For those of us championing new ways of working—agile, self-organising, decentralised decision-making—it’s worth asking a tough question: Are we being a little naive?
Excellent provocation Mark, love it. One way I find helpful to frame this is to crudely categorise people in the workplace into two camps:
1. "Sources" - basically people who are grounded in a personal sense of meaning and purpose and whilst they might have what looks like a job, more than anything it's really a vehicle for them to live into this sense of purpose. These people thrive on much greater autonomy to take the initiative and be truly responsible for parts of the collective endeavour.
2. And then we have what we could simple call "Employees". They don't show up out of greater sense of meaning and purpose and their primary needs are more basic: doing work that's fairly enjoyable, with people they get on with, and getting paid a salary that funds their lifestyle. Your friend, despite his seniority at work, is in this camp. These people can still be very valuable to the collective effort but need more direction and accountability to ensure they're contributing appropriately.
Every human has the potential to be a source, but not everyone's ready, and even those who are will not necessarily show up as a source in a particular context (for example, an artist who also works a day job to pay the bills).
Traditional orgs treat basically everyone as employees and miss out on the energy that sources, when they're truly set free, can bring. And many progressive orgs assume everyone will show up as a source, and that isn't always the case. The solution is to meet people where they are, not try to change them or work against their real needs, and create the conditions where people can show up as sources when it's right for them.
Thanks Tom, this is such a helpful comment - I love the categorisation of "Sources" and "Employees".
Also your explanation of how traditional org's frustrate folk by treating them all as "employees", while progressive org's run into difficulties by expecting everyone to show up as "sources". And how "employees" can still be really valuable - important to note. Super helpful, thanks again.
(On the description of employees, I fear "doing work that's fairly enjoyable, with people they get on with, and getting paid a salary that funds their lifestyle" is a pipedream for most. Man, I'd be over the moon with that. Or even two out of three!).
"I fear "doing work that's fairly enjoyable, with people they get on with, and getting paid a salary that funds their lifestyle" is a pipedream for most. Man, I'd be over the moon with that."
THAT's exactly why when I get disillusioned with the new ways of working movement I return to this. Creating an org that's more self-managed/teal/buzzword-of-choice for me is about creating an environment that's better for EVERYONE - at whatever level of engagement they choose.
I don't really care what model is used etc, for me it's about trying to create the conditions where people come to work and feel (at least somewhat) alive, instead of soul-crushingly-dead. For me, that happens when people have more of a say (to the degree they want to) and when we talk about the things that matter (e.g. things that get in the way for me to do or enjoy my job).
We're kidding ourselves if we think everyone is interested in governance or debating decision-making models.
I'm thinking about this winery I visited in Barcelona recently, Recaredo. I met employees working in the cellars who turn wine bottles by hand each day, and someone from the fancy sales team that wines and dines rich business people. What touched me most was stories of how these two departments never used to interact with each other. They had stories about the other ("Oh THEY take coffee breaks whenever they feel like it!" or "how nice that when THEY finish work, they finish work. My job involves being on planes away from my family, taking calls at all hours...")
But working in a more self-managed way, they started actually meeting each other and making decisions together. They realised we're all human and we all want more or less the same things. And now they can still argue with each other, but they have a different kind of respect for each other and the work they're doing.
Wait, who thinks "everyone is interested in governance"? That can't be, not eveyone has capacity or interest or competencies. That's where organisational design comes in, domains, etc.
Well, Mark, remove money from the equasion and see what remains? :)
Work is work, be it paid or volunteered.
In permaculture we "design from patterns to details". I notice the same pattern (or is it a anti-pattern?) in groups of volunteers doing stuff together. There is no employer - employee dynamics (unless there is). Not everyone will show and have initiative, and that's fine.
My point, I suppose, is that the context of 'new ways of working' goes beyond just corporations and organisations.
I keep thinking about this article, but keep coming back to another question - Is this learned helplessness driven by how Industrial Era organizations operate?
I've considered the same/similar (I was thinking Stockholm Syndrome). That said, and to summarise another response I received and agree with: people can only care about so many things in life 💡 And for most, of course, this is not work.
This was a lightbulb moment for me, and I feel it's exactly what many (most?) people who do what I do haven't accepted/figured out yet.
This raises several questions - What is needed to breakthrough the indifference before they experience a crisis? Many people are working toward a similar vision for New Era Organizations, but have not yet organized under the same umbrella to provide a unified vision and message. How might we all work together to start a Movement similar to other social movements of the past? What are the best points of leverage in moving our message forward?
It's a great provocation and one that is a live topic at NewArtisans here on Substack. Essential question is "are organisations capable of hosting artisans?" - I smiled when I saw @tomnixons comments below - (Tom - your book has been on my bookshelf since it came out).
Most organisations are fuelled by bullshit, on the basis that acceptable performance is fine, but the risks involved in source work are not.
I think the conversation is amplified by the current hype around increased levels of RTO, and whilst it will be true for some, I suspect it's more of a dead cat bounce.
Old ways of working will take a while to die, but they will, as Hemingway wrote in "The Sun Also Rises" - "Gradually, then Suddenly"
Keep the provocations coming - there are many angles here to be explored......
My two cents, based on a recent experience: evolving an organization at the right time—especially when there’s not a collective will to shift the mindset— is complex.
Not everyone will be on board, some might pretend to be, others will actively resist, and some just won’t care as long as the paycheck hits the account at the end of the month.
Some, however, will be amazed by the change and will become its most passionate advocates.
The 'new ways of working' approach isn't for everyone. I don’t think we’re being naive, but we do need to first understand the environment we’re trying to implement this change in.
Not sure it's a blind-spot exactly; most people are conventional. They don't feel the urge to change things. They don't even perceive half the problems you might see.
But our inability to disidentify enough from our own viewpoint is the big challenge imho.
A big reason for self-management failures?
Indeed, whilst we feel like the world of self-management must be full of interdependence, evidence suggests many attracted to it are closer to a peak of independence, not interdependence. That might well be the dirty secret of self-management, if we're able to step back enough from the lofty visions to be able to see it? (But you've seen far more such orgs than me).
Some good news, though: if self-management does really take off, your conventional and successful friend will then happily go along with that new world too, and help it function well 😉
The blind spot is among the practitioners, not my pal! They'd smell our error a mile off.
Hmm on the independence vs interdependence - I must confess I take that stuff with a pinch of salt. I wonder if preference is at play more so than hocus pocus adult development theories...
Interesting on the lofty visions, you might be onto something! From what I've seen routinely over far too many years, you're average Joe just doesn't care about fancy pants ways of working, and I can fully understand why.
You're spot on regarding my pal though, they'd adapt to self-management in a heartbeat if it had the backing of all, purely to make their life easy!
This may reveal a blind spot for some. For others, it might just be marketing savvy. In my experience, a leader who's excited to hire you to lead a liberated workplace transformation doesn't want to hear that this will drive some folks away. And of course, it swings both ways. When an organization is clear about its ways of working - hierarchal and self-managed alike - it's a lot easier for people to decide if that's a fit for their needs.
Excellent provocation Mark, love it. One way I find helpful to frame this is to crudely categorise people in the workplace into two camps:
1. "Sources" - basically people who are grounded in a personal sense of meaning and purpose and whilst they might have what looks like a job, more than anything it's really a vehicle for them to live into this sense of purpose. These people thrive on much greater autonomy to take the initiative and be truly responsible for parts of the collective endeavour.
2. And then we have what we could simple call "Employees". They don't show up out of greater sense of meaning and purpose and their primary needs are more basic: doing work that's fairly enjoyable, with people they get on with, and getting paid a salary that funds their lifestyle. Your friend, despite his seniority at work, is in this camp. These people can still be very valuable to the collective effort but need more direction and accountability to ensure they're contributing appropriately.
Every human has the potential to be a source, but not everyone's ready, and even those who are will not necessarily show up as a source in a particular context (for example, an artist who also works a day job to pay the bills).
Traditional orgs treat basically everyone as employees and miss out on the energy that sources, when they're truly set free, can bring. And many progressive orgs assume everyone will show up as a source, and that isn't always the case. The solution is to meet people where they are, not try to change them or work against their real needs, and create the conditions where people can show up as sources when it's right for them.
Thanks Tom, this is such a helpful comment - I love the categorisation of "Sources" and "Employees".
Also your explanation of how traditional org's frustrate folk by treating them all as "employees", while progressive org's run into difficulties by expecting everyone to show up as "sources". And how "employees" can still be really valuable - important to note. Super helpful, thanks again.
(On the description of employees, I fear "doing work that's fairly enjoyable, with people they get on with, and getting paid a salary that funds their lifestyle" is a pipedream for most. Man, I'd be over the moon with that. Or even two out of three!).
--
For anyone wanting to read more about Source, Tom's work is fantastic: https://workwithsource.com/
Your comment, Mark, about:
"I fear "doing work that's fairly enjoyable, with people they get on with, and getting paid a salary that funds their lifestyle" is a pipedream for most. Man, I'd be over the moon with that."
THAT's exactly why when I get disillusioned with the new ways of working movement I return to this. Creating an org that's more self-managed/teal/buzzword-of-choice for me is about creating an environment that's better for EVERYONE - at whatever level of engagement they choose.
I don't really care what model is used etc, for me it's about trying to create the conditions where people come to work and feel (at least somewhat) alive, instead of soul-crushingly-dead. For me, that happens when people have more of a say (to the degree they want to) and when we talk about the things that matter (e.g. things that get in the way for me to do or enjoy my job).
We're kidding ourselves if we think everyone is interested in governance or debating decision-making models.
I'm thinking about this winery I visited in Barcelona recently, Recaredo. I met employees working in the cellars who turn wine bottles by hand each day, and someone from the fancy sales team that wines and dines rich business people. What touched me most was stories of how these two departments never used to interact with each other. They had stories about the other ("Oh THEY take coffee breaks whenever they feel like it!" or "how nice that when THEY finish work, they finish work. My job involves being on planes away from my family, taking calls at all hours...")
But working in a more self-managed way, they started actually meeting each other and making decisions together. They realised we're all human and we all want more or less the same things. And now they can still argue with each other, but they have a different kind of respect for each other and the work they're doing.
Wait, who thinks "everyone is interested in governance"? That can't be, not eveyone has capacity or interest or competencies. That's where organisational design comes in, domains, etc.
Well, Mark, remove money from the equasion and see what remains? :)
Work is work, be it paid or volunteered.
In permaculture we "design from patterns to details". I notice the same pattern (or is it a anti-pattern?) in groups of volunteers doing stuff together. There is no employer - employee dynamics (unless there is). Not everyone will show and have initiative, and that's fine.
My point, I suppose, is that the context of 'new ways of working' goes beyond just corporations and organisations.
Absolutely love this framing, Tom.
I keep thinking about this article, but keep coming back to another question - Is this learned helplessness driven by how Industrial Era organizations operate?
I've considered the same/similar (I was thinking Stockholm Syndrome). That said, and to summarise another response I received and agree with: people can only care about so many things in life 💡 And for most, of course, this is not work.
This was a lightbulb moment for me, and I feel it's exactly what many (most?) people who do what I do haven't accepted/figured out yet.
This raises several questions - What is needed to breakthrough the indifference before they experience a crisis? Many people are working toward a similar vision for New Era Organizations, but have not yet organized under the same umbrella to provide a unified vision and message. How might we all work together to start a Movement similar to other social movements of the past? What are the best points of leverage in moving our message forward?
It's a great provocation and one that is a live topic at NewArtisans here on Substack. Essential question is "are organisations capable of hosting artisans?" - I smiled when I saw @tomnixons comments below - (Tom - your book has been on my bookshelf since it came out).
Most organisations are fuelled by bullshit, on the basis that acceptable performance is fine, but the risks involved in source work are not.
I think the conversation is amplified by the current hype around increased levels of RTO, and whilst it will be true for some, I suspect it's more of a dead cat bounce.
Old ways of working will take a while to die, but they will, as Hemingway wrote in "The Sun Also Rises" - "Gradually, then Suddenly"
Keep the provocations coming - there are many angles here to be explored......
My two cents, based on a recent experience: evolving an organization at the right time—especially when there’s not a collective will to shift the mindset— is complex.
Not everyone will be on board, some might pretend to be, others will actively resist, and some just won’t care as long as the paycheck hits the account at the end of the month.
Some, however, will be amazed by the change and will become its most passionate advocates.
The 'new ways of working' approach isn't for everyone. I don’t think we’re being naive, but we do need to first understand the environment we’re trying to implement this change in.
Wise words, thank you, Marta!
Not sure it's a blind-spot exactly; most people are conventional. They don't feel the urge to change things. They don't even perceive half the problems you might see.
But our inability to disidentify enough from our own viewpoint is the big challenge imho.
A big reason for self-management failures?
Indeed, whilst we feel like the world of self-management must be full of interdependence, evidence suggests many attracted to it are closer to a peak of independence, not interdependence. That might well be the dirty secret of self-management, if we're able to step back enough from the lofty visions to be able to see it? (But you've seen far more such orgs than me).
Some good news, though: if self-management does really take off, your conventional and successful friend will then happily go along with that new world too, and help it function well 😉
The blind spot is among the practitioners, not my pal! They'd smell our error a mile off.
Hmm on the independence vs interdependence - I must confess I take that stuff with a pinch of salt. I wonder if preference is at play more so than hocus pocus adult development theories...
Interesting on the lofty visions, you might be onto something! From what I've seen routinely over far too many years, you're average Joe just doesn't care about fancy pants ways of working, and I can fully understand why.
You're spot on regarding my pal though, they'd adapt to self-management in a heartbeat if it had the backing of all, purely to make their life easy!
The blind-spots of the self-management true believers might well be the exact same blind-spots the adult development true believers have 😉
We're in danger of running out of salt... 🤣
This may reveal a blind spot for some. For others, it might just be marketing savvy. In my experience, a leader who's excited to hire you to lead a liberated workplace transformation doesn't want to hear that this will drive some folks away. And of course, it swings both ways. When an organization is clear about its ways of working - hierarchal and self-managed alike - it's a lot easier for people to decide if that's a fit for their needs.