3 ms·

Leaderless teams always start to build a hierarchy on its own and the longer they exist the harder it gets to get new people into the group. It's really hard to

Leaderless teams always start to build a hierarchy on its own and the longer they exist the harder it gets to get new people into the group. It's really hard to manage.

bombcar 4y ago
Yep, leaderless teams are either ad-hoc for a short time, or they develop an unofficial hierarchy (often based on the complaining of certain people, not anything else).
baxtr 4y ago
So basically your saying that leaderless teams are only leaderless for a short period
- macfarbt 4y ago
  Ohe culture needs to be actively cultivated. Otherwise power or chaos eventually creep in.
andrewla 4y ago
This is exactly what the article seems to be talking about -- how to identify the emergence of leadership where no formal hierarchy exists, and how to coach those individuals to find leaders.
rzzzt 4y ago
Obligatory link: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=structurelessness https://hn.algolia.com/?query=structurelessness
orthecreedence 4y ago
https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" is a great read on this. TLDR: structure will always form, so it's best for formalize it from the beginning. That said, I've been interested in the idea of "adhocracies" for a while now, and it seems to me that it would be possible to form structureless groups that, once they have fulfilled their purpose, disband thus becoming immune from the sort of rot that would otherwise happen. And I'll also say: the same rot can happen in a group with a well-defined structure too. So it's not all cut and dry.
- macfarbt 4y ago
  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.
- golf_mike 4y ago
  > "adhocracies" Great expression!

Leaderless teams always start to build a hierarchy on its own and the longer they exist the harder it gets to get new people into the group. It's really hard to manage.

bombcar 4y ago

Yep, leaderless teams are either ad-hoc for a short time, or they develop an unofficial hierarchy (often based on the complaining of certain people, not anything else).

baxtr 4y ago

So basically your saying that leaderless teams are only leaderless for a short period

macfarbt 4y ago
Ohe culture needs to be actively cultivated. Otherwise power or chaos eventually creep in.

andrewla 4y ago

This is exactly what the article seems to be talking about -- how to identify the emergence of leadership where no formal hierarchy exists, and how to coach those individuals to find leaders.

rzzzt 4y ago

Obligatory link: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=structurelessness https://hn.algolia.com/?query=structurelessness

orthecreedence 4y ago

https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" is a great read on this. TLDR: structure will always form, so it's best for formalize it from the beginning. That said, I've been interested in the idea of "adhocracies" for a while now, and it seems to me that it would be possible to form structureless groups that, once they have fulfilled their purpose, disband thus becoming immune from the sort of rot that would otherwise happen. And I'll also say: the same rot can happen in a group with a well-defined structure too. So it's not all cut and dry.

macfarbt 4y ago
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.
golf_mike 4y ago
> "adhocracies" Great expression!