The T Model: A framework for learning, work, personal growth and non-linear career progression

The T Model is a framework I made to describe how to most effectively approach learning, work, and non-linear career progression.

In the T Model you alternate between a broad, horizontal phase and a deep, vertical phase, (though it’s actually an upside-down T because starting with the horizontal phase is a must) . In the broad, horizontal phase the goal is to try as many things as possible, and in small doses to maximize variety. You want to continue experimenting until you find many things you are passionate about and also accumulate many reference frames to better categorize and make sense of new experiences and information.

Once you have a huge pool of things that excite you, look to switch to the vertical phase, where you will hone in on a few specific passions and combine them, to do something tangible. (This tangible thing should be something you can point to quickly and say, “I did this” and the word “project” could be considered loosely accurate).

Going through this cycle is very simple conceptually, but rarely executed. But if you look at most successful people they’ve usually followed a path similar to this. This is because in order to be really successful at something you need to be passionate, you need to be able to focus, and increasingly you need to be interdisciplinary. Success without passion exists, but those people are usually severely unhappy and prone to burn out.

Often completing this cycle even once sets off a positive feedback loop, marking the start of a lifetime of engaged pursuit and contribution. On completion of the first cycle an internal flame is lit, that once ignited is very difficult to put out. John Seely Brown former head of Xerox Parc describes this phenomena as such, “Very often just going deeply into one or two topics that you really care about lets you appreciate the awe of the world … once you learn to honor the mysteries of the world, you’re kind of always willing to probe things … you can actually be joyful about discovering something you didn’t know … and you can expect always to need to keep probing. And so that sets the stage for lifelong inquiry.”

Many people don’t complete the T cycle because they get stuck in one phase or the other. People who get stuck in the horizontal phases are people who are very creative and always have lots of little side projects going on, but they suffer from a lack of “big wins”, that provide the reputation and credibility that lead to greater opportunities and chances for financial sustainability— not to mention that gratification that comes from pulling off something big. People stuck in this mindset are resistant to focusing on a particular project because they can’t bear the possibility of turning down an interesting opportunity. They fear picking only one thing would put them in a box, vaporizing their multi-facted identity they associate so strongly with. The lives they lead are very unique, but by not reaping the rewards from alternating into cycles of focus, they strongly limit their ability to realize their potential.

Many people also jump into a focus phase prematurely, spending all their energy on something they aren’t passionate about. This is more dangerous than being stuck in the creative phase because the extrinsic reward will be there for focusing even if the activity is done without passion. This often fools people into believing they are headed in the right direction for themselves. But people who make this error frequently end up suffering from burn out, hitting midlife crises or working tirelessly to reach the top of their field only to be left wondering why they are so unfulfilled and whether all the sacrifice was really worth it.

There’s also a large sector of the population who isn’t in either the creative or focus phase and are resigned to getting by with whatever pays the bills. While the onus is on the individual to find their passion, trying to do so in our education system is like swimming upstream against a level 5 rapid. And most people just get swept away. (Even at the better public and private schools, you’re still swimming upstream, just against a lighter current).

If you can complete even one T cycle, the rewards will start rolling in. Executing a project you’re passionate about is rare, and separates you from a cacophony of wannabes. Everybody talks about things they want to do, but few people have the self-discipline and initiative to make projects come to life. This scarcity of executors, makes people pay close attention to you if you are one, and opens up a whole new set of opportunities unavailable before. Opportunities will start chasing you down instead of the other way around. When this happens the second T cycle has begun. You now have the chance to explore horizontally again, this time with more freedom and opportunity.

The exploration here is much richer. You’re a more developed person. You have access to more people. You have more financial freedom. You get flown places to speak and are invited to contribute to more interesting projects. You have more influence, and as a result, people listen to what you have say and want to support or join your cause. This more intensive exploratory phase should lead to a new point of focus, where you can again combine your rapidly growing pool of knowledge, experiences and passions to build something new, likely more ambitious than your last.

As you turn the corner towards your second focus project, true interdisciplinary thinking begins to emerge. You can combine your breadth of knowledge on many subjects with the depth of your previous focus, charting new territory from a variety of informed perspectives.

All in all, a cycle probably takes anywhere from 2 to 7 years, so you have the opportunity to pursue both learning and doing many times in your life. And the T cycles start linking up very naturally. When they do that they begin resembling something like a series of s curves— a natural evolutionary growth cycle with some intriguing implications (to be explored later). Strictly interpreting the analogy of the T implies alternating between stages of being 100% horizontal and 100% vertical. But it is probably not realistic nor optimal to be one phase 100% of the time. A good rule of thumb is to allocate 80% of your time to the designated phase and 20% of your time to the other phase, i.e. 80% Creative & 20% Focus or vice versa. This allocation will also give the T smoother curves if graphed, creating a more natural looking S curve.

This model can be used as framework for decision making and allocating priorities in almost any field of interest. I’ve shared this model with numerous friends the last few months and many have appreciated the insight and clarity it has produced.

I hope to explore more facets and implications of this model. A few areas I’ve mapped out: The emotional journey through different phases. Why the T Model Works. How School Follows the Exact Opposite of the T Model, which is why students hate it. My Personal Path Along the T. Complimentary Theories to the T Model from Stefan Sagmeister, Seth Godin, and IDEO’s Tim Brown.

Picture 3

Share on Twitter

The Lego Model

Original post can be found here.

Picture 1

There are two types of organizations that are driving a majority of our economic growth: the startup and the large corporation.

On one hand, we have startups, which are where the innovation is happening and on the other hand, we have corporations, which have the advantages of scale and abundant resources. We need a new kind of organizational structure that can bridge the gap, combining the strengths they each possess.

I’ve come up with a model that explains how startups can gain the advantages of scale and have access to greater resources while staying agile and preserving their penchant for innovation. This model is called the lego model.

In this model you can think of a startup like a rectangular block and a large corporation like a tower. Startups can create a tower by collaborating with other startups. When enough startups are seamlessly working together they have created a tower that is functionally equivalent to the towers of corporations that can take advantage of the efficiencies at scale. But the tower startups create is not a single indivisible entity, it’s more like a tower made of lego pieces. And that has a lot of advantages the indivisible tower doesn’t. It is more resilient, more flexible, more modular and can quickly be assembled and disassembled. This process incorporates principles from both evolution and nature selection. It enables unlimited experimentation and also fast replication for the stuff that works. (This is good that it mirrors nature, because we know nature works, because it created us). The modularity also gives much greater control over optimization, because it’s much easier to isolate and test particular variables. Best practices can easily move across the ecosystem because as things get increasingly quantized, they are easier to replicate. If one lego piece is shown to be particularly versatile or adaptive it can be plugged into many existing towers. If a particular lego piece is poorly constructed and not doing its job very well, there are plenty of pieces waiting in the wings that can replace this ineffective lego piece. That provides great resiliency because while you’re still only as strong as your weakest link, the chain isn’t fixed anymore.

Towers only have to live as long as they are still creating increasing value for the customer. As the vertical the tower is operating in begins becoming saturated, essential pieces can shift their focus from growth, to becoming as lean as possible— doing the same job with many fewer employees and much greater efficiency. The pieces that are no longer essential  as the vertical matures can leave while still highly profitable, and move into an area where they are still adaptive or regroup and plan to start from scratch with the resources they’ve gained.

What we don’t want are companies trying to milk past innovations for all they are worth, through monopolies and legal manuerving. This is terrible for customers because it closes down the space and prevents further innovation. It’s terrible for companies too, because as soon as they stop innovating, a death knell has been sounded, and they are now fighting an uphill batter that will only get steeper. All utters have a limited amount of milk.

Why do large companies stop innovating? There are many reasons, a few are because: they become too large and innovation requires being flexible. The people in the organization age and become tired and complacent. It’s easier and more certain to incrementally improve existing products and services than venture into the uncertain waters of innovation.

What we want to have happen is to have successful organizations in a mature market release both their financial and human resources back into the ecosystem to begin creating more innovative lego pieces that will eventually be formed into more lego towers that serve new verticals.

But why can’t startups form these lego towers currently? Because currently they are just rectangular blocks without the knobs and holes. If the pieces are just flat rectangular blocks, the structure is more akin to a disjointed Jenga tower, which certainly isn’t adaptable or sustainable.

If theory is to be taken seriously, what does it mean practically for how we should be organizing startups?

In order to start building lego-like structures startups need to have greater interconnectivity and more standardization for interoperability. To achieve either requires a more mature startup ecosystem which will need to evolve to encompass many new things including: more transparency, more portable data, a more collaborative culture that focuses more on creating value than capturing it (meaning share more and worry less about protecting IP or being ripped off); a tighter community with more fluid relationships between first time entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial veterans and mentors. Startups also need better information including: roadmaps, templates, and organized, actionable guides. And the ecosystem needs more startups for startups—companies creating tools designed specifically to help other startups grow their businesses. We want to be one of them.

As these tools develop and the ecosystem matures achieving lego like startups will begin becoming feasible, but the culture must evolve in parallel, too.

What we’re trying to look at and understand is what the innovation landscape might look like in the future, I think the lego model is a step in the right direction. Let us know what you think. We’ll be sharing more implications of the lego model and complimentary ideas that could shape the innovation landscape.

Share on Twitter