Stop T-Shaping people
How to get from T-shape to Mastery
We frequently encounter concerns about T-shaping—those expected to become T-shaped fear being moulded into roles they don’t desire. Meanwhile, management and HR, who favour T-shaped individuals, worry about resistance during the process. We believe both groups might be focusing on the wrong approach.
T-shaping
When someone possesses the skills and knowledge to manage tasks outside their primary domain, they are considered T-shaped. In theory, this should facilitate teamwork and provide backup during absences. However, most people dislike merely getting by in unfamiliar areas, as it makes them feel perpetually out of their depth. This leads to sub-par results that fail to meet standards and causes tension among experts who must check and correct each other’s work. Consequently, more management is often required to mediate and realign efforts.
In Kent Beck’s “Paint Drip People” article, he highlights the evolving nature of skilled individuals through the example of Keith Adams, whose diverse career spans roles from kernel development at VM Ware to Chief Architect at Slack. Beck critiques the traditional T-shaped model of skills, suggesting it fails to capture the dynamic, exploratory, and often unpredictable progression of expertise. Instead, he proposes the paint drip model: as individuals explore various interests (moving the brush), some areas accumulate enough focus to develop into deeper specializations (drips). These specializations may vary in duration and impact, reflecting the ongoing and curious nature of skill development. I tend to agree with Kent and would therefore like to introduce the term Re-Shaping. I believe that individuals should have the autonomy to reshape themselves in whatever form they choose. It’s inevitable that we all undergo reshaping — whether it’s through T-shaping, Paint-Drip, or any other method — each experience subtly transforms us. Doing so consciously and purposefully, I consider Re-Shaping.
Communities of practice (CoP)
Communities of practice are typically tasked with providing the knowledge and skills needed for T-shaping. However, they are often the most sceptical about it. From their perspective, it is easy to lose focus and waste time by forcibly creating generalists. They are correct in asserting that these generalists cannot perform at the same level of expertise. Fearing a decline in quality, they tend to spend lots of time creating extensive standards, definitions, and clear boundaries for roles and responsibilities instead of helping the to be T-shaped. By acting like this, CoPs often hinder the spread of knowledge and skills rather than facilitate it.
Chapters to the Rescue
In agile environments, CoPs are often called Chapters. We have encountered test Chapters that dictate strict definitions of ready, that grind the refinement flow to a virtual hold. UX CoPs claim ownership of the user domain, blocking Design Thinking activities with the entire cross-functional team. Ops Chapters turning AWS (cloud computing) into an all-singing and dancing starship Enterprise, seriously hampering any DevOps aspirations. These are just some examples of counter-responses to T-shaping that are also addressed by Re-Shaping instead of T-Shaping.
Typically, individuals with leading roles in CoPs possess extensive domain expertise and a deep commitment to their subject matter. Unfortunately, we’ve observed that they are often the most resistant to T-shaping. They fear losing control of the quality that they hold dear and frequently challenge the idea of sharing responsibilities with non-experts. Consequently, even if people are willing to embrace T-shaping, CoP leaders, along with groupthink, can quickly stifle these efforts. Those who don’t conform to the collective identity may face significant resistance and risk being marginalized. However, we still want cross-functional, self-organizing teams that can independently deliver value to the organization and our customers. If T-shaping people by injecting knowledge and skills is not the solution, what can we do?
Mastery
In Daniel H. Pink’s must-read book Drive, the concept of Mastery is described as the urge to get better and better at something that matters. Why do people spend hours and hours practising a musical instrument? Why do we lock ourselves in escape rooms, train for marathons or solve Rubick’s cubes? Because we enjoy that feeling of getting good at something that we really want to grasp. We are in the zone once we are really focused on a skill we want to Master and get into a state of flow if things start to come together and continuously improve. Could the Re-Shaping Mastery mindset be a better approach than just T-shaping people by injecting knowledge?
Goldilocks Tasks
To effectively use the Mastery approach, we need to have just the right level of challenge. If a task is too easy, people become bored; if it’s too difficult, they feel anxious or frustrated. The goal is to find that sweet spot where the task is engaging and pushes us to a slightly higher level without being overwhelming. Additionally, tasks must be appropriately sized; if it takes too long to master a skill, motivation dwindles. Working at this optimal level and size is referred to as a Goldilocks task.
Pairing with mastery
For challenging stretch tasks, we can significantly enhance the Goldilocks factor by pairing individuals with a skilled mentor. The mentor can challenge us to seek higher-level solutions and provide guidance when we get stuck, preventing excessive frustration or anxiety. For the mentor, coaching someone with a different skill set and perspective can bring fresh insights into what might be routine tasks for them. While T-shaping often faces resistance and scepticism, the Mastery mindset is generally welcomed because it respectfully taps into the individual’s inner drive. CoPs and Chapters also recognize its benefits, as it allows them to integrate just enough of their expertise and standards into the system by working with individuals who are more receptive and interested in their guidance. Needless to say, this kind of Re-Shaping is preferable over forcing people to parse extensive documentation on standards and definitions.
Theory X and Theory Y
The shift in management paradigms regarding what motivates people, as described by Douglas McGregor’s theories, is crucial here. Traditional Theory X posits that people are inherently individualistic and lazy, requiring external motivation through rewards and punishment. In contrast, Theory Y suggests that people are internally motivated, striving to improve themselves and their environments, and thus do not need punishment or rewards. Research indicates that adopting a Theory Y approach, which emphasizes intrinsic motivation, yields better results than micromanaging and punishing individuals.
Stop T-shaping. Start Re-Shaping.
Theory Y suggests that we naturally enjoy collaborating and supporting each other to accomplish our goals. However, the workload distribution in our team is often uneven. By leveraging mentors and Communities of Practice (CoPs), we can harness the Mastery drive of team members to address these bottlenecks. This approach allows individuals to improve their skills at their own pace, driven by their own needs, and supported by an organization that facilitates ad-hoc mentoring and knowledge transfer. In this way, team members can Re-Shape and acquire the necessary skills just enough and just in time without being forced to learn unwanted or unnecessary skills solely for the sake of T-shaping.
- Bridge the Knowledge Gap: Implementing mentors and CoPs can help us better bridge knowledge gaps and ensure that team members support each other.
- Mastery Drive: Individuals are driven to improve and excel in areas that matter to them. This organic development process is more sustainable and effective than enforced learning, as team members are motivated by their goals and personal interests.
- Just-in-Time Learning: Acquire skills as needed, allowing for immediate application and relevance. This avoids the pitfalls of T-shaping, where individuals might be forced to learn skills that do not align with their interests or immediate needs.
By integrating these strategies, we can create a more balanced, motivated, and skilled team that collaborates effectively and supports Re-Shaping each member’s growth and development.
For a more detailed account on Re-Shaping: Stop T-Shaping; Start Re-Shaping
