Forging the Interdisciplinary Team

Introduction

Let's talk about teamwork in today's complex interdependent world of Software Product Development.

Over the past several years I've made it a mission to forge an interdisciplinary team ethos and supporting working model.

An "Interdisciplinary Team" is all about finding the sweet spot between doing your own thing and working together. Acknowledging cultural and personal biases helps us understand why systems will usually trend towards tribalism, confirmation bias, hierarchy, and reductive modes of expression. Thats why as leaders we need to mix things up to get people from different areas working together to tackle the big challenges at work.

The division of labor lets everyone focus on their own small part, and express their autonomy and professional skills with minimal interference from outside. This has been a key to unlocking productivity gains throughout the industrial era. It works great in many business contexts, particularly those that have dominated the business landscape of the last century (professions where the work is highly predictable with low variability).

However, there are circumstances when the division of labor fails.

Openness to interdisciplinary team work is limited in part by cultural biases, both personal and organizational. The book by Frederic Laloux breaks down how workplaces have evolved from being all about the boss's power to focusing on everyone's ideas and well-being.

How we break down those walls between people to get everyone moving in the same direction is a battle of inches. It requires careful consistent tradeoffs that prioritize wholeness, safety, respect, joint accountability, shared success, and honest information exchange. Ultimately forging teams that can handle anything the 21st century throws at them is about thinking differently about work and making sure everyone's on board and pulling in the same direction. So, let's get into it and see how we can make our teams better, together.

The Division of Labor, Coordination Costs, and Labor

Lets first look at the division of labor.

The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labor, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labor.

• Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations" (1965)

According to Becker et al, in the seminole work "The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge" they explain the economic and structural context where the division of labor enhances productivity by allowing workers to specialize, increasing efficiency because specialized workers tend to be more skilled in their narrower tasks. However, they go on to explain the limits of this structural advantage. Specialization is balanced against coordination costs, as coordinating a larger number of specialized workers becomes increasingly complex and expensive.

We believe that the priority Smith gives to the division of labor among workers is an enormous insight. But we differ with his claim, followed by many later economists, that the degree of specialization is limited mainly by the extent of the market. Specialization and the division of labor are also influenced by several other factors that often are far more significant than the extent of the market. A variable of great importance is the cost of combining specialized workers. Modern work on principal-agent conflicts, free-riding, and the difficulties of communication implies that the cost of coordinating a group of complementary specialized workers grows as the number of specialists increases.

• Becker et al, "The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge" (1992)

In "The Principles of Product Development Flow" by Donald G. Reinertsen, the concept of the division of labor is further explored in depth in the context of Product Development. According to Reinertsen, the traditional division of labor, which involves breaking down tasks into smaller, highly specialized tasks, does not always make sense in product development environments.

The division of labor might not make sense when:

1. Highly Complex and Interconnected Tasks: In product development, tasks are often complex and deeply interconnected. Dividing these tasks into smaller, isolated tasks can lead to inefficiencies and difficulties in integration, as the cohesive understanding of the product might be lost.

2. Fast-Paced and Uncertain Environments: In environments where conditions change rapidly and unpredictably, the division of labor can hinder flexibility and responsiveness. When tasks are rigidly divided, it becomes more challenging to adapt to new information or to pivot directions quickly.

3. Innovation and Creativity Required: Product development often requires innovation and creativity, which can be stifled by too rigid a division of labor. Creative problem-solving benefits from a more holistic understanding of the work and the freedom to explore solutions across traditional task boundaries.

4. High Coordination Costs: The more specialized and divided the work, the higher the coordination costs. In product development, where collaboration across different disciplines is crucial, excessive division of labor can lead to significant overhead in coordinating tasks, leading to delays and increased costs.

5. Knowledge and Learning are Critical: When continuous learning and the accumulation of knowledge are key to product development success, a strict division of labor can prevent team members from gaining a broad understanding of the product. This broader understanding is often necessary for making informed decisions and driving innovation.

Reinertsen advocates for a more flexible and integrated approach to work in product development, emphasizing the importance of flow, feedback, and continuous learning. He suggests that in many cases, a balance must be struck between specialization and the benefits of having broader, more holistic task assignments that allow for flexibility, innovation, and more efficient problem-solving.

So, in environments characterized by complexity, interdependence, ambiguity, and change—such as software development—the division of labor becomes less effective due to the high coordination costs and the need for adaptability, where rigid specialization can hinder responsiveness and innovation. In such settings, the benefits of specialization are outweighed by the difficulties in coordinating specialized tasks amidst rapid changes, requiring a more integrated and flexible approach to work.

Types of Organizational Cultures

Organizational culture plays a major factor in framing people's expectations. Reflecting on what sort of culture you and your organization is biased towards can help set comtext for change.

"Reinventing Organizations" by Frederic Laloux is a seminal work that explores the evolution of organizational cultures through various stages of human consciousness. Laloux categorizes organizations into several paradigms, each with distinct characteristics, values, and worldviews. Here's a summary of the different organizational cultures defined in the book:

1. Red Organizations

• Characteristics: Power-oriented, led by a strong leader. This model is common in gangs and tribal militias.
• Values: Absolute power, fear, and quick decisions.
• Worldview: The world is a jungle full of threats.

2. Amber Organizations

• Characteristics: Highly structured and hierarchical, often found in traditional bureaucracies and religions.
• Values: Stability, order, and predictability.
• Worldview: The world is seen as a dangerous place that needs to be controlled.

3. Orange Organizations

• Characteristics: Goal-oriented, driven by innovation and success. Common in corporate environments.
• Values: Achievement, meritocracy, and growth.
• Worldview: The world is a machine that can be understood and exploited for profit.

4. Green Organizations

• Characteristics: Values-driven, focusing on culture and empowerment. Often seen in nonprofits and value-driven companies.
• Values: Community, equality, and social responsibility.
• Worldview: The world is a complex ecosystem that requires empathy and understanding.

5. Teal Organizations

• Characteristics: Self-managed, holistic, and purpose-driven. Represents the next stage in organizational development.
• Values: Wholeness, evolutionary purpose, and self-management.
• Worldview: The world is seen as an interconnected, evolving system.

Laloux's book argues that each successive type of organization builds upon the previous ones, incorporating their strengths while transcending their limitations. The transition from Red to Teal organizations reflects the evolution of human consciousness and societal values over time. "Reinventing Organizations" suggests that Teal organizations, with their emphasis on autonomy, community, and purpose, are best suited to address the complexities and challenges of the 21st century.

Incorporating Contemporary Insights

Contemporary knowledge work, especially in software product development space, emphasizes the critical shift from individual achievements to collective success. John Cutler highlights this transition by advocating for "teams over tasks," underscoring the value of cohesive group efforts over isolated accomplishments. Similarly, Melissa Perri emphasizes the importance of eliminating silos, advocating for an organizational culture that prioritizes shared objectives and collaborative problem-solving. Their perspectives reinforce the notion that breaking down silos and fostering interdisciplinary teamwork are essential for innovation and efficiency in creating complex software products.

Lencioni and Reverse Conway Manuvuer

Patrick Lencioni's book, "Silos, Politics, and Turf Wars," provides insightful strategies for overcoming the divisional barriers that can exist within organizations, which he refers to as "silos." These silos are detrimental because they foster internal competition, miscommunication, and a lack of shared goals, leading to inefficiency and reduced effectiveness. While Lencioni does not explicitly use the term "reverse Conway maneuver" in his book, the concept closely aligns with his recommendations for fostering collaboration and unity within organizations.

The term "Conway's Law" originates from computer science and states that organizations design systems that mirror their own communication structure. A "reverse Conway maneuver" would thus imply restructuring an organization to promote a desired system of collaboration and communication, essentially influencing organizational design to achieve better outcomes.

Lencioni suggests several key strategies to dismantle silos and encourage a more interconnected, interdisciplinary approach:

1. Create a Unified Vision or Goal: Lencioni emphasizes the importance of having a clear, overarching objective that all teams within the organization can rally around. This shared goal helps to minimize the focus on individual or departmental successes in favor of the overall success of the organization.

2. Encourage Interdisciplinary Teams: By forming teams that include members from different departments or areas of expertise, organizations can encourage a more holistic approach to problem-solving and project management. This approach naturally reduces independence and emphasizes partnership, as team members must rely on each other's diverse skills and perspectives to achieve their common goals.

3. Foster Open Communication: Lencioni advises leaders to promote open, transparent communication across the organization. This involves regular meetings and updates that include members from different departments, encouraging a culture where information is freely shared and silos are broken down.

4. Align Incentives: Aligning incentives and rewards to support collective achievements rather than individual or departmental successes can help motivate employees to work together. This strategy ensures that all members of the organization are working towards the same objectives and are rewarded for the collective success.

5. Lead by Example: Leadership plays a crucial role in dismantling silos. Leaders must demonstrate collaboration and a commitment to the organization's unified goals in their actions and decisions, setting a precedent for the rest of the organization to follow.

By implementing these strategies, akin to a "reverse Conway maneuver," organizations can restructure in a way that promotes unity, collaboration, and a shared sense of purpose, effectively overcoming the challenges posed by silos and turf wars.

At its core, collective ownership champions the idea that everyone on the team shares responsibility for the product's success. It's about leveraging the diverse skills and perspectives of the team to foster innovation and solve complex problems. This approach is pivotal in the intricate realm of software development, where the collective intelligence of a group often surpasses the sum of its parts.

Melissa Perri puts it succinctly: "Product management is not about being the CEO of the product, but about guiding your team to solve real problems for your users in ways that meet your business's goals." This sentiment is a clarion call for a more democratized approach to leadership and decision-making.

Echoing Perri's thoughts, John Cutler adds, "Great product management...is about being a coach, facilitator, and relentless advocate for your team's ideas." Cutler's perspective underscores the importance of a supportive environment where every voice is heard and valued.

Summary

Forging interdisciplinary teams in the world of software product development is to blend individual talents and skills together to tackle big challenges, moving away from the traditional method of dividing work into smaller, seemingly independent parts. The division of labor is ingrained in many of our organizational cultures and some people find it emotionally comforting as it seems to shrink the window of concerns, providing us a perception of certainty and a sense of control. But as the world and work environments become more complex and fast-paced, a more integrated team approach is necessary.

The division of labor doesn't always work, especially in product development where tasks are complex and interconnected, and environments are unpredictable. Too much specialization can actually slow things down because of high coordination costs and a lack of flexibility. Furthermore they promote unintended competition, local optimization, and less informed and less innovative solutions.

Oganizational cultures explain how different types of organizations—ranging from power-oriented to self-managed - shape the way we function. Organizations need to evolve to a more holistic and purpose-driven to better tackle today's challenges.

Moving from focusing on individual goals and achievements to valuing collective success, breaking down silos, and fostering collaborative problem-solving is the way to increasing performance. The strategies for overcoming organizational silos include unified goals, interdisciplinary teams, open communication, aligned incentives, and leading by example.

References

• Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"
• Becker, G. S., & Murphy, K. M. (1992). "The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge". Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(4), 1137-1160.
• Donald G. Reinertsen, "The Principles of Product Development Flow"
• Frederic Laloux, "Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness". Nelson Parker, 2014.
• Patrick Lencioni, "Silos, Politics, and Turf Wars: A Leadership Fable About Destroying the Barriers That Turn Colleagues Into Competitors"
• John Cutler, "Mind the Product: Thinking Big, Working Small"