By Dr.-Ing. Walter Tritt · From more than three decades of experience with a model that everyone finds interesting - and almost nobody introduces.
In my lectures on the task exchange I collected the reasons why it could never work in the respective company. The collection is revealing: for almost every excuse, the exact opposite exists elsewhere - also as an excuse.
First, the original list, as it came up in lectures and meetings:
| One company says | Another company says |
|---|---|
| „We work tied to objects.“ | „We do not work tied to objects.“ |
| „We handle very different technologies.“ | „We handle only a few technologies.“ |
| „Our work cannot be planned.“ | „All our work is pre-planned.“ |
| „We need local knowledge.“ | „We hardly need local knowledge.“ |
| „Our orders are especially important and urgent.“ | „The order does not matter to us.“ |
| „Our orders are bound to fixed dates.“ | „We have no fixed dates.“ |
| „We have different qualifications.“ | „We need the same qualification for everything.“ |
When both sides reject the same model - once because of a property, once because of its opposite - the property cannot be the real reason. These are not arguments. They are fears.
Especially revealing is this pair:
„The works council will object to a possible personal performance assessment - although management wants the system for efficiency reasons.“
„Management rejects it because it fears losing influence - although the works council would welcome the system for self-determination and objective, fair performance assessment.“
Both were said to me. Not in the same company - but within a few years. When both sides blame the other, the obstacle is neither the works council nor management. The obstacle is the fear of the new itself.
Add to this the excuses that always fit because they are never wrong:
None of these statements has ever been refuted - they do not need to be. They are not there to be true. They are there to avoid having to do anything.
I have been compiling this list for more than thirty years. During this time I have presented the task exchange model in lectures, articles and countless conversations. The echo was almost always friendly: interesting, well thought out, convincing. And then, most of the time: nothing happened.
This is not an accusation. The reasons are human and understandable: change costs something at first. Those who have built something of their own rightly defend it. And „finding it interesting“ is cheap - „starting“ is expensive. But I stand by it: if an idea is good and still nothing happens, it is not because of the list. It is because of the fears behind it: fear of losing control, of being assessed, of what might become visible after the introduction.
This is exactly why the task exchange is built the way it is: points remain private - not even management sees individual values. There is no public exposure, no automatic disadvantage. Those who want to take away the fear of assessment must take it away technically - not through promises.
From the 2006 pilot I know: the first two, three months are about getting used to it. Then the mood tips - from „Why me?“ to „Why do I not get the work?“. Three things help:
„There is nothing good, unless you do it.“ - Erich Kästner
The question is not whether the reasons are sound - the list shows: they never are, because their opposite appears elsewhere as a reason. The question is whether they are arguments or fears. Fears deserve to be taken seriously - with a small, secured start instead of a decision about the whole company.
Read more: Fear or recognition - the same motor, two results shows what happens when points become a threat. The specialist dilemma shows the other side. And Distributing tasks fairly shows the model in practice.
Further publications at www.scwt.de.