This could be a great idea!

> although probably unpopular, one way around this is to have mandatory rotation of people between worker/leader roles

I think simple elections would go a long way towards worker happiness at least. Making the managers beholden to the people they manage would certainly shift dynamics.

But then, I'd also fear that a democratically ran company would struggle making hard decisions.

This has been implemented in some companies as “staff may freely move to another project led by another manager.”

This really puts an emphasis on the “leadership” part of management.

This is nice if it works, but management and leadership are specific skills that not all people have off the bat.

What is it that management does that would lend itself to transferability and rotations? If leadership’s contribution is primarily to provide updates to others or to schedule meetings, sure that’s easily replaceable. If leadership is about being empathetic and resolving conflicts, everyone brings a different style of handling this to the table and not everyone wants that sort of work. That’s the start of politics. If leadership is about making tough decisions and being held accountable for those decisions and getting teams to buy in and coordinate work around that, then switching people every six months could destroy any accountability and stability entirely.

Politics is what happens when two sides disagree, and what happens next. You aren’t going to avoid it except without groupthink. Most people are reactive to “bad” politics, just like bad sales and bad management. When it is handled well, people don’t notice it or realize it.

I don’t think this is relegated to certain industries or certain team sizes. It’s a question of roles and responsibilities, and if changing a company’s M.O. from one thing to something quite radically something else. If you’ve ever tried to change a company culture (really, a collection of a bunch of individuals’ cultures), then you know this is a huge huge task and it’s often easier/lower cost/more effective to understand your current culture and how to be most effective within that than to come in and try to change everything.

Also, Chesterton’s Fence and the like. We’ve have great social experiments in rotating leadership and in practice, people bring whatever lens they view the world to the leadership table, which is great until it isn’t.

thanks for thoughtful reply, definitely a lot to think about and consider

  > Most people are reactive to “bad” politics, just like bad sales and bad management. When it is handled well, people don’t notice it or realize it.

yes, definitely, i guess (at least when i use that word) most people probably mean "bad politics" when they say "politics" and that was what i mean... good to clarify that

  > I don’t think this is relegated to certain industries or certain team sizes. It’s a question of roles and responsibilities

good point!

  > We’ve have great social experiments in rotating leadership and in practice, people bring whatever lens they view the world to the leadership table, which is great until it isn’t.

yes, that can be an issue for sure. i guess what i was thinking was through the chance of being lead by someone who was previously under them and vice-versa there is more of a chance for managers to re-evaluate that lens and reduce those "bad" politics...

That kind of rotational system is used in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every role, from teacher to pastor, in a local congregation is done by lay members. Because each person rotates between various roles over the years, there are no political incentives to try to climb the ranks.

It might play out differently in a workplace setting, but a rotational system works well in that religious context.

This is Sortition, a well known but rarely tried solution to the excessive competiveness of choosing leaders and winners in merit contests. Without it, selection processes devolve into a surd peacocking, competing over tiny differences and irrelevant challenges.

The department in which I got my MS did this with their department heads. Probably two thirds of the tenured professors had been dept. head, it seemed to result in a lot of respect (and sympathy) within the department.