Stop T-shaping; Start Re-shaping
T-shaping is wasteful and counterproductive. Instead, support people in growing more naturally based on their strengths.
In a previous article, we discussed the challenges and inefficiencies of forcefully T-shaping people. In this article, we will explore how to harness individuals’ intrinsic motivation for Mastery and empower them to take autonomous control of their growth and development, in line with the principles outlined in Daniel H. Pink’s “Drive.” We will examine how to create a Mastery support network using an apprentice/mentor model and introduce Kolb’s Learning Cycle to enhance the learning experience and improve retention. By using a Kanban board to optimise flow, we can help people acquire the necessary skills for their team just enough and just in time rather than forcing them to learn random skills and knowledge just for the sake of T-shaping.
Mastery: the desire to get better and better at something that matters.
Re-shaping
In his article “Paint Drip People,” Kent Beck critiques the T-shaped model of skills, arguing it fails to capture the dynamic, exploratory progression of expertise. Kent Beck’s Paint Drip metaphor is a conceptual model for understanding how skills and expertise develop in an organic and sometimes unpredictable manner, akin to the way paint moves across a canvas. When paint is applied to a canvas, it may initially spread uniformly, but over time, drips may form and extend downward due to gravity, creating unique patterns and paths. Similarly, in the Paint Drip model of skill development, a person’s abilities and knowledge may spread across various areas, but deeper expertise (the drips) forms naturally over time in areas where they spend more effort or have more interest.
This model suggests that expertise doesn’t develop linearly or uniformly but rather in a fluid, dynamic fashion that depends on a multitude of factors, including personal interests, environmental influences, and opportunities for deeper engagement. The metaphor underscores the idea that specialization can occur naturally, without a predetermined plan, reflecting the real-world complexity of personal and professional growth.
I agree with Kent and would like to introduce the term Re-shaping, emphasizing that individuals should have the autonomy to reshape themselves in any form they choose. It’s inevitable that we all undergo reshaping through various methods, with each experience subtly transforming us. Consciously and purposefully doing so is what I call Re-shaping.
Start Apprenticeship to facilitate Re-shaping.
Identify mentors for those seeking new skills or knowledge. They should be driven by the learners’ needs rather than the mentors’ desire to impart knowledge and adopt a servant leadership mindset. To implement this within our corporate structure, we can introduce an apprenticeship model that fosters a genuine connection and commitment between mentors and apprentices. This model should serve as an additional support structure, separate from reporting lines, to ensure a safe and open environment.
Self Selection for natural, long-lasting bonds
Facilitate self-selection events that emphasize servant leadership and create explicitly committed bonds. Form mastery triads of apprentices and mentors to ensure diversity, availability, and stability. Connect multiple triads to establish an informal, embedded network of mastery. Continuously support this system to adapt to organizational changes, new domains, and evolving skill needs. This approach should be an organically growing and evolving system to accommodate the dynamic nature of our workforce and their development needs.
This reflects my personal experience both as a mentor and as an apprentice. Early in my career as a junior developer, I was typically assigned a mentor. However, I frequently found myself seeking guidance from others with whom I felt a natural connection, whether due to their availability, coaching style, or personality. Often, the officially assigned mentor was complemented by another mentor of my choosing. To prevent any friction and enhance the mentoring process, I suggest institutionalizing this approach. By doing so, we can ensure there are no single points of failure within the apprentice network, allowing for a more flexible and supportive environment.
Create a Mastery Network that is resilient, flexible and responsive.
We could organize traditional Communities of Practice (CoPs) or Chapters, but expertise networks are usually more effective for Re-shaping in modern companies. Rather than optimizing for mass T-shaping, we need ad hoc availability of support for Mastery. The slow, mass knowledge transfer process typical of CoPs is not very suitable. Novices benefit more from personal connections for quick chats, short questions, or brief reviews, a need amplified by remote work and co-creation tools.
Peer-to-peer network
Establishing connections between apprentices and mentors is a vital part of the learning process, but it is equally important to facilitate networks among mentors themselves, as well as between apprentices. These connections allow for shared experiences and collective reflection, which are crucial for deepening understanding and enhancing problem-solving skills. When mentors interact with other mentors, they can exchange practices, discuss challenges, and refine their coaching strategies, leading to more effective mentoring. Similarly, when apprentices connect with their peers, they gain the opportunity to learn collaboratively, challenge each other’s ideas, and provide mutual support. This holistic network of learning not only accelerates individual development but also fosters a stronger, more cohesive learning environment.
CoP meetings frequently lack focus and active participation, with minimal interaction that often feels forced. This then necessitates forming impromptu networks through breakouts, which proves more effective, with a sweet spot around three people per breakout. While Chapters and CoPs remain valuable for setting standards, solving systemic problems, and fostering a community feeling, the optimal environment for Mastery lies in an informal, resilient network that provides the necessary support and flexibility.
Create Triads that are more Stable, Nimble and Transparent.
Research shows that people generally avoid excluding individuals from a group, often opting to stay together or form subgroups. Triads, being the smallest stable group, are undecomposable without leaving someone isolated. This stability leads to more durable networks, as described by Simmel’s hypothesis.
Triads promote the expression of diverse viewpoints, as all members are on equal footing, which enhances learning outcomes. They also provide greater stability; if one member is absent, the remaining two can continue to function effectively, particularly when there is some redundancy or overlap in knowledge and skills. Additionally, triads are less prone to gossip than smaller, more intimate groups of two, leading to improved coherence, focus, and effectiveness in a professional environment, making them the most attractive option.
Kanbanize Re-shaping
With our apprentice support system in place, we now need a problem to solve to embark on purposeful Mastery. In a cross-functional team working on a product, issues arise when there’s an imbalance in the workflow. This can result in some team members becoming overwhelmed with tasks while others have little to do, exacerbating the imbalance as idle members seek additional work. Re-shaping could be very helpful to alleviate the overwhelmed.
To address this, we can use a Kanban board to visualize and manage the workflow. By clearly displaying the status of tasks, we can identify bottlenecks and ensure a more balanced distribution of work. This approach helps maintain steady progress and prevents the inefficiencies that arise from an uneven workload.
Kanbanized Re-shaping
Visualise bottlenecks.
There is usually only one bottleneck in a system, and contrary to popular belief, identifying it isn’t as difficult as it may seem. When a Kanban board is used effectively, as demonstrated in the video, you will eventually notice empty “Ready” columns appearing just after the bottleneck, where work tends to accumulate. This visual cue serves as your trigger to start optimizing for flow by addressing the bottleneck.
To elaborate, a Kanban board helps visualize the entire workflow, making it easier to spot where tasks are getting stuck. As work progresses smoothly through various stages, any interruption or slowdown will become evident through the accumulation of tasks in a specific column. This column represents the bottleneck, where the flow is constrained.
Focusing on alleviating this bottleneck can improve the system's overall efficiency. This might involve increasing the ability to better prepare tasks before the bottleneck or addressing skill gaps after the bottleneck that are causing delays. Continually monitoring and adjusting based on the Kanban board ensures that the workflow remains balanced and that the team flow is optimized.
The Daily is an essential Re-shaping jump-off point.
Assuming you hold daily standups, this is the ideal time for the team to identify when someone has an empty “Ready” column and no items to work on. Upon discovering this, the next step is to discuss how to address the bottleneck. One effective strategy is to offload additional work from those working on bottleneck items, allowing them to focus solely on these critical tasks. With some teams, I used a learning label on Stories or Tasks to explicitly indicate learning opportunities or needs but also to allow for more time for reflection on and absorption of the learning.
By redistributing their workload, other team members are exposed to new challenges and skills. Pairing or shadowing the bottleneck workers enables the team to acquire significant knowledge and continuously identify improvement opportunities. This approach not only helps resolve the immediate bottleneck but also fosters natural Re-shaping within the team, as members broaden their skill sets and experience through hands-on learning and collaboration.
T-shaping vs Re-shaping
The fundamental distinction between T-shaping and Re-shaping lies in their approaches to skill and knowledge development within a team. T-shaping typically equips individuals with a broad but shallow understanding across various disciplines within the team’s domain — enough to make basic contributions but potentially leading to risky gaps in deeper expertise. In contrast, Re-shaping focuses on a more practical and immersive extension of an individual’s existing skills and knowledge. This approach not only deepens proficiency in specific areas but also enhances the overall effectiveness and experience of learning. Re-shaping allows team members to build on their strengths in a way that is both experiential and tested, leading to more robust and functional competencies that can significantly benefit the team and individual growth. New patterns are formed based upon existing patterns instead of knowledge creation in a void with classic T-shaping.
Building on Strengths: Re-shaping Over T-shaping
The development of new patterns in Re-shaping is fundamentally different from the classic T-shaping approach, where knowledge is often created in isolation. In Re-shaping, new patterns emerge by building upon and integrating existing patterns, harnessing the foundational knowledge and skills that individuals already possess. This method leverages the contextual insights and experiences of team members, facilitating a more organic and interconnected growth of expertise. Instead of starting from scratch in unfamiliar territories, Re-shaping encourages incremental advancements and adaptations, which can lead to more innovative and cohesive outcomes. This process not only enhances learning efficiency but also ensures that new skills are more relevant and immediately applicable within the existing framework.
Even the flow to create more Re-shaping opportunities
Next, we should align the upstream flow with the pace of the bottleneck, as any excess inventory of items needing processing is wasteful. This is particularly true in a cross-functional team, where upstream activities can create unwanted distractions for the bottleneck. To address this, we should aim to reduce the bottleneck's workload by improving the quality of its input—essentially, the output of upstream activities.
This can be achieved by having team members with empty columns pair with upstream colleagues to enhance the quality of their work. This not only improves the overall process but also provides a valuable T-shaping opportunity for everyone involved. During daily standups, encourage those with available capacity to collaborate with upstream team members, ensuring they learn and contribute to improving input quality, ultimately smoothing the workflow and enhancing team efficiency.
Simulation and gamification to initiate Re-shaping
If this approach seems counterintuitive, you’re not alone. Few teams naturally begin by engaging upstream colleagues to improve their work quality or pair with the bottleneck while idle. These actions often fall outside people’s comfort zones. However, such counterintuitive behaviours have proven extremely beneficial for both Re-shaping and creating flow.
To ease into these practices, you might consider trying them out in a simulated environment. Tools like Okaloa Flowlab can help simulate the importance of WIP (Work In Progress) limits in creating flow. Additionally, our framework, LEAT® (Learning through Experience and Applied Theory), includes a specialized module designed to highlight the principles of flow within a typical cross-functional team. These simulations provide a safe space to experience and understand the impact of these techniques before applying them in real-world scenarios.
Optimise learning with Kolb’s Learning Cycle
Kolb’s Learning Cycle, which emphasizes experiential learning through a four-stage process of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation, aligns well with the principles of Re-shaping. Teams engage in concrete experiences by tackling real-world problems and workflow imbalances identified through their Kanban board. Reflective observation occurs as team members discuss these issues during daily standups, considering different perspectives and feedback. Abstract conceptualization is evident when they formulate strategies to address bottlenecks and improve processes, often by leveraging mentorship and forming mastery triads. Finally, active experimentation happens as these strategies are implemented and adjusted in real time, creating a continuous learning loop. By integrating Kolb’s cycle, teams can effectively adapt, learn, and develop mastery, fostering a Re-Shaping environment of constant growth and improvement.
From T-shaping to Re-shaping conclusion
Stop big counterproductive T-shaping drives initiated by CoPs or HR.
Initiate Re-shaping with the following:
- Create Re-shaping Drive with Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose for individuals and teams.
- Set up self-selecting Mentor-Apprentice triad networks.
- Visualize bottlenecks in your flow with the proper use of your Kanban.
- Make learning explicit in Daily, Planning or Retro, highlighting learning needs with learning labels on your Kanban.
- Use simulation and gamification like Okaloa Flowlab to introduce new paradigms such as flow and re-shaping
- Close the loop with Kolb’s learning cycle. Integrate Experience, Reflect, Conceptualize and Experiment moments in your flow.
Try any one of these methods in combination or separately, and share your experiences in the comments.
