Before leaders can assign new tasks and projects, they must know who on the team has the capacity to take on additional work without sacrificing the quality of their current tasks.
I love the use of "bandwidth" to describe capacity. The premise of the article is what is commonly referred to as talent-spotting. Who is best suited for any task? What I love about the concept discussed here is the reliance on metrics such as data from performance, as opposed to the eye test that can fool perception. How much work gets done, and at what quality? That is the more obvious observation, but that is gleaned from existing data. Harder than that are subtle clues that identify the strengths of individuals. What X factors does each team member bring to the group? Softer skills like persuasion, networking, and harmony are harder to spot. That is ultimately what separates good and solid leaders from excellers. Should leaders be more risk-takers and intuitive? Intuition is what sharpens observation by adding insights into our vision.
I don't know what I did, but I have several team members who let me know when they have more bandwidth. Since we keep a project tracker of everything we do, it's easy to pull it up and assign a new project or part of a project to that person. As a leader, I find that I add the most value by working with team members to limit the number of projects or things they are working on at any given time to the smallest number possible. I find, especially with high performers, that they take on too much and their progress slows down.
Oh that is interesting that you don't know what you did to create this behavior coming out of multiple people. It makes me want to figure it out with you.
I agree. It's part of the management role to do this. We should never dump more on our people than they can handle. In the rare case this is needed, we may need to provide training to up skill them, so their responsibilities can increase.
I'll end with words a professor told me: "... just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Bandwidth is a good way to describe capacity. Another useful analogy is to think of capacity as a battery that gets drained and must be recharged. Both of these images indicate clearly that capacity has limits and that these limits fluctuate, which too many bosses overlook or fail to understand.
The best leaders (just like the best teachers) also take into account the bandwidth that is used up by their team members’ non-work life. It can be difficult to assess, but the strains of a failing marriage, a troubled child, a new house purchase, bad medical news, and the like can have a massive effect on bandwidth/battery capacity and need to be considered when assigning work.
If we agree that people operate best at something like 80% of their capacity, your analogy might imply that, like a battery can develop a memory that stays at 80%, people might do the same?
Do you think the idea of good battery maintenance saying that once every couple months you intentionally take it all the way to 0% applies?
I love the use of "bandwidth" to describe capacity. The premise of the article is what is commonly referred to as talent-spotting. Who is best suited for any task? What I love about the concept discussed here is the reliance on metrics such as data from performance, as opposed to the eye test that can fool perception. How much work gets done, and at what quality? That is the more obvious observation, but that is gleaned from existing data. Harder than that are subtle clues that identify the strengths of individuals. What X factors does each team member bring to the group? Softer skills like persuasion, networking, and harmony are harder to spot. That is ultimately what separates good and solid leaders from excellers. Should leaders be more risk-takers and intuitive? Intuition is what sharpens observation by adding insights into our vision.
I don't know what I did, but I have several team members who let me know when they have more bandwidth. Since we keep a project tracker of everything we do, it's easy to pull it up and assign a new project or part of a project to that person. As a leader, I find that I add the most value by working with team members to limit the number of projects or things they are working on at any given time to the smallest number possible. I find, especially with high performers, that they take on too much and their progress slows down.
Oh that is interesting that you don't know what you did to create this behavior coming out of multiple people. It makes me want to figure it out with you.
Good morning David,
I agree. It's part of the management role to do this. We should never dump more on our people than they can handle. In the rare case this is needed, we may need to provide training to up skill them, so their responsibilities can increase.
I'll end with words a professor told me: "... just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Thank you for your time.
Bandwidth is a good way to describe capacity. Another useful analogy is to think of capacity as a battery that gets drained and must be recharged. Both of these images indicate clearly that capacity has limits and that these limits fluctuate, which too many bosses overlook or fail to understand.
The best leaders (just like the best teachers) also take into account the bandwidth that is used up by their team members’ non-work life. It can be difficult to assess, but the strains of a failing marriage, a troubled child, a new house purchase, bad medical news, and the like can have a massive effect on bandwidth/battery capacity and need to be considered when assigning work.
If we agree that people operate best at something like 80% of their capacity, your analogy might imply that, like a battery can develop a memory that stays at 80%, people might do the same?
Do you think the idea of good battery maintenance saying that once every couple months you intentionally take it all the way to 0% applies?
Good morning,
I believe a lot of team members forget that most businesses are operating/aspiring to operate with a global mindset.
If the team members do not genuinely realize this; whose fault is it;).
Once they have been briefed, it is also up to the manager to help them up skill (whenever possible).
I also believe in respecting and protecting your team (if they are not doing anything unethical, immoral, and/or illegal).
If the fire's too hot, one doesn't have to be a manager. I believe this is the most important thing to take away;).
Thank you for your time.