An overlooked fringe benefit

Some folks may prefer a highly structured work environment where what they do pretty well matches up with what they expect to do, even if it's the same thing week-in and week-out. Personally, I'm waaaay too much of a flibbertigibbit for that extreme. But, some people are happiest that way, and it's least disruptive (in the near- and nearer-terms) to keep them that way.

I would wager, though, that most folks like more variety, particularly the ones who are expected to create stuff, and I'm not strictly talking computer programming. Why, then, do we see management apply the Henry Ford assembly line specialization model to places that are supposed to produce innovative designs, techniques, content, solutions, what-have-you? If you have knowledge workers reporting to you, what brain-fever would prompt you to create an official R&D department?

Because when you make it official, you're doing two flavors of damage to the organization:

1. You're basically off a playground area and letting only a few kids in it, with no recess for the others. That's sheer poison by itself, let alone the damage even a single remark from the "privileged" kids to those slaving away in the coal mines and mills next door can wreak.
2. You're also teaching those in the playground that it's someone else's responsibility to sell the ideas to the rest of the organization, and to see them through actual implementation.
   

Short story: Don't be that manager. Yes, 3M and Google are famous for "giving" their employees a hefty amount of "play-time" (while, naturally, adopting their choice of the brain-children thus born). Not every firm can afford that. But equitably spreading the satisfaction (and responsibility) of creating "new" things among those who enjoy that sort of thing has another payoff beyond morale: If you require cross-clique collaboration as part of the process, you've removed some of the communication friction that normally builds up in organizations, particularly ones without a lot of churn. (That would be particularly true right now, when hiring is abysmal, and those who still have jobs are far more leery of jumping ship.)

Yes, it costs something (if only in terms of vigilance and, maybe, political capital) to gamble on an untried person or group. But I can pretty much guarantee you that doing anything else is most certainly not a gamble--it's a sure-fire loss in the long run.