This post is a compiled snippet from a Twitter thread that I've transported over here for posterity. The original thread started here: https://twitter.com/b_cavello/status/1257200050104446977

A while ago, my partner and I took this online quiz (made by @MojoUpgrade) that helps couples have conversations about their sexual desires while limiting embarrassing admissions by showing only the things you agree upon. It’s an interesting model!
mojoupgrade.com

While we didn’t learn anything too surprising, given we already felt pretty comfortable talking about what we wanted (and didn’t!) it was a cool mechanism for testing our assumptions and provided an opportunity to learn about each other (and maybe ourselves)

I’m thinking of this mechanism again, but now in the context of work. Especially when it comes to self-organized work on teams where people have different preferences and skills, but also may be wary of stepping on others’ toes or asking too much of their colleagues

I’ve certainly experienced this myself, recognizing that there are things I love that others consider a waste of time or boring or things that others thrive doing that feel like a drudgery to me. Finding these differences can be incredibly valuable and freeing in dividing labor.

But sometimes it can feel difficult within a team to delegate tasks because we project our feelings into others.
Do they think taking notes is enjoyable or taxing? Will they be jealous of my speaking opportunities or would they dread them? Why are they asking ME to do THAT?

Having a tool similar to the one described above for delineating focuses within teams could be useful, esp for self-organized teams like groups of volunteers.
Taking away some ambiguity without as many tough conversations could help, esp when people don’t know each other well.

As I conceive of it, the teams should also be able to specify the tasks involved, so ideally such a system allows for this. (I think even a Google form with some analysis might suffice.)
The process of reviewing the tasks is also valuable for better understanding the work.

There might be two phases:
> anonymous submission of the tasks involved (or believed to be) in the work
> selection of tasks by the various members of the team members

One thing that @MojoUpgrade does nicely is it has a sort of “I’d be okay with it” option in addition to “no” and enthusiastic “yes!!”
I think there’s value in translating these sorts of options into a collaboration quiz/evaluation, esp as we may not feel as strongly about work

I could def use this kinda thing, and if you are interested in chatting more about this and maybe trying such a thing, def hmu!