Here is a recent story that I have come to know: a group of teenagers emerged through Internet connections. They found each other on social platforms and revealed common interests. Soon, their social media chat turned into actions. These teens have been churning out products together for some time now. There is no defined group structure among them. In fact, projects are fluid, ideas come suddenly and are acted upon quickly, their collective mind seeks and finds solutions to problems as they arise. People are free to join or leave the projects at any time.
Can other self-guided associations develop and reach professional realization? Can these groups come up with their “big picture” and work all the way to achieve the desired goals? Indeed, this model has worked many times, and has yielded successful and profitable companies. Think of the many tech start-ups that either developed into large companies or were acquired by giant corporations for a hefty pad of money.
Why does it work?
There is no administration to obstruct the progress and distract the working. Inept leadership can inflict destruction beyond recovery. Below are the well known versions of the leader’s modus operandi:
You can imagine that versions 1, 2 and 4 are not achieving great (or any) results. However, do not underestimate the inertia of “teams”. In some cases, most team members gratefully accept the leaders of type 1, 2 and 4.
1. A leader, who dictates both goal and means, is an OCD case and s/he completely devalues and squanders the intellectual and motivational power of the team.
2. A leader, who does not present any goal or “big picture” but monitors on every-day basis the subordinates’ actions, is an efficiency-killer and will not achieve too much in a long run. The team feels as if it is acting blindfolded.
4. A leader, who does not demonstrate any effort, has no ideas, no goals, no means, is someone who just collects a salary.
3. A true leader sketches the "big picture” and develops it further with the team. A true leader does not dictate how the goals will be achieved.
More advantages of the fluid groups
Out-of the box-ideas. In a fluid group, as the teenage group described above, when ideas emerge from the group, there is a spontaneous co-development process and enhancement of the idea. Almost everyone shares the ownership of the idea. There is no need of a well-established leader, who needs to convince the team in the merits of the idea. The idea emerges and develops organically. The team decides on the implementation path.
There is no red tape to shut down the creative process with petty details, mind-boggling loops, and useless meetings dictated by higher authorities and interests. We are all slaves to the red tape, especially if we are not self-employed.
Peer-to-peer teaching is most effective. Harvard knows it, now you know it. Teams must evolve by acquiring new information and skills. Information in some fields doubles within hours or days. To stay current, we need to run along with the informational flow. Some jobs and positions require “professional development” from their employees. This development is frequently based upon meetings and workshops, with an instructor in front of a group of bored adults. This is an inefficient model compared to what takes place in the fluid group described above. In the self-organized group of peers, there is a core of group members, but other members voluntarily come and go. This flow enriches the expertise of the team. The members are also all peers. They all share information as part of their usual behavior and daily communications. Learning from each other happens organically.
Failure happens frequently and is expected. In a rigid institution, failure is feared, it raises red flags and stress. And yet, there is not too much to lose when you do not have too much to begin with. Therefore, in a fluid group of teenagers with minuscule bank accounts, not too much could be lost. The stakes are much higher in our institutions and at later stages of life.
No one is afraid of or deterred by criticism. Typically, there is no well-established hierarchy at the beginning of any self-assembled, fluid group. There is mostly comradeship. In this mode of operation, one gives advise/tip/help, not criticism.
Size of the team is self-controlled. It is known that the number of performance problems increases exponentially with the size of the team. The recommended team size is four to 12. Beyond this number, cliques develop.
Are these principles applied in your work teams?
