[ad_1]
We’ve spent the week talking about catalyzing direction and what leaders in open organizations do differently. A lively Twitter chat with Thomas Cameron, Charlene Li, Marten Mickos, Marco Bill Peter, and many others provided outstanding takeaways. Let’s look at a few of them to see if we can derive any best practices or new ideas.
What do catalysts do for an organization?
We had numerous reactions starting with the first question, “What is a catalyst, and what does it mean for a leader to function as a catalyst?”
Thomas Cameron said, “A person or organization who, keeping with core values, pushes people or communities to improve faster.” Marten Mickos added, “Catalysts help and enable others to do good things. Those others get the credit.” He further went on to explain that best practices means that you have to trust them and let them make small mistakes.
Sandra McCann told us, “Catalyst triggers change. Leader as catalyst means starting that direction but not fully controlling result.” And Marco Bill Peter put it simply as, “A catalyst brings people together to move forward in a positive, collaborative way forward, without depending on hierarchy.”
One of the most interesting responses was from Charlene Li as she advised leaders to set direction, inspire, and get out of the way:
A1: The leader has to be the “agent”. Set the direction, inspire action from followers, then get out of the way! #openorgchat
— Charlene Li (@charleneli) October 15, 2015
Make all meetings optional
One of the most interesting discussions occurred after Jeff Mackanic tweeted the following in response to our third question, “In what ways might your org renovate its hierarchies to increase speed and flexibility?”
A3 make all meetings optional – you know if they are important if people chose to attend #openorgchat
— Jeff Mackanic (@mackanic) October 15, 2015
Others chimed in and added their thoughts:
.@mackanic Love idea of meetings being optional, better is that everyone is responsible for good outcome. Or don’t meet. #openorgchat
— Charlene Li (@charleneli) October 15, 2015
A3: Hierarchy isn’t inherently evil but its purpose should be to catalyze success & align teams #OpenOrgChat
— Magnus Hedemark (@Magnus919) October 15, 2015
A3: Getting rid of the egos and making the product the key to their success from last week fits here #OpenOrgChat https://t.co/f1nwsy7a0U
— Lee A Brian (@LeeABrian) October 15, 2015
Yes, we talked about the F-word: failure
Later on in the conversation, the topic of failing early to succeed quicker came up. Our question was, “How can org leaders better equip associates with the knowledge and context they need to make faster, more effective decisions?” And here are some the best responses:
A14: Give them opportunities to fail, celebrate those failures, build confidence in decision making. #openorgchat
— Charlene Li (@charleneli) October 15, 2015
A14: Trust people and don’t stop them when they make small mistakes. They will learn and do much better next time. #OpenOrgChat
— Mårten Mickos (@martenmickos) October 15, 2015
Q14 – repeat repeat repeat. Takes many tries before a direction, context etc sinks in. Use analogies, get others to repeat #openorgchat
— Sandra McCann (@sc_mccann) October 15, 2015
@mackanic @charleneli Fail many times a little so that you never fail big #OpenOrgChat
— Mårten Mickos (@martenmickos) October 15, 2015
Hierarchy versus no hierarchy—or somewhere in the middle?
A really interesting tweet came from @orgnet talking about hybrid hierarchies in organizations.
A2: Hierarchy(prescribed) and Networks(emergent) exist together in orgs… here is a client org #openorgchat pic.twitter.com/pzLqqjEC9L
— Orgnet, LLC (@orgnet) October 15, 2015
And I think this is a fascinating topic. Most people talk about the extreme spectrum of having a hierarchical structure or no hierarchy, referred to commonly as holacracy. But one of the things that makes Red Hat successful as an open organization is that we are a hybrid. Marco Bill Peter said during the chat that communication needs to happen in all directions, not just up and down, but left and right:
great point! communication communication up and down, left and right #openorgchat https://t.co/b97437zuaj
— Marco Bill-Peter (@marcobillpeter) October 15, 2015
Spotify seems to have an interesting approach and has implemented a hybrid model:
A3: I’m a fan of @Spotify‘s Tribes/Squads/Chapters/Guild model. Great infographic summary here: http://t.co/5lEWjsWRCC #OpenOrgChat
— Sarah Reece (@SarahTheAdGirl) October 15, 2015
Why aren’t more people talking about the success of hybrid models commonly found in open organizations? That’s something we should change. Send us your stories.
[ad_2]
Source link