by Peter A. Arthur-Smith, Leadership Solutions, Inc.®

“The moment you walk into Menlo Innovations, you can sense the atmosphere full of energy, playfulness, enthusiasm, and maybe even…joy.” Excerpt from book, ‘Joy, Inc.’ written by Richard Sheridan, CEO, Menlo Innovations.

 Have you walked into any data production shop lately? If you have, you’ve probably noticed the lined-up computer consoles not that far removed from sights of traditional production lines which started appearing more than 100 years ago. Such lines looked upon their production workers as singular units, held to quotas and output numbers, as a way of maintaining production momentum. Does this make sense in the cyber-age?

Ever since this writer visited Menlo Innovations in Ann Arbor during recent years, he has been awakened to new possibilities. There he witnessed programmers working in pairs with computer screens that sit side by side.. Quite unlike a typical production line, where people seem to work in isolation, you could see programmers discussing their coding and systems issues. In fact, at least once a day all programmers were called into a huddle to share their progress and any particular highlights that had come their way. Re-enthused they then returned to their dual computer screens to continue working on paired-assignments. Moreover, small tightly knit teams work shoulder-to-shoulder in pods of tables organized as they desire rather than linear production lines. No rules about the space; the team chooses how they want it laid out.

His visit really got him thinking. He began to realize how many pairing-roles already exist today; from police patrols, special forces twosomes, ambulance crews, surgeon pairs, to pilots…there are even Co-CEOs and Co-Presidents of certain organizations. So, it’s not as if it’s a novel idea.

Even before that enlightening moment at Menlo, this writer had already been encouraging executive teams to break-up into pairs to take on key initiatives, once they had identified strategies on the way forward. It became clear that operating in pairs was a highly productive way of getting key requirements accomplished. Once people start working as effective pairs, you begin to realize that:                                                                      

» Pair-Spur each other to get started

» Indiv-Often trouble getting started

» Pair-Two heads often better than one

» Indiv-Often stuck for ideas

» Pair-Urges greater productivity

» Indiv-Productivity can be spotty

» Pair-Encourages more timeliness

» Indiv-Timeliness depends upon person

» Pair-Learn from each other

» Indiv-May side-step learning

» Pair-Personal emergency stand-ins

» Indiv-Everything stops with emergencies

» Pair-More budget conscious

»Indiv-Hit-or-miss budget consciousness

» Pair-Allows for uninterrupted vacations

»Indiv-Vacations often violated

In many ways, the above listings would seem like a no-brainer, although too often the argument of cost comes up: that is, you pay two people to do one person’s job. In reality, this doesn’t stack-up: partly because a pair is usually much more productive and secondly there are many hidden savings to be made. When you encourage cost-conscious executives to think it through, you would get someone like Rich Sheridan – see opening quote – make the following comments, based upon a lot of experience:

» Project over-runs and missed deadlines – Sheridan: Projects complete without the fanfare of overtime and endless budget overruns.

» Customer dissatisfaction with projects – Sheridan: Pairing eliminates so many problems just as they are created, saving so many costly errors later.

» Paying two salaries for one project – Sheridan: Our pairs complete projects faster and more effectively, consequently offset much of the direct costs.

» Programmer engagement and morale – Sheridan: We experience consistent engagement and high morale by people working in pairs.

What’s one of the main downsides of people working in pairs? – Compatibility. With this there are three likely scenarios:

• Pairing individuals with identical operating styles.
• Pairing individuals with totally incompatible operating styles.
• Pairing individuals with complementary operating styles.

Let’s take each one in turn:

• Identical operating styles – Although it’s quite normal for like minded people to gravitate toward each other in the workplace; they are often not terribly creative, they can become bored with each other, and they can be an extra nuisance if they become joint naysayers.
• Incompatible operating styles – There can be real clashes of personality or disrespect of someone else’s inexperience, consequently end up with a very unproductive relationship.
• Complementary operating styles – It would appear that the most successful couples or partner relationships are somewhat complementary to each other. There can be occasional rough spots; although in the main complementary pairs are more creative, productive and successful.

After all, the human species is a social animal and ever since the beginning of the ape-man or the chimpanzee – our known, closest ancestor – they have always cohabited. Except with certain, extreme, anti-social individuals, we enjoy being with others in the workplace and outside our work lives. So why do we force people to operate individually within the workplace, when it’s often false economy? LSI has developed its own objective survey to help detect likely pairs.

The other pairing frontier we still have to address is our inclination to appoint lone-leaders. There have been many successful partnerships over the years: to name Rolls Royce and Hewett Packard as two notable business ones. Less recognized successful partnerships include Sergey Brin and Larry Page at Google, or Bill Gates and Paul Allen at Microsoft. At a recent The Atlantic forum, which exposed its audience to young companies – three out of five were led by co-founders. It would appear that the only thing that holds us back from more leadership pairing is our outdated legal system, which usually insists on one person being the CEO: OR singular power-brokers, who want to be the “boss.”

Ultimately, when it comes to building momentum – a crucial factor in any successful organization – there’s much to be said for utilizing pairs. They are among one of our most productive work units, especially if participants are complementary to each other. Start by setting-up some complementary, talented pairs together in your organization and note how many thorny issues are quickly put to bed.

To learn more about building pairs, talk with: