Head Of Nothing

I concluded that it could constrain, but in general it was simply seeking the outcome. I decided to resolve that particular dichotomy later. It might after all be dependent on the individual I found for the role, rather than on the description of the role itself.

So, I have concluded that I wish to invest a reasonable sum of money in my business in order to help it grow. One way that I can do that is to find someone to fulfil a role with no constraints but to pay them for undertaking that role. The search is on….

I had determined that I did not intend to employ a Head of Nothing; rather I sought a collaborator, an associate, someone who would see “Head of Nothing” as a part of their portfolio and not their “job”. It wouldn’t be all that they did, and the other things they did would allow them to continue to innovate and develop and think about their role in my organisation in more depth. That seemed to fit, it enabled them to be unconstrained by the need to focus on one organisation so one significant constraint already was removed.

I also knew that I wasn’t in a position to invest enough in my business to provide an income for an individual working on a full time basis. However, some of what they deliver should of course develop and grow the business. I was, however, prepared to make an investment in the business in order to help the business to grow.

Immediately, I have a problem, I have constrained the role by defining it as a role which is intended to “help the business grow”. My question, to myself, became one of is that a constraint or is it a desired outcome?

That question arose today when I was talking to someone about the role. It’s a choice, it may not prove to be the right one, but in part this discussion, this experiment, will provide some information to enable others to determine whether the strategy was correctly or incorrectly formed. Of course, they will do so, with the benefit of twenty twenty hindsight after the event, but that’s OK too.

I’d been issued with a challenge (see here…) by some existing clients to think about what a job with no contraints would look like and after some consideration (see here…) I’d given form to an idea of a role I’d called ‘Head of Nothing’.

‘Head of Nothing’ is a job that is not one without a title, but, actually, it has a title that described it in its entirety.

I then began to think about the implications of hiring someone in such a role. In general I have concluded that my business should grow through the use of associates and partners in other similar businesses working collaborately rather than through employment of individuals working solely for my business.

That (employing others) may become necessary as the business grows and develops, but in general I believe that the development of groups of independent people working, collaborative, and developing business through innovation and agility means that a business strategy that constrains itself with employees may be critically constrained at a time of rapid change.

The ability to engage others with different skills at relatively short notice to meet an immediate client need seems, for now, at least, a more appropriate way to develop the business.

Of course, growing a business in that way does mean that the cost base is both variable and at times, particularly when delivering to clients, much higher, without careful planning cashflow can be a real issue. However at other times when business is not sufficient to support the level of work that would maintain employment for staff, the cost base is automatically adapted.

A Head of Nothing isn’t working for clients though, at least not necessarily (remember - no constraints) so their costs are like an employee whatever the contractual arrangement. Does that create the first insurmountable constraint? More thinking is clearly needed.