productive work?'
Zero-sum madness
Two generalisations of note here about the manager role:
It is seen as more important and it is paid more than the individual contributors in a team, and;
There is only one per team.
Combined, these two things say to everyone, “It doesn’t matter if you are elite at your craft, or how effective you are, or how productive you are: there is a ceiling on your status and pay unless you beat everyone else to win that one manager job. Or you could just leave.”
This creates some epic junk for your system of work:
You have undermined collaboration through a zero-sum promotion competition; for me to win, everyone else has to lose // aka, why is Mitch always white-anting our work?
You have undermined role fit; regardless of what I want to do or am good at doing, the manager role requires me to do all the manager tasks // aka, Jian is useless at coaching, I can tell she hates it too
You have created frustration for individual contributors that requires manager massaging through narrative and negotiating exceptions to rigid rules // aka, Anthony is asking about his pay again
An insight from the trades
So what might it look like if we could acknowledge and reward all value-adding craftspeople - non-managers and managers alike - with status and pay without using the zero-sum hierarchy that makes that impossible, and creates all that other junk?
Consider the mastery model, already popular in trades where in contrast to modern knowledge work, the sheer inescapability of executing craft means there is constant downward pressure on time spent managing.
A mastery model sets standards for different crafts with appropriate bars to pass in order to be conferred a title that brings status and pay with it. Passing a bar often involves technical tests, proven outcomes delivered, and peer reviews.
For example, in plumbing you start as an Apprentice, progress to Journeyman, and finally Master. At the US restaurant chain, Waffle House 🧇, if you work on the grill you start as a Grill Operator, progress to Master, and finally the slightly-aged but still-delightful title of Elvis of the Grill.
With a mastery model, to be acknowledged and rewarded for your growth and impact, you don’t have to wait for your manager to vacate a seat, or be forced to leave for a competitor. In a mastery model, it is a wonderful thing for a Waffle House to have two or three or five Elvis’ of the Grill.
What might a mastery model look like for your marketing, finance team, product, or customer support team? It is not theoretical, but happening in knowledge organisations across the world, like HR-platform Gusto, which has up to eight levels of mastery for different crafts.
Management craft is not inherently more valuable than all others
Now here is the bit that might make you most uncomfortable, or excited, depending on your starting point: a mastery model reduces the gap in status and pay between a manager and individual contributors.
But I ask, why is that controversial? Both individual contributors and managers do valuable and important things. The mastery model means you are longer lazily relying on the structure of the organisation to define who gets paid more. When who you report to no longer defines your pay, is there a good reason that doing management stuff should always mean more pay than those who do not? Is the management craft inherently worth more?
I would argue, no.
These couple of changes I have shared - a mastery model and managers as guides - can improve your system of work significantly. It is a system where people have agency over their work and an incentive to execute with excellence. Even better, that incentive is not at the cost of others, which encourages rather than undermines collaboration. Managers, no longer burdened by the need to assure the outcomes of others, are free to focus and grow their management craft: guiding, coaching, and improving the system of work.
For some, this will feel like too much change, a step too close to revolution. But if this did not make you uncomfortable, stay tuned, because I’ve gone one more level to push this - watch out for the next video.
—John
What we do
At Joyous Work, we provide support to help you uncover the underlying currents in your organisation—what drives or detracts from a joyous work experience and effective outcomes. We work with you to design and implement high-impact changes that foster both. Visit joyouswork.com or reach out to john@joyouswork.com.
Share this post