Contribution Compass (ConCom – C2)
Contribute: to play a significant part in bringing about an end or result. (Merrian-Webster.com)
Compass: device for determining direction. (Merrian-Webster’s Pocket Dictionary)
First and foremost, the new model must be extremely valuable for the user (i.e. the employee), not necessarily for the company. Otherwise, it could be perceived as just another report to fill in, and therefore, destined to oblivion. In this sense, ConCom or our resultant model should be a personal and sacred instrument of self-knowledge, growth, and development. Furthermore, one of its principal aims would be to spot meaningful contributions, which are bound to a personal or a shared purpose. Those contributions, as opposed to everyday or inconsequential activities, are not necessarily related to the user’s position in the organization. In addition, failures and other forms of iterations shall count too as meaningful contributions, as they are the basis for serendipity and disruptive innovations.
Here are a series of initial guidelines and principles that might be taken into consideration while setting up our new model:
- Who’s racing anyway?
The model isn’t a zero sum game competition, but a roadmap to self-mastery and self-discovery. Every person has a different rhythm as well as a personalized mountain to climb (even when an organization has a strong and shared sense of purpose). Peer reviews and feedbacks are encouraged as a genuine aid to achieve personal milestones.
- Who’s counting anyway?
Use qualitative and relative indicators (as it is suggested in Bjarte’s Beyond Budgeting principles) instead of quantitative and deterministic indicators. The idea is to trace a meaningful direction of self-development, not a step-by-step, boring, and inaccurate recipe to “success.”
- It’s not a beauty contest
It requires the mindset of a humble Zen student or a disciplined chess apprentice rather than the attitude of a prefabricated pop star. Talent is a pernicious myth and has little, I repeat little, to do with performance. When someone is praised as “talented”, it automatically creates a subtle but driving pressure to protect his status quo. That’s why “talented” people are so risk averse. Beware of the “pristine”, “perfect”, and “steady” performance curves. If someone shows beautiful results all the time, you might be in front of a “talented” person, who is either cheating the model or aiming too low. In essence, focus on efforts and contributions and aim for choppy and imperfect performance results.
Possible Items or Questions Included in the Model
Here are some useful questions that might or might not be included in our new model:
- Please briefly describe up to three meaningful contributions that you have come up with.
- Are those contributions tied to your/our purpose? Why? Why not?
- Do you believe we/you have a meaningful, driving, and passionate purpose?
- Do you have the freedom to make meaningful contributions? Why? Why not?
- What barriers impede you to make contributions (if the case)?
- What do you need from the organization to help you out make meaty contributions?
- Are you happy being part of the organization?
- Are you happy with your current job/role?
- Do you know which unique set of strengths is yours?
- Do you apply that unique set of strengths at work?