Adaptive Team Structures

For a long time, academics have been trying to figure out if hierarchy in teams is beneficial. Some work has found that hierarchy helps, in that it increases coordination efficiency. Other work shows that hierarchy can engender competition between team members, as they try to advance themselves, sometimes at a cost to the group. And yet other work shows that hierarchy can increase motivation for group members, because there’s a clear opportunity to advance. Much of this work has tested team process and outcomes across teams with hierarchy vs. no hierarchy (flat hierarchy, or unspecified). Newer work by Nicole Abi-Esber Lindy Greer Annebel De Hoogh now suggests that hierarchy doesn’t need to be an either/or; rather, the more effective teams are ones that can toggle (appropriately) between hierarchical vs. flat structures to suit the specific task at hand. That is, teams do better when they use a flatter structure when they are working on tasks requiring divergent thinking, as when looking for new ideas or new perspectives. In contrast, they might switch to a more hierarchical structure when working on tasks requiring convergent thinking, as when applying existing expertise to make decisions. I like to think of this as whether teams are creating vs. executing. Better to treat everyone as having equally valid viewpoints and expertise when the point is creativity, but once the decision parameters are set, hierarchy is helpful to ensure that the team members with relevant expertise are given more weight. For instance, in one study, the researchers created teams and experimentally manipulated whether team members thought the most appropriate approach was strict hierarchy, strict flat, or adaptability. They then asked the teams to complete a hidden profile task, which generally involves two stages: an information sharing stage and then a decision-making stage using the information shared in the first stage. They found that teams in the adaptable condition were significantly higher in convergent thinking and marginally higher in divergent thinking than the other two conditions. This led to higher levels of implicit coordination, which in turn, enhanced team performance. Think to yourself: in your team, do you vary in who has influence within the group depending on what is being done? If your group always reverts to hearing from or listening to only your most senior members, you aren’t getting the benefit of your more junior members, especially when it comes to innovative thinking. Being adaptive doesn’t mean that there aren’t leaders; it just means that who is leading can change depending on what the work is. And sometimes, maybe no one is leading (but perhaps there’s still someone facilitating the conversation). Link to paper: https://lnkd.in/geX9eUPH

Myth: Team stability equals team performance. Reality: Team adaptability drives innovation. Just watched a project team rotate 40% of its members mid-sprint and deliver their best results yet. The secret? Strong knowledge documentation and rapid onboarding protocols. The ability to adapt to change is crucial. By embracing fluidity and empowering your teams to evolve, you can unlock new levels of innovation and performance. Key strategies to foster team adaptability: ➡️ Invest in knowledge management by creating a centralized repository for project documentation, best practices, and lessons learned. ➡️ Develop robust onboarding processes by ensuring new team members are quickly integrated and productive. ➡️ Foster a culture of continuous learning by encouraging knowledge sharing, cross-functional collaboration, and experimentation. ➡️ Empower your teams by giving your teams the autonomy and tools they need to adapt to changing circumstances. By prioritizing adaptability, you can build teams that are resilient, innovative, and future-ready.

Last week in China, I had conversation after conversation with top leaders who all shared the same concern: "If you radically flatten the hierarchy… what's left?" This is another misconception about radically decentralized organizations: that flattening the hierarchy means removing all structure. It couldn't be further from the truth. The most successful flat companies (especially the ones that scale) still have top management. What they've removed are the middle management layers. And what they've replaced them with is often more intentional structure than traditional hierarchies ever had. In our book, we call it a network-of-teams structure: organizations that arrange themselves as networks of small, autonomous teams. These networks come in several distinct shapes: 📍 Cell-based structures Teams organize like biological cells: each responsible for its own region, customer segment, or kind of domain. When a cell grows too large, it splits in two. Just like in nature. Found at former-BSO, Buurtzorg, VkusVill, Niverplast, and many others. 📍 Chain-based structures Teams organize as a chain along the organization's value chain. Each team sends representatives to coordination teams. Found in NER Group and NER-inspired companies. 📍 Circle-based structures Rooted in Endenburg's sociocratic design, teams organize as embedded circles: each circle linked to its inner and outer circles. Found in companies running on Sociocracy, and its derivatives like Holacracy and O2. 📍 Microenterprise-based structures Teams organize as startups on an internal marketplace, transacting and contracting with each other. Found at Haier. 📍 Individual-based structures Some companies don't organize around teams at all, but around the individual. Think Morning Star's CLOU structure, Disco's P-Will structure, and Gore's Lattice structure. Flat doesn't mean less structure. It means more deliberate structure. Just without the middle management. Want to learn more? Subscribe to our newsletter: https://lnkd.in/eXAqydrX

“The most powerful weapon on earth is the human soul on fire.” - Ferdinand Foch. This quote captures the essence of what I learned while commanding a very special task force in the rugged terrains of Afghanistan. It was a professional assignment and, most importantly, an unforgettable journey of human spirit and collective strength. I want to share some of the extraordinary lessons I learned from that experience and how they can help you transform your team into a dynamic, adaptive force. Amid uncertainties and challenges, our success hinged on strategies and orders, but most importantly, on every team member’s collective strength and adaptability and the cohesion and professionalism of each sub-team. I have learned that traditional hierarchical structures fall short in environments as dynamic and unpredictable as Afghanistan. We thrived by embracing what Stan McChrystal later defined as a “Team of Teams” approach - a fluid, interconnected network where information and decisions flowed seamlessly. This accelerated our response times and fostered a sense of shared purpose and trust even in complex situations. One of the core tenets of my leadership philosophy, shaped by these experiences, is fostering deep trust and empathy within the team. Understanding each other’s strengths, weaknesses, and perspectives created a robust framework where each member could contribute effectively. However, what made our team exceptional was the collective leadership. Regardless of their role, every sub-team had a voice and was empowered to take initiative and make decisions. This decentralized approach ensured agility and adaptiveness. The positive outcome of this approach was evident when we provided support to a complex logistic transport from two distant bases in the Farah province. The sub-teams worked intensively and flawlessly despite the difficulties with communication, the distances, and the prolonged effort, and through their incredible work, they prevented ambushes and allowed all the involved Italian soldiers to reach their destination safely. Drawing from these profound and emotionally charged experiences, I now help leaders and teams navigate their challenges, encouraging them to adopt a similar fluid, interconnected approach. In my coaching practice, I focus on leaders willing to build resilient, adaptable, and deeply connected teams - ready to face any challenge confidently. Are you looking to transform your team into a proactive, adaptive force? Let’s connect and explore how you can redefine your leadership and team dynamics. #leadershiplessons #teamofteams #adaptiveleadership #coachingsuccess #militaryleadership #masteryoursea

🎯 The hiring dilemma every museum director faces (and why most get it wrong) 🪝 Your museum just lost two key staff members. Do you hire: → A digital specialist who only knows social media? → A generalist who can handle five different roles? Most institutions pick wrong—and pay the price. 📖 Here's what 15 years in cultural heritage taught me about building resilient teams: The myth: You need to choose between specialists and generalists. The reality: Strategic layering wins every time. Layer 1: Deep Expertise (Your Foundation) • Conservation scientists who prevent million-dollar mistakes • Subject matter experts who catch historical inaccuracies • Seasoned curators who build credible narratives Layer 2: Bridge Builders (Your Connectors) • Education coordinators who translate scholarship into programs • Digital managers who make collections accessible online • Development officers who speak both art history and fundraising Layer 3: Adaptive Capacity (Your Flexibility) • Multi-skilled professionals who can pivot during crises • Cross-trained staff who cover critical gaps • Emerging professionals eager to learn multiple areas The game-changer: When specialists mentor generalists, and generalists help specialists reach new audiences, magic happens. Real talk: Budget constraints mean most museums lean too heavily on generalists, burning them out while sacrificing scholarly standards. Better approach: Invest in one true specialist per core function, then build adaptive capacity around them. Your turn: Are you the specialist or the Swiss Army knife on your team? Both paths have power—own yours. #eminmuseum #eminspost #museumlover #MuseumCareers #CulturalLeadership #MuseumStrategy

70% of complex, large-scale projects fail to meet their goals, often due to lack of adaptability. Traditional project management, with its rigid structures, often struggles to keep up. That's where Adaptive Project Management comes in. What does it mean to be truly adaptive? It's about building flexibility into the very DNA of your projects. Adaptive project management strategies are essential for ensuring success amid uncertainty. 🔶 Here’s how to implement them effectively: 🟠 Adopt an Agile approach → Break projects into small, manageable sprints. → Engage stakeholders regularly to adjust deliverables. → Adapt plans based on real-time feedback and changing requirements. 🟠 Risk Management → Conduct thorough risk assessments at project inception. → Develop strategies to minimize potential impacts. → Keep a close eye on risk factors throughout the project lifecycle. 🟠 Stakeholder Engagement → Schedule consistent check-ins with stakeholders. → Share progress updates and challenges openly. → Incorporate stakeholder feedback into project plans promptly. 🟠 Resource Optimization → Assign resources based on priority and skill sets. → Use different ideas to solve tough problems. → Adjust resource allocation as project needs evolve. 🟠 Data-Driven Decision Making → Implement tools to gather and analyze project data. → Use historical data to forecast future trends and challenges. → Base choices on comprehensive data analysis to minimize risks. 🔶 Key Frameworks and Techniques: → Agile, Scrum, Kanban - Improve teamwork and responsiveness. → Risk Matrix - Evaluate the probability and impact of potential risks. → Earned Value Management (EVM) - Track project performance and progress. Adapting to uncertainty requires a proactive mindset and robust strategies. By adopting these flexible project management approaches, you can navigate challenges and deliver results consistently, even in uncertain environments. What strategies have you found effective in managing projects during uncertain times? Share your experiences and insights in the comments below. Visit Project Management Training Institute (PMTI) to explore our comprehensive certification courses. https://www.4pmti.com/

A common misperception is that the military is all about traditional, top-down org structures. Not true. A great example is Stan McChrystal’s “Team of Teams” model. Time and time again — as a leader in both military and corporate settings — I’ve seen how powerful this approach is. “Team of teams” reimagines organizational structure to succeed in dynamic and fast-changing environments. The goal? To break down silos and create a more adaptable, connected system. Core aspects of this framework include: 1) Shared consciousness Everyone in the organization should have access to the information and context they need to understand the larger mission. This transparency ensures that teams can align their actions and make decisions based on the bigger picture. We call it a common operating picture at Coherent. 2) Common purpose When everyone understands how their work contributes to the organization’s mission, it fosters engagement and drives people to consistently deliver their best. A clear purpose unites teams across functions. 3) Empowered execution Decentralized decision-making gives frontline teams the authority to act quickly and effectively without waiting for approval from higher-ups. This autonomy allows organizations to respond to challenges in real time. 4) Trust Trust is the glue that holds the “Team of Teams” model together. It enables openness, autonomy, and adaptability. Without trust, the connections and collaboration necessary for this model to succeed would break down. By adopting these principles, organizations can unlock the ability and cohesion needed to navigate our increasingly complex world. What do you think is the most important factor for creating a truly adaptable organization?

The Organization Is the Bottleneck: Why AI Demands the Death of the Traditional Hierarchy. Stop treating Artificial Intelligence as a technology problem. It is a leadership challenge, and for many companies, an organizational extinction event. If your corporate DNA is still optimized for control and predictability, the AI Tectonic Shift is coming to render your structure obsolete. The traditional Spider (centralized hierarchy) is simply too slow to keep pace with exponentially accelerating market feedback loops. The future belongs to the Adaptive Enterprise, a hybrid model I call the Platform Organization. This blueprint merges the robust, centralized "Spider spine" required for scale and strategy with radically decentralized, autonomous "Starfish units" for hyper-velocity execution. We see this everywhere: SpaceX’s Flatarchy: Eliminating management layers to push decision-making to the engineer on the ground, ensuring the ‘best idea wins.’ Microsoft’s Strategic Adaptation: Surgically delegating commercial operations to free up core engineering bandwidth, focusing their top minds entirely on AI science and data center architecture. Fintech’s Podularity: Using autonomous squads (like Revolut and ING Bank) to embed Starfish-like resilience within large, regulated environments. But structure alone won't save you. Complex, autonomous organizations demand a specific type of human capital: the Adaptive Mindset. Professionals must be imbued with Free-sponsibility, the radical freedom to act, coupled with the extreme responsibility for outcomes. At H-FARM Business School, H-FARM College and H-FARM International School, our mission is to cultivate this mindset, preparing professionals and learners for a future where independence, critical thinking, and the ability to operate within distributed authority are non-negotiable skills. The question for every CEO isn’t if you will adopt AI, but if your organizational architecture can handle the speed it unleashes. Is your firm designing for continuous adaptation, or are you just digitizing your rigid organizational chart? #Strategy #Leadership #OrganizationalDesign #AI #FutureOfWork #HFAREducation