Intrapreneurship: should organisations embrace the on-the-clock pet-project approach?

In a business, pet-projects are small-scale projects of individual employees, under their full personal control, carried out within the organisation, often using resources of the organisation.

'Luminous idea' by Tiago Daniel
under a CC license

Pet-projects have gained visibility through the successful practices of companies such as Google, HP, 3M, Genetech, IBM and others. There, employees have been given the flexibility - and have even been encouraged - to allocate a percentage of their normal working time between 15 and 20% to a personal project of theirs that may be (and usually is) different to and independent from their ongoing work tasks.

But is the policy of allowing employee pet-projects worth it or is it just a (persistent but limited) hype?

Finding the right balance between the group and the individual

'Balancing Rocks' by Viewminder
under a CC license

We often hear that successful organisations are based on effective teams. Almost equally often we hear that successful organisations are those with charismatic, efficient leaders. Those statements are complementing rather than contradicting each other. However, as the headcount and complexity of structure, operations and objectives of organisations increases, the importance of the teams that operate them becomes increasingly important. A major challenge in teams of a given composition is how to balance between the needs/ priorities of the individual and the needs/ priorities of the group.

(Now is the) Time for Reflection

People say that defining goals in life is important. I agree but defining, aggregating and putting those goals on a list at a finite moment in time is not necessarily the way for me to go. At least not until I give myself some time for reflection. After all, it seems that there is some scientific evidence supporting that reflection helps self-improvement.

'Tree Reflection' by Doug Wheller
under a CC license

It is amazing how my self-criticism for events and experiences of my recent past often matures as time passes and, while my initial views are rarely overturned, I end-up having personal case-study "packages" that include the event, the reaction (of myself and the others) and its immediate and long term effect. This may sound a bit pompous (and tediously complex) but it really isn't.

I'll give you an example.

The person that tends to point out a project's difficulties and risks is, usually, not too popular in a group. One would think that identifying shortcomings at the early stage would be useful for a project's ultimate success. However, one should also take into account the psychological impact of this activity on the others. In a balanced group of co-workers, where ambitious planners and careful analysts coexist, discussing on potential difficulties works as intended. In poorly populated teams, however, that is not the case. Talking about the risks could discourage the entire group in the same way that, had there been no careful analyst in the team, the group would have been carried away into selecting over-ambitious objectives.

During 2014 I had the chance to find myself into several different groups and had the opportunity to see the effect of interventions of group members and me at the various stages of different projects. The "carry-home" messages I ended up with are:

• In group work, it's always good to talk about potential problems at an early stage, ideally, when a project is being planned. At later stages, it is still necessary but a group talk may not be the best way to do it. Discussing with the group leader may be better. Openly highlighting risks when the work is in progress can contribute to a toxic environment, especially when the project is behind schedule and the team has not been properly formulated. Toxic environments are not good. Not good at all!
• If the one talking about potential risks receives no feedback or constructive criticism or no discussion on mitigation measures takes place, that is an indication that the group cannot properly process the information. One should then try to guide the group into addressing the issues raised. Sometimes the latter is more productive to be discussed bilaterally with the group leader.
• One-sided discussion on a project's risks and difficulties need to be balanced by documented optimism. If there is none to present the latter then it would be of great value if the same person would think on and present both sides. It is not always easy, though.
• Collective memory is important in work groups, too. Team members should be given the chance to reflect, even informally. It helps learning and, besides that, helps identify group dysfunctions or tensions that may need to be resolved.
• Never ignore the emotional impact that words and actions have on people. Or, in other words, constructive criticism works constructively when spoken in a polite and encouraging way.

None of the points above is really rocket science. To the contrary, most are common-sense really. However, experiencing them and then reflecting on them is what really adds to the individual 's skills.

The Dunning-Kruger effect...

'Neon Jester' by Thomas Hawk
under a CC license

...or 'confidence and competence are two very different things' or, at a more direct approach, 'never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity'.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the condition where one feels confident for one's performance, despite the fact that one doesn't have the required skills. At the same time, skilled individuals may lack confidence because they assume that they are no better than their peers. Thus, self-evaluation tends to work in different ways in skilled and unskilled individuals, with the former being more critical to their performance while the latter failing to realise their shortcoming.

The Dunning-Kruger effect manifests itself in many parts of everyday life and could help explain several of the shortfalls we witness around us. For instance, managers that may have been selected for their confidence and overall attitude, may be prone to repeated errors of judgement, if they are not skilled on the subject matter of their business. Since a tall, multi-layer management structure is commonly adopted across many sectors, such cases might be more common than one would think.

However, the effect does have its limits and it can be mitigated or, even, avoided. The fact that it does not demonstrate itself at the same intensity across different cultures indicates that it is affected by the way people are raised and the environment they are exposed to. It also suggests that is can be addressed though the education system, which would also work on the approaches that people use for self-evaluation.

Indeed, we need to ensure that people understand the value of expertise, especially when we are talking about people that go up the management ladder. We also need to make experts more visible and accessible, in particular to people in power. More importantly, we need to find ways to promote teamwork and encourage the formation of multi-skill (and possibly also multi-cultural) flexible groups within organisations, not being afraid to use flat or matrix organisational structures, so as to ensure that problems are correctly identified and assessed and that solutions are well-conceived and implemented.

These are easy things to say but would require plenty of small changes in order to ensure that such system would survive. For example, remuneration, benefits and motivation perks would need to be allocated under a modified rational. Appraisals would also need to be carried out in a different way. Quality practices (which normally do assume that tasks are carried out by suitable experts) may also need to be adapted.

Dilbert by Scott Adams, Strip of 26/08/1992