Syndicate assignments are a component of the business school learning process, although these can present a challenge in terms of productivity. Affective behaviour and group dynamics in leaderless teams shouldn’t mean that productivity suffers.
Provided that early agreement is indeed possible, choosing to divide up syndicate assignments in a fair a manner is possible. A hybrid version of ‘I cut, you chose’ and ‘moving knife techniques’ could be used to get started on dividing the group’s proportional and ‘envy-free dirty work’. This could be a means of achieving some consensus and buy-in from matrix team projects where no clear leader is discernable- a situation peculiar to tasks performed by groups of peers, such as those in a cross-functional team or a business school syndicate.
- Is there a new way to define the group and task orientations in a way that satisfies individual needs?
- Can the artificial group dynamic of a flat hierarchy be replicated intentionally outside of the business classroom and in corporate projects and teams?
- Could new business hierarchies of peers tackle the management challenges of tomorrow?
The syndicate assignment is the business-school version of a military leadership training selection technique- the ‘leaderless command-task’. Small teams of candidates (peers) numbered one to eight (to remove identities and so that group -dynamics and communications in the team follow this pattern, “Number 8, pass the rope!”. Leadership potential in the group can be observed as a natural hierarchy emerges to direct the group and perform the task.
Fair division of tasks is accomplished on the basis of a hybrid method of ‘I cut, you choose’ and ‘moving knife’ methods of labour division. Is this ‘We cut, we choose’ method? Game theory might not change our thinking about management but could it strengthen our organisation’s natural leadership and productivity in flat hierarchies?
The ‘Dirty Work Problem’ can be defined as a situation where a potentially undesirable or burdensome task (for example a syndicate assignment or a matrix team of peers where no clear project lead has been identified) has to be performed and causes problems of fair division to be reversed so that in that instead of the desirable cake, the chore must be divided amongst a number of players.
Could the syndicate assignment peer hierarchy be replicable and can the issue of equitable division be solved (or at least the faint perception of envy-free and proportional division of work)? Can we solve the ‘dirty work problem’ to innovate management? The answer is probably yes, business schools have been proving it with successions of successful assignment submissions, where group-dynamics and a natural hierarchy has ordered the business of work. Unorganized teams can self-order and be productive.
The division of chores might not always be equitable to an outsider, but if the only management control was to identify that the principles in solving ‘dirty work problems’ could be followed, then small teams of peers could self-organize productively. This would allow hierarchical management to cede to a natural order of leadership within truly flat organisations and that could improve team effectiveness.
When nobody (and everybody) is the boss By Polly LaBarre
Aaron Anderson on Leadership
William Gasarch on Game Theory and Applied Maths for Dirty Jobs