Job rotation is a great way to keep people from polluting other people's
ponds. . .
An example. . .
Say we have a company that develops for different products. There is a VP
for each product. Each VP thinks there product is the most important. So,
as you can imagine, there is some tension between the four of them. . .
Add to this scenario the fact that each VP wants to be recognized and
advanced in his/her career. . .and so, they go to war. Perhaps the war is
benign; name calling, demeaning comments to one another, etc. Or, the war
may be belligerent; intentional attempts to sabotage the success of one of
the other products so they get more recognized.
To further exacerbate potential problems, let's say that VP 1 takes an
action which inadvertently impedes the progress VP 3 is making on his/her
product. VP 1 makes the mistake not because he/she is trying to impede the
progress of the third product, but, rather, because she/she thinks that is
what is best for product 1.
Now, let's say that each VP will rotate products every year. VP 1 will
work on product 3 in a year, and VP 2 will work on product 4 in a year,
etc.
Such an environment goes a long way to reduce the competitive stress
between the VPs, and, it lays the foundation for some pretty intense
cooperation. VP 1 would never try to sabotage VP 2's product, because, in
a while, he'll be responsible for that product. . .and, of course, VP 3
will get to learn, in time, about the implications and nuances of VP 1's
product. . .and therefore can make more systemic decisions.
There are a great many other benefits, but this message is getting long. I
hear, through the grapevine, that Microsoft has done some great work using
Job Rotation. I'll see if I can dig up some reference material. . .
-- Benjamin B. Compton bcompton@enol.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>