Featured Product
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Management Features
Gleb Tsipursky
Returning to the office harms diversity
Meridith Wentz
A follow-up conversation with organizational leaders  
Alexander Mirza
A wake-up call for hotel CEOs
Corey Binns
How a growth mindset can boost happiness at work
Megan Wallin-Kerth
Good leaders share seven qualities, says the founder of Rogue Valley Microdevices

More Features

Management News
Gartner survey reveals how organizations are developing their use of AI
While many executives believe themselves immune, research says otherwise.
Tactics aim to improve job quality and retain a high-performing workforce
Increases Xcelerator capabilities for climate-neutral aviation
Demonstrating a commitment to keeping people safe and organizations running
Sept. 28–29, 2022, at the MassMutual Center in Springfield, MA
EPM service provider excels in helping customers work with EPM products
It’s not exactly a labor shortage

More News

Management

Should Employees Be Allowed to Choose What They Want to Do?

The degree of specialization is the deciding factor

Published: Monday, February 28, 2022 - 13:02

As far as workplace trends go, several topics have dominated popular attention and discussion, from workspace designdigitalization, and Agile methodology to the pandemic favorite of remote working. But there’s another important aspect of work that is being pushed increasingly to the forefront of organization design: self-selection-based division of labor.

Essentially the process of matching workers with tasks, division of labor in organizations was, until recently, a top-down allocation presided over by managers. These days, workers are increasingly empowered to assign tasks to themselves—a far cry from the pin factory laborers immortalized by Adam Smith. At software firm Valve, and French auto parts maker FAVI, for example, employees select tasks as well as project teams based on their own perceptions of best fit. In fact, at many software firms and other less hierarchical organizations, self-selection has become the norm for its positive effect on employee motivation.

Yet traditional task allocation remains dominant and continues to flourish even in innovation-intensive sectors. Evidently, both methods of divvying up work have their merits and drawbacks. Knowing which to apply and when to apply it can have a direct effect on organizational performance and employee morale. 

In our new paper, co-authored with Massimo Warglien, we looked into the conditions in which self-selection would outperform the managerial allocation of tasks even if there were no motivational benefits. When employees are highly specialized, the tasks are independent of each other, and employee availability is unforeseeable.

As self-selection becomes more mainstream, our findings could help organizations aspiring to this process assess whether it is the right choice, or how it could be modified for a better fit.

Matchmaking employees with tasks

Existing research has established that, compared to traditional task allocation, self-selection of tasks benefits from employees’ own insight into their skills, which is often greater than managers’. Motivation, in turn, increases when employees are empowered to choose their preferred jobs. On the flip side, they often lack managers’ focus on organization-level goals. Coordination may be compromised as a result. Some tasks may even be left unfilled.

To understand the implications of differences between the two approaches, we developed the idea of division of labor as a process of matching employees with tasks. We then built a mathematical model and used computer simulation to examine under what conditions either approach might enjoy a relative advantage.

We assumed that, in the managerial allocation process, allocators aim to choose employees from the available pool with the best skills for each available task. In the self-selection process, all employees pick the task for which they are best skilled.

When it’s simply better for bosses to allocate

It’s obvious that managerial allocation outperforms self-selection in certain common division-of-labor scenarios. For example, when all tasks and employees are available and visible simultaneously, an allocator will aim to assign each task to the best employee and avoid understaffing, whereas self-selecting employees will pay little heed to the skills and choices of other employees. An analogous situation in the real world might be the launch of a new project with a given set of staff members.

When tasks come up at unforeseeable points in time, such as when an employee resigns, an allocator can select the best available worker. But if employees are allowed to volunteer for the job, a “pileup” may be the result.

Where self-selection may outshine allocation is when employees become available at different and unforeseeable moments. In situations like these, we found, the key factor that is likely to tip the scale in favor of self-selection is employees’ degree of specialization.

The deciding factor for self-selection

When employees are highly specialized, our computations show, self-selection of tasks yields better organizational performance overall in terms of total skill level across tasks assigned. When employees are only moderately or not specialized, managerial allocation outperforms self-selection.

All other variables, including motivation and productivity, were kept constant in our model. Both the allocator and employees were assumed to be equally good at assessing skill for a task. Tasks were independent of one another, and allocations were irreversible.

In practice, what our findings imply is that if you have 10 high-skilled employees with different specializations, your firm will likely benefit from letting them choose the tasks they prefer. The overall quality of work and motivation will be high, and there will be little risk of a less qualified worker “blocking” a more qualified one from a task.

At the famed Dutch nursing organization Buurtzorg Nederland, self-managing teams of 12 nurses manage and conduct all tasks, from providing at-home care to hiring, administration, scheduling, and training; each nurse can choose and “craft” their portfolio of activities. On the other hand, if the employees have more similar skills, it might be better for a manager to allocate tasks.

Our study assumed that what employees are good at is also what they like to do. We could also extrapolate our findings to cover other variables:
• Managerial allocation for sociable workers—to avoid pileups by chatty types; self-selection for workers who prefer to work alone
• Managerial allocation when a talent pool is shallow; self-selection when a talent pool is deep
• Managerial allocation when tasks are interdependent, in which case any unassigned task could spell disaster; self-selection for stand-alone tasks.

Making self-selection work better

Division of labor through self-selection is an increasingly important topic for organizations, not least because younger people prefer to have more autonomy at work. But not all tasks or organizational setups lend themselves to self-selection. Our findings provide companies with a set of tools for determining whether this bottom-up approach would work for them.

Here’s the key question organizations ought to ask: Do our employees have highly specialized skills for the tasks on hand? Are the tasks more or less independent of one another? Is worker availability hard to forecast? Proceed with self-selection if the answer to all of the above is “yes.”

Even better, modify the self-selection process with elements of conventional allocation—a hybrid process, if you will. Take Buurtzorg again: Procedures were explicitly designed to share unpopular administrative chores equitably among nurses. Another way to prevent work from going unstaffed is to encourage employees to pick those tasks to which they could add the most value or make the most difference, rather than to choose those in which they are most skilled.

So, instead of choosing Task A that Employee X has already picked (tasks can be performed multiple times in some contexts, such as software development), Employee Y takes unselected Task B where they can make a bigger contribution, even if Y is better than X at performing Task A. 

Other hybrid ideas: Encourage employees to take on “passion projects” of their own choosing; organize regular “hackathons” where anyone can pick and solve any problem from a list.

Whatever form it takes, the division of labor remains as vital to organization performance as ever.

First published Feb. 7, 2022, on INSEAD’s Knowledge blog.

Discuss

About The Authors

Phanish Puranam’s picture

Phanish Puranam

Phanish Puranam is the Roland Berger chaired professor of strategy and organization design at INSEAD. He is also the academic director of INSEAD’s Ph.D. program.

 

Marlo Raveendran’s picture

Marlo Raveendran

Marlo Raveendran’s research interest is in the area of corporate strategy, with a particular focus on organization design. Specifically, she is interested in two major aspects: (a) the impact of prior interactions among employees on the choice and effectiveness of new organizational structures; and (b) the microfoundations of organization design, such as the division of labor, coordination, and interdependence.