Working with Roles

• Clarity: for oneself and in collaboration with teams, first orientation in handover processes

• Accountability: Knowing who is responsible for what

• Adaptability: to changing requirements & contexts. Job titles and descriptions rarely do justice to unique combinations of roles, and they are also too static to account for the fluid nature of our work. Furthermore, roles can easily be passed on to another person if defined clearly which increases the adaptability of our team as a whole. With a lot of fluctuation in the team, this is particularly useful.

• Whole person work: We see our team members as the humans they are and do not want to equal them with what they do at oikos. Therefore, we use this concept of roles rather than positions or job titles. When we believe our job is who we really are, we start thinking and behaving accordingly. Without job titles and descriptions, we are more likely to see ourselves and others as human beings who simply put their energy into specific work for a period of time and we stay more open to different perspectives. Without focusing just on job titles, it becomes much harder for people to merge their identity with the position they hold. Also: people tend to choose (and be appointed to) roles that have a much better fit with their interests and talents. When people can’t turn to a job description to tell them what to do, they have to find their own unique way to fill a role with life and meaning. This also means we can better Identify potential gaps & opportunities to increase fit of roles with interest & talent.

Positions are job titles, are identities many people strip over like a onesie. People tend to identify with their positions, merging with them before realizing how much of themselves they leave behind in the workplace. Roles, in comparison, can be more seen as funky accessories we consciously put on in the workplace as we take on a certain number of commitments. They highlight our identity and help us grow and shine.

In comparison to job descriptions, entries in the role base are just a tool to support the reflection and working process of a role owner. In effect, the sum of all your roles equal a "real-time contract", negotiated with the colleagues you work with most closely. Roles are refined and agreed upon directly, and say a lot about the important relationships in this role. The role base supports the relational processes.

Roles differ depending on context. Some roles have a rather narrow scope, while other roles take a broader perspective. There are different degrees of granularity. The fluid arrangement of roles (instead of defined job descriptions) also allows for a better matching of talent with roles.

The traditional tasks of a manager - direction-setting, budgeting, analyzing, planning, organizing, measuring, controlling, recruiting, evaluating, and communicating - are distributed amongst various members of a team. People are not accountable to one manager but to their peers, every one of whom is a boss in some respect. Anybody can put on the hat of “the boss” to make important decisions, launch new initiatives, hold underperforming colleagues to account, help resolve conflicts, or take over leadership if results are bad and action is needed.

Of course, the whole process around roles makes it much harder to know where you fit. The absence of grades and job titles makes career development and salary progression much less certain. Following the LEAP spirit, we have to work on getting comfortable facilitating our own progression in a self-responsible way. This is not something negative - it gives you ownership of your professional development within the organization. Jobs are defined by people rather than the organization. They emerge from a multitude of roles and responsibilities that reflect the interests, talents, and the needs of the organization. By focusing on what needs to happen rather than jobs, we strive to be more adaptable and responsive.

Outsiders, and sometimes even insiders, can find the absence of job descriptions and job titles confusing because it is less clear who is responsible for what. At oikos, we encourage people to record the roles they are currently filling [AND WE ARE STILL FINDING OUT WHERE ;)). This adds clarity and helps others understand their expertise. However, oftentimes it is also the case that certain people take over a couple of complementary roles which makes it easier to understand responsibilities on an organization-wide level.

If need felt, people still can choose to have an additional job title they use for external communication. It is common practice to use one’s circle name as a title. For example – introducing oneself as “Carla from Transforming Education” or signing an email: Carla, Transforming Education, oikos. At the same time, in situations when it is more practical to use a conventional title, each person has the freedom to do so. For example, it might be practical for a member of the sales & marketing team to identify as oikos’ marketing manager when addressing marketing services vendors. There is either enough peer pressure or good conscience to avoid fancier ego-driven titles!

While people have clear roles and responsibilities, their concerns don’t need not be limited to these. They can take the well-being of the whole organization to heart. Using the advice process, anyone can take action if they sense an issue. As there are no bosses, there is no one to say, “That is none of your business.” In contrast, everyone is obliged to do something when they sense an issue, even if it’s outside the scope of their roles. That usually means talking about the problem or opportunity with a colleague whose role does relate to the topic. It’s difficult to say: “Somebody should do something about this problem”, and leave it at that, but it is a first step in the right direction.

When a new role is created, in many cases there is an obvious candidate that emerges naturally. It might be the person who sensed the need for the new role, or another team member that everyone sees as the natural person to fill the role. Often, very little discussion is needed. A simple question in a team meeting ("Who feels like taking on this role?" or "I feel Catherine would be the natural person to take on this role, what do you think?") is all that is needed, certainly considering the capacities of individual team members.

Because roles are granular, it is easy to trade roles within a team. A person who is overly busy can ask someone to pick up one of his or her roles, either temporarily or permanently. Someone who wants to acquire a new skill can ask a colleague to trade a role.

By the very nature of the division of labor in organizations, people end up taking up certain roles. We often feel a need for clarity around these roles, for example "I need help with X: who can I talk to?", "I have an idea to change something in this domain: who would be the natural person to make that happen?", "We agreed to do something that didn't get done: who was the person that committed to this?". There is value, therefore, in creating clarity on roles and commitments. Some people can be allergic to any formality or clarity, as it reminds them of traditional, static hierarchies, job titles and job definitions. Remember, roles can be fluidly created, modified, exchanged and scrapped, using peer-based rather than top-down processes. They are a means of facilitating reflective & conversational processes.