Why are people commenting about "leaderless teams" as if the article defines that to mean, "A team where there is no leader present"? That's not what this arti

Why are people commenting about "leaderless teams" as if the article defines that to mean, "A team where there is no leader present"? That's not what this article is about at all. I know it's "bad form" to accuse people of having not read the submission, but folks come on, go read the actual submission! The article can be summed up by this line: > What emerged from this exercise is that social class, education, gender and athletic ability were less important for leadership than the capacity for an individual to attend to others in the group. So it's about how the best leaders are those who attend to the others in the group to create psychological safety so that those others can thrive without emotional risk. The article also talks about how people seem to have forgotten this core concept but they haven't; it was the key conclusion to Google's own research into its most successful teams as well.[0] If your team isn't primarily focused on providing psychological safety, then your leaders need to read Google's findings ASAP... [0] https://rework.withgoogle.com/print/guides/5721312655835136/ https://rework.withgoogle.com/print/guides/5721312655835136/