Introduction

Team structures affect functionality in both intentional and unintentional ways, so they merit some serious consideration. Whenever I enter into a new work place or if the environment is quickly changing, organizational structure is something I map out and try to keep in mind as I’m problem solving. A thoughtful team design focuses on utility and desired outcomes. It should help companies reach their goals. Too often, they are either thoughtlessly copy/pasted from previous experience or kept in place because of historical momentum. Today’s example is not a strict prescription, but my hope is that it’s helpful to those looking to try something new and must consider issues of agility, autonomy, and scale.

The Drawing: Pods of 10 - self-sufficient, empowered, fast, flexible
I will share the visual first and then try to briefly comment on some of the desired characteristics of the model in practice, including supporting ideas that are beyond the mere organization of bodies.

Manager Ratio of 1:9 is Meant to Support Team Health, Agent Growth, and Leadership Succession

In general, I have found that the ratio of 1 manager to 9 agents allows for a reasonable management workload according to a methodology that prioritizes meaningful work relationships and value delivery. Many places have higher ratios, for example 1:15 or 1:20 are common. In truly terrible circumstances I’ve seen ratios as bad as 1:40, which told me that it was a certainty that no one was getting the attention they needed to succeed. Through much trial and error, military spec ops teams have landed on the optimal number of around six per squad. Though player support teams are accustomed to being under constant assault, our jobs are much less dangerous and intense most of the time.

Seniors Are Meant to Support Agent Growth Through Training, Coaching, and Quality Functions, and to Help Their Manager Evaluate and Serve the Team

This model does not require the traditional additional external support teams, such as QC and Training. Those functions and skills are to be primarily practiced by the seniors on the team, including the manager to help the agents grow and deliver great service. Self-sufficient teams can not only save time this way, but there is a different credibility and level of trust in the quality, coaching, and training functions when the person delivering feedback shares the same battle scars. Not having to maintain large external teams that do not interact with players also has scaling benefits as you do not have to hire proportionally for new demand across so many different teams.

Generalists Are Meant to Grow in Competencies Useful for the Business and Be Recognized and Rewarded as They Deliver More Value to Players

I recommend distinguishing the meaningful ways in which your agents can level up, creating clear promotional criteria around it. Personally, I prefer systems where the first levels are relatively easy to gain and difficultly ramps up the higher you go. My thoughts around this try to balance encouragement for newcomers and intrinsic mastery motivation for those who want to truly invest in playing the game of work. One of my motivations for staying at the next company I work at for a long time is to implement a system like this with my teams over the course of many years. Gamified job architecture is something I’m very interested in and have been working on across companies for over 10 years. All of this is to say that there are better ways of designing agent jobs that will take better care of them while improving the player experience.