Post #3528734

2026-04-17 16:09 UTC

Organisational Dysfunction of the Day Team leads Context: Most teams in modern agile organisations may not formally have a manager in the same sense as before. Many still have someone they report to as an employee, dealing with yearly reviews, career development, and any job issues, but they are not formally involved in the daily work. It should therefore be possible to have leaderless teams, where all members are peers and have the same say in everything. No ranking. Still, many teams end up being appointed a team lead, often because the organisation wants one contact point and one person in charge of the work done. Many in this position try to deal with this dissonance by taking on a coaching type role, seeing themselves as a "servant leader," giving space to the team and protecting them from the outside. Some even try to switch, being directive sometimes, supportive at other times (aka situational leadership). Not only is this a tricky job to have, but it also creates so much confusion in the team about who really decides and is in charge. OST explains: DP1-type organisations require personal leadership positions, as that is how control, coordination and alignment are managed. Agile tries to counter that for efficiency, having teams take more control of the work, in an attempt to shorten the feedback loop and the learning. This is similar to DP2, with self-organising teams, while adding team leaders is not and is an attempt to adapt them to the existing bureaucratic DP1 model. The problem with this is that DP1 and DP2 fit together like oil and water; they are fundamentally so different that no matter how good the adapters are, they will lead to confusion and operational problems. You can remove the need for this adapter by ditching DP1, having teams everywhere and letting them take responsibility for their own goals and the integration needed to work with other teams. Teams may decide to appoint a leader, though, for their own needs, either permanently or when needed, but it is not a formal position of power. It is a participative democracy through and through. #OpenSystemsTheory #SocioTechnical #OrgDesign #agile

Replies (1)

@trondhjort@hachyderm.io 2026-04-20 07:36

Organisational Dysfunction of the Day The company's strategy is unclear Context: "What we've got here is failure to communicate." A common quote used to describe a lack of understanding of and commitment to the company's strategy. Top management is frustrated by the lack of alignment, projects and departments not seeing the bigger picture clearly drawn up in the strategy document. At the same time, the people at the coalface constantly report back that they miss a clear and concise direction to follow when making decisions. All attempts to hold town hall meetings, clearly visible pages on their intranet, middle management sharing it frequently in their weekly status meetings, and even motivational phrases posted on the office walls seem to help. OST explains: There are many explanations for this dynamic, like a strategy not really being a strategy but rather a lofty goal that provides no clear guidance, or poor communication lines between the top and the bottom. Let's focus on something often missed instead. A strategy must make operational sense to people; it should give them a clear, relevant purpose for their work, feel relevant and relatable in a way that inspires and motivates. Cool and fancy wording is not the point, not even how and how often it is communicated, but how engaging it is. The best way is for people to take part in its creation, but that is not feasible in large organisations, so at least it must have agents in all parts of the organisation who do, someone the people trust and can relate to. This is what middle management ought to be doing: making the company strategy relevant and actionable for people. #OpenSystemsTheory #SocioTechnical #OrgDesign #agile

Open ##3528733