No One Knows What They’re Doing. And That’s Fine.
I have read some useless Job Descriptions.
Some are truly terrible. There have been a few that I protested signing, as they were ghastly.
However, the older I got, the less I relied on their importance. In some sad ways, Job Descriptions have suffered from the decaying nature of redundancy.
They do not matter anymore.
But, how do I know to do my job? How will I know what I know what to do for 40 hours a week?
In that agony, there is an uncomfortable beauty.
No one tells you what to do.
This is the essence of “Gilbert’s Law.”
“The biggest problem with a job is that no one tells you what to do.”
The exact origin of Gilbert’s Law remains unclear. It’s often attributed to American politician Gilbert Lafayette Laws (1838–1907). However, there’s no documented record of him explicitly proposing it. Considering the 19th-century context, we can posit some potential influences.
The Industrial Revolution, with its emphasis on efficiency and standardized processes, might have created this awakening. Gilbert’s Law, in this context, promotes individual initiative within these rigid structures.
Job Descriptions probably came from the formalisation where employees would ask “what will I be doing in this job?” And instead of repeating themselves, organisations typed it up.
That, or it started life as a Job Post.
As businesses grew more complex, the need for adaptable and resourceful employees increased. This developing work culture might have fueled the idea of encouraging initiatives and problem-solving in the workplace.
The seemingly straightforward statement, “the biggest problem with a job is that no one tells you what to do,” should raise concerns. On the surface, it might appear counterintuitive.
After all, wouldn’t explicit instructions lead to smoother task completion? However, Gilbert’s Law delves deeper. It suggests that the absence of detailed instructions presents an opportunity, not an obstacle.
Gilbert’s Law compels individuals to take ownership of their job. It fosters critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This approach encourages exploration of alternative solutions. Potentially, this enables a more efficient and innovative outcomes than those dictated by a rigid set of instructions.
By advocating for individual initiative, Gilbert’s Law aligns with established psychological principles. Research on self-determination theory highlights the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness for fostering intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
When individuals have the autonomy to determine “how” to complete a task, they feel a sense of ownership. They feel control over their work, which can increase their intrinsic motivation. This intrinsic motivation fuels engagement, persistence and, ultimately, better performance.
The act of independent problem-solving fosters a sense of competence. This reinforces the cycle of motivation and achievement.
So what does this mean for workplace training and education? Well, quite a bit.
Workplace training and education require a balance between fostering initiative and providing structured learning. Programs can achieve this by initially laying a sound foundation in core concepts. Followed by the gradual introduction of opportunities for independent exploration. This approach provides temporary support while fostering the development of independent learning skills.
From my experiences, there is a loose method to this madness.
The first step is defining the problem.
Why do you need a new employee?
What skills and knowledge are crucial for the defined metrics of success?
What pain points can someone address via the hiring process?
Next, equip learners with the tools to solve that problem from a technical aspect. This might be the use of tools or specific thinking methods. This could encompass the use of relevant software or hardware tools, established industry methodologies for tackling problems, or frameworks that can analyze the problem effectively.
Finally, step back and observe their independent exploration. Encourage them to apply their newfound knowledge and problem-solving abilities. This doesn’t mean complete abandonment; provide constructive feedback and guidance as needed. The goal is to create a space for experimentation, discovery, and execution.
Here, employees can test different approaches, learn from their mistakes, and ultimately develop a deeper understanding of the concepts and tools at hand. This fosters their sense of ownership over the process and results.
This approach is valuable in adult education. Here, learners often possess prior knowledge and experience that enriches the problem-solving process.
So what? Should I, as a manager, ignore Job Descripitions? Should I ignore the training my employees have done?
Yes.
In its place, I believe in Responsibility Portfolios. Their training and education will appreciate the complexity of responsibilities.
What is in a Responsibility Portfolio?
Well, this is an extremely rough working concept. Hmm, I should try this out on a designer to see what happens.
Do not the role’s task verbs in the Responsibility Portfolio.
That is for the employee to figure out.
It pays to be very clear about their outputs, rather than their journey for their output. With Gilbert’s Law, we are leaning into not telling others how to do their job.
Overall, we hire someone because of their efforts. Their efforts should align with outputs for the organization. How they get there will surprise you.
And that is the point.
That I can start with.
Would you like to follow me? https://medium.com/@asymmetricwisdom
Bibliography
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
