3 ms·

This is an empty, hollow article and its not like how I experienced groups for 20+ years. Just like with siblings in families or groups of friends, everyone na

This is an empty, hollow article and its not like how I experienced groups for 20+ years. Just like with siblings in families or groups of friends, everyone naturally gets a role in a group; that's just how groups of people let alone animals work. Need to learn how to help others is fine and dandy, until it affects your own autonomy, let alone your identity, let alone the groups' autonomy. Than it will eat at you. Also what happens in groups is that if there is someone thats is truely not fit for a group, the whole group dynamic will change for the worse and it will try to oust it like a cancer. Until there is someone that speaks up (a leader) things will stay the same because the group will value the "being a group" above all else, even the goal of which the group was founded on. So? You actually need a good natural leader to guide you through some of the bad stuff. I think leaders are often misunderstood of being only authoritarian, but thats not the case.

calvinmorrison 4y ago
> I think leaders are often misunderstood of being only authoritarian, but thats not the case. Leaders spend more time thinking about other people than anyone else in a company
- scaramanga 4y ago
  As do sociopaths, since they have a disturbed sense of self. I imagine lions spend a lot of time thinking about gazelles.
avgcorrection 4y ago
Lot’s justs. Just the way it is. Just-so story? It’s so just-obvious that it needs no argument. It’s just natural. > I think leaders are often misunderstood of being only authoritarian, but thats not the case. Bosses (as in formal authorities, people who have formal control) have been rebranded as “leadership” exactly because “leader” sounds much more voluntary and consensual.
- hitekker 4y ago
  There’s two “just”s in the GP’s comment so I’m not sure where your snark is coming from.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    Bc it’s reactionary nonsense. Nothing natural about it, just uninformed on modern archaeological and anthro research search as from wengrow, graeber
thom 4y ago
In fairness to the article, it’s not actually about leaderless teams. Leaderless teams were just experiments allowing them to identify better leaders, who then went on to take positions of command.
macfarbt 4y ago
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.

calvinmorrison 4y ago

> I think leaders are often misunderstood of being only authoritarian, but thats not the case. Leaders spend more time thinking about other people than anyone else in a company

scaramanga 4y ago
As do sociopaths, since they have a disturbed sense of self. I imagine lions spend a lot of time thinking about gazelles.

avgcorrection 4y ago

Lot’s justs. Just the way it is. Just-so story? It’s so just-obvious that it needs no argument. It’s just natural. > I think leaders are often misunderstood of being only authoritarian, but thats not the case. Bosses (as in formal authorities, people who have formal control) have been rebranded as “leadership” exactly because “leader” sounds much more voluntary and consensual.

hitekker 4y ago
There’s two “just”s in the GP’s comment so I’m not sure where your snark is coming from.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  Bc it’s reactionary nonsense. Nothing natural about it, just uninformed on modern archaeological and anthro research search as from wengrow, graeber

thom 4y ago

In fairness to the article, it’s not actually about leaderless teams. Leaderless teams were just experiments allowing them to identify better leaders, who then went on to take positions of command.

macfarbt 4y ago

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.