Do Work that Matters
I was recently asked about why I’m working on Work Literacy. My response is always that I want to do work that matters. And, I strongly, passionately believe that working on this matters. And people and companies who do this work and who get it, will be able to take advantage. People and companies who don’t will be struggling and left behind.
Part of the explanation can be found through an article by Andrew McAfee - Technology Beats a Full House. He points to the decrease in variation in batting averages over the years. He points out that the last time anyone hit over .400 in baseball was Ted Williams in 1941. No one has been over .400 for an entire season since. Yet there were several of them prior to Ted Williams and even seven of them in the 1920s.
The theory is that as a system becomes optimized, variation in performance decreases. Thus, if you look at batting averages over many years, the variation in averages has become smaller and smaller.
He then shows that the spreads in profit and market cap in high IT vs. low IT companies has greater variation over the past decade with the greater variability in IT systems.
His conclusion is that with greater variability:
… winners were increasingly separated from losers.
Today, I believe that there is something similar thing going on in knowledge worker performance. Systems were relatively more stagnant a few years ago and thus education and ad hoc learning of knowledge work skills was sufficient to achieve relatively more consistent performance. However, with greater volatility of technology, access to information, access to people, all of the things we talk about here at Work Literacy - my belief is that:
Today, there is significantly greater variability in performance between knowledge workers.
This is certainly something we’ve been discussing here. In Value from Social Media we point to a specific performance finding particular kinds of information through alternative sources:
Who’s going to produce better at the end of the day: A person who knows how to use Google only or a person who can use Google and also can reach out via social media to help find and answer?
The answer is obvious and individuals and organizations need to wake up to this!
In Network Key Skill - More than Knowledge-able, we point out that a lot of the variability right now has to do with social aspects - reaching out to people for expertise, working collaboratively, taking advantage of wisdom of crowds, etc.
Again, my claim is that the Work Literacy Gap has the characteristic right now that there’s greater variation in performance in this time of great volatility in the methods and tools for knowledge work.
I’m not sure there’s any way that we can prove this except through anecdotal examples such as the one cited above (using outside expertise). Still, I believe that I’m getting to do work that matters.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:48 am
That is interesting. So it is harder to be a star when everyone is playing by the same well established rules. I wonder if the results would be the same if they tracked the PGA results. Tiger Woods seems to be out there all by himself, but plays by the same rules and I don’t think golf has changed its rules.
When the rules change and standard deviations increase, don’t they increase both directions with some much higher than average and some some much lower? When you take more risks, you have potential for greater rewards, but those rewards are not guaranteed. Just spending money on IT does not make a company better.
I definitely know my way around Google. I have been a member of Facebook and read the blogs, but will often resort to the more traditional product centered discussion forums when I have questions and need a quick answer. Maybe I have some work to do in learning how to leverage my social network.
July 21st, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Mike - part of the reason that Tiger is so extraordinary is that he is a big time deviation. Deviations were more common in the past, but golf had lagged with no deviations for a long time. Some might argue about changes in technology and courses, but my sense is that Tiger is just somehow that much better.
And, yes, increased deviations implies on both sides. The assumption is that for most times of change there’s a general increase in overall performance and there’s also greater deviation.
Product centered discussions still are quite useful. Not saying that using a network is superior, especially for certain inquiries. But having access to a network (or a community) gives you a big advantage over someone who does not - if you have inquiries that can be addressed effectively that way.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I think Mike’s on the right track here. I was an exchange student and then in college prepared students going overseas and host families to international students. We were the first “cross cultural trainers”. What was exciting was that we were able to bring our own strengths and insights into the training. But alas…the training was not consistent so Youth for Understanding (the program I had gone on) required us to undergo the training. While this allowed the training to be consistent, it also took the “passion” out of the training. We were not expected to deviate from the guidelines.
I think this is what happens as a profession matures. I think the stages of marketing could correlates to the stages of training. New professions, ideas, concepts have a wide divergence with a high level of variability (some ideas get lost, some take off). This is the introduction stage. In new “idea” stage, some ideas take on greater meaning and become more accepted. The maturity stage is where there is a standardization of the ideas or profession. Non-conformists don’t fit in during this stage and there is little variety within the profession. This is where the cookie cutter training and standardized testing comes in. Those outside of the standard deviation are not let into the “club”. Finally, this leads to a decline in which only certain people that fit the mold will be allowed in the profession.
Part of the reason for this is the workplace politics that promotes hiring of “qualified employees” (read “like minded”). I am sure many of you have been in the situation where it becomes an organizational liability to be “too inventive” (there was a good article in the Financial Times about this last week ). As a result, employees conform to the “standard” so they will not risk their careers on something perceived risky by the corporation. Creative employees pick their battles when it comes to quality and they do a job that is “status quo” in order to keep balance in the workplace. As a result, there are not great fluctuations for the business (in this case baseball). After all, isn’t better to win all of the games by smaller margins (and less grandstanding) than to only win half the games, depending on who is playing that day–but with spectacular wins!
July 21st, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Great point Virginia. It’s easier not to buck the system and conform. I get asked about the perception that blogging is not productive work time. You can tell that there’s a risk of being viewed as different. Other people don’t do it, therefore, I’m at risk if I do.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Virginia, I didn’t realize you had connections with Youth For Understanding. I have hosted three students with YFU and found it a valuable experience. They may have some national standards, but it does seem that the program does best when there are motivated volunteers in the region to organize the students and their host families.
I guess that with a game like golf, it is really one against him or herself. Your ability to make par is not impacted by the other players (except for possible motivation to play better than the rest.) In baseball, when you are at bat, you are going against a pitcher and other players. If everyone’s game has improved, it will be harder to stand out.
Getting back to taking risks…. The way you play the game and if you are conservative or a risk taker can have impact on the results. When a coach feels comfortable that the team will win, they will take out the starters and save them for another game. Why risk having someone get hurt when you are already winning. In sports, there is rarely an advantage to win the game by more than one point. Does that lead people to ask, “What is the least that I can do and still succeed (or break even)?” If your goal is to be average, then you aren’t trying hard enough.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
[...] - bookmarked by 3 members originally found by morecoffee on 2008-09-23 Do Work that Matters http://www.workliteracy.com/do-work - bookmarked by 5 members originally found by nat819 on [...]