maturity models stem from our misguided desire to cram all that complexity into a complicated framework. An ever-evolving spectrum of knowledge and skill becomes a fixed number of levels, each with its own qualifications. These models promote conformity to dogma and reductive criteria that can quickly become the focus instead of actual competence. In order to attain this rank you must know these things. A black belt in karate who has never been in a real fight meets a cage fighter with no formal training. Who is more likely to win? Who is mature? Luckily, it’s easy to abandon the exhausting administration of these models for deliberate practice and knowledge transfer between masters and apprentices. It’s harder work, but we can stop chasing colored sashes and start getting good at what we do.
(1) What could this person get elsewhere? (2) What would we pay for their replacement? (3) What would we pay to keep this person, if they had a bigger offer elsewhere? The goal is to consistently keep each employee at the top of their own market value.
To make this real for your team, start by asking everyone to articulate the role(s) they’re already playing—including the role name(s), purpose(s), and general accountabilities. Have everyone evaluate which roles they want to continue to play and which ones they’re ready to hand off. Next, give your team the responsibility to create, modify, and remove roles going forward. From here on out, every team member will be responsible for their own role mix, and every team for the roles within it. Of course, you’ll have to decide whether roles are filled by appointment, election, or two-way negotiation, but that can be done on a role-by-role basis.
“We’re going to keep inviting teams to take ownership of their way of working. If they’re not the ones naming the problems holding them back, and they’re not the ones suggesting solutions, then you’re not evolving your operating system. We’re going to ask you and other leaders to create and hold space for experimentation. That means making it safe to spend time on this work and safe to fail. I
Complexity expert Dave Snowden offers enigmatic but essential advice on the matter. “Managing the present to actually create a new direction of travel is more important than creating false expectations about how things could be in the future.” What he’s getting at is the difference between closing the gap—trying to achieve a predetermined future state—and discovering what author Steven Johnson calls the adjacent possible. In his words, “The adjacent possible is a kind of shadow future, hovering on the edges of the present state of things, a map of all the ways in which the present can reinvent itself.”
The most recent and comprehensive investigation, which took a careful look at 250 prisoners exonerated by DNA evidence, found that 16 percent of them made what’s called a false confession: admitting their commission of a crime that they did not commit.5 Those are the cases in which the defendant actually confessed; in many more cases, the innocent suspect denied all guilt, sometimes for hours, but still gave the police a statement that was then used to help convict him. Out of all the hundreds of innocent men and women who were wrongly convicted but later exonerated by DNA evidence, more than 25 percent made either a false confession or an incriminating statement.
suspicious activities. If a police officer encounters you in one of those moments, he or she has every right to ask you two simple questions. Memorize these two questions so you will not be tempted to answer any others: Who are you? What are you doing right here, right now?
If you give the police information that turns out to be inaccurate, and the police mistakenly believe that you were lying to them on purpose, that fact can be devastating to your defense in three different ways. First, it can help to convince the police that they have the right suspect, which might make them less likely to spend additional time pursuing other possible leads that could help them identify the actual offender. Second, the prosecutor can present that evidence to the jury, and the judge will tell the jurors that, if they believe that you knew your statement to the police was false when you said it, they are permitted to regard that knowing falsehood as evidence that you are guilty. (And how will the jury ever really know whether you are lying to the police? They are only human, just like the cop.) Third, and perhaps worst of all, our legal system places no limits on the ability of the police to share the details of their ongoing investigation with the critical witnesses against you.
