4 Comments
User's avatar
Marcelo menezes's avatar

It makes a lot of sense. But I would frame it not (necessarily) on individuals but on departments. Like the Brand example: The brand whole team was clearly disconnected from a mission and pushing their own agenda due to fear of losing jobs. If the whole team was momentarily disconnected from any brand (impossible, but let’s use that as an example) then instead of fearing losing their jobs it is the organisation fault and responsibility to put them on a mission (or let them all take a holiday to Bali without losing their jobs)!

Expand full comment
Marcelo menezes's avatar

I mean “If the whole team was momentarily disconnected from any MISSION” (typo, not “brand”)

Expand full comment
Kerry Hicks's avatar

Interesting way to reframe our thinking... and I would expect nothing less from you John 😉

Expand full comment
Sid Ravinutala's avatar

Nice post! This is something we have been thinking a lot about as we try to be responsive to the market.

This sort of flexible job title / job definition comes from ownership. At a startup, everyone does everything because it's their baby and they want it to be survive (sorry, that analogy got morbid). My assigning titles we reduce the scope of this ownership and with that comes "that's not part of my job".

So ownership needs flat structures. Which is easy when the team is small but I am yet to see it scale well.

Expand full comment