Head Of Nothing

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.

I thought for some time about the nature of a role that was truly without constraints and for a long time struggled to identify how such a role could be defined. Of course, I eventually realised that by trying to define such a role I was indeed constraining it.

A role without constraints is a role which does not define its purpose. A role without constraints does not require an individual to be working on strategy, or marketing, or sales, or product development, or operational improvement, or any other particular role within an organisation. Perhaps, from time to time, there would work on each, or some, of those roles but to predefine them would be to constrain them.

At that moment the concept of, and search for a “Head of Nothing” was born.