macfarbt

4 ms·

1.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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 t
2.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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 al
3.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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 th
4.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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 contex
5.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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 w
6.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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 init
7.
by macfarbt 4y ago
Ohe culture needs to be actively cultivated. Otherwise power or chaos eventually creep in.
8.
by 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
9.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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 repetitio
10.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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
11.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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 som
12.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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 i
13.
by 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
14.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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
15.
by macfarbt 4y ago
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.