macfarbt

Cultures that are creative and innovative in general are good at rewarding such behaviour. I kind of realise in a way I've only ever works in shared leadership situations as experts needed to contribute and be motivated to contribute to developing innovative products and work. Only through collaboration and generating their own motivation could I deliver and thus get promoted. However, I would say some who were more power orientated shot up faster at times, only to eventually fizzle out in the long run.

It's a fallacy that "flat" org structures have no hierarchy, they just become more opaque. A team that shares responsibility can have a dynamic hierarchy based on relevant capabilities at relevant stages of work. It's also important to note that I addressed teams in this article not organisations. To cultivate autonomous teams you also need to understand authority, where it comes from and who it's granted to and by whom. The more intentionally authority is understood the less likely power becomes a corrupting force.

Suffer is the right word for when it's not carefully executed or understood.

Self organising or autonomous teams is not a replacement for strategy, vision or a clear task. That's leaderless organizations which isn't a good thing.

Who grants the authority to the team is a skill to test and develop. The point of the research is to find such leaders by what they actually do and how, not what they say they do.

In the context of the reserach it's helpful to know they were all psychoanalysts. They focus on the human needs we acheive through work that are overlooked from the functional or material needs/outcomes of work.

In a modern context attend means would be more in line with EQ. Being about to sense, contain or facilitate someone scratching the itch of a need. It could be simply to help clarify, to hear, to reassure, to encourage, etc. All situationally specific based on the individuals in the group.

Change in an organisation comes from collaboration at minimum and cooperation at best.

It also needs a working alliance between leaders and followers. In teams with shared leadership, different people contribute to team goals in different ways or can shift between leader or follower over time depending on how the task evolves. I developed a concept called quantum leadership that tries to study and convey this point. It's a bit esoteric but I've experience it.

https://www.brettmacfarlane.com/blog/2019/8/11/19/quantum-le...

I have a teaching case study based on a project team for Apple and the first car controlling watch app.

You touch on a deeper truth about change in organisations. It can't just be important, it has to be vital. That is why military is such a pure testing ground for leadership. Or why Edmonson's psychological safety research was initially carierd out in hospitals. In less life or death situations, the fact change is only important not vital allows more emotional needs to distort things. Leaderless teams only thrive when senior authority cultivates or tolerates such autonomy. If they try to control due to some individual or systemic needs then autonomous leadership dies.

Ohe culture needs to be actively cultivated. Otherwise power or chaos eventually creep in.

If the culture is adhocracy then leaderless teams are extra effective. Though a self organising or autonomous team can thrive in any organisation. For example Toyota in the glory days of TPS. Where individuals took up their role in driving change and attending the needs of colleagues.

You touch on a few good points. The key is how leadership is defined. I use the definition that leadership is an act not a position, and driving change is the act of leadership.

In roles of routine tasks, execution, efficiency and repetition is the task. It take management or monitoring but not necessarily leadership.

Leaderless teams actually are the best way to deal with highly ambiguous challenges where the path is unclear and the best people to figure it out are the people doing the work, not a manager or monitor.

So the leaderless team exercise identifies individual who do well in ambiguous situations. They may actually fail or get bored in situations without dynamic tasks/goals.

Grat experiences, thanks for sharing. You experience with directors is a clear example I suggest of where their desire to control obliterated the autonomy and ability of the team to function effectively. Mature and self aware senior leaders restrain the natural impulse to control.

I'd love to learn more, maybe even write a teaching case study if you're interested.

Write me at [email protected]

Thanks again for sharing your experiences.

Very much there is a delineation between authority and leadership. Authority is the right to do work either formally through policy/power or informally through influence/trust.

Authority has to be granted whereas leadership is something anyone can take up regardless of role. Leadership is the ability to drive change, an act not a position. Just because someone has a lot of authority doesn't not mean they act as leaders, if they operate purely for individual means. In my eyes there is a morality, but that's my personal approach.

Thanks, I really connect with your point that it's the managee to decide whether to carry out what the manager requires. In the knowledge economy we work at will (though may be constrained by perceived needed.)

The most bureaucratic and toxic cultures I've ever seen up close are flat or describes as "family." Personality and power take over in the lack of clear ways of working, huge wastage financially and emotionally.

Perfmafrost is unhealthy and unsustainable for an org, so in permathaw where everything is perpetually fluid.

Leadership isn't power and control. Leadership is the ability to drive change with others. Leadership is an act, not a position. Flat organizations tend not to be leadersless teams and rather leaderless organisations.

There are many good leaders, but the tend to be in the middle not the top. Based upon research evidence.

I will agree it's hollow in that it is story of an experiment not a specific real world situation. :-)

You are right that in families everyone gets a role. Unlike business you don't join a family at will, you're born into it and roles are very fixed.

Companies are much more dynamic and our roles (formal and informal) change. We also work "at will" and can change companies, teams and colleagues.

There are different types of leadership roles. As you say, one type gets through the bad stuff. Others do really well when times are good. Some only in certain situations.

In tech, where the nature of work and expertise needed day to day, week to week, can vary a lot at times, a variety of leadership capabilities and styles, along with the universal ability to give a shit about colleagues, makes for an awesome team.

Thanks for sharing. This sounds like a very sophisticated culture (though it may just seem obvious to those on the inside.) Whatever the structure or norms (e.g. guilds, squads, cells, lattice, project teams, etc) it sounds like leadership has given some guidance and more important empowerment. But, empowerment is an alliance. It must be taken up with given. By everyone in fact, as leadership is an act not a position, if you go by the definition of leadership as the act of driving change (aka doing real work.) Are you able to share the company? I'd be interested in studying it. [email protected]

Good summary. Leadership can be shared and it's not about power or authority. As Google's data shows, teams can be autonomous and self organising but leaderless teams don't mean leaderless organisations.