Rotational Leadership in Agile Teams
Proposition
Rotate leadership roles in agile teams often.
Background
I’ve been a proponent of flat organisational structures since my time at Thoughtworks. It’s especially great at promoting communication between all staff.
It empowers. It’s great for morale. It promotes healthy debate and ideas creation.
In this model the importance of organisational hierarchy is overshadowed by the tiers of employee experience. The senior are most vocal. The craftsmen lead the journeymen who lead the apprentice.
Leadership roles are typically filled by those from the most senior tiers. The choice of leader is usually subjective and different candidates offer different pro’s and con’s. Something can be said for rotating a number of senior staff through these roles.
What I’m proposing here is the same theory applied to agile teams.
Benefits
- Leadership is considered as ‘just another role’: does away with the notion that leadership implies promotion, which stimulates an undercurrent of inferiority and superiority.
- Equality prevails: Equally recognises the skills of senior members.
- Fresh perspective: Different perspectives of problems and solutions are offered.
- Encourages individual growth: leadership roles are a great way to grow confidence, whereas stepping out of leadership roles is grounding and brings different knowledge to the coal-face.
Reconsider when…
- Individual accountability is important: It works best where blame culture does not prevail and teams and individuals learn in a non-threatening environment.
- Seniority is the minority: Apprentices may be better served with a fixed figurehead.
- Teams with staff churn: Better leaders are those already having experience working within the team.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:57 am
Matt,
An interesting post.
I don’t favor “individual accountability” but I do like leadership and I think the “flat” structure is not a good one. I also think that a hierarchical structure is problem when that hierarchy is too deep.
I think the goal is a good balance where the hierarchical structure gives people a feeling of direction and leadership but also a voice, because they often talk to the “top” persons and feel their voice is being heard personally.
So I advocate a hierarchical structure that is “almost” flat, because no decision is a bad decision and because sometimes the decision has to be unpopular for survival and it can’t always be the majority consensus - which I think is mediocre at best or what is “comfortable”.
I guess it depends on what you want out of a company. I want to drive myself forward to learn more things, take on challenges and help others do the same.
This can happen with a flat structure but the players have to have each others interests at heart and I think that is typically and more often not the case.
Rgs, James.