Thank you for sharing this, Aaron. This is great work. I love the approach of looking both for the right things to do (OS) as well as how to change (workshop format). While I fully agree with the move to empowerment and the need for new ways of working, I was wondering about three tensions:

1) work is about team performance. Stuff needs coordination and a common direction. We know from team research the need for norming for effective team performance. Google set out to with a research project to argue that managers don’t matter — and came out with the need for good managers (project oxygen). Could it be that the norming role of leadership gets undersold in the quest for new work?

2) a lot of work lacks purpose. Involvement and empowerment helps, but does not solve the lack of a larger story. In my experience, many people are not able or experienced to create their own narrative. Most jobs can be shit or great, depending on the story you follow. I have found team-exercises to be mediocre in their story-results. (a lot of leaders are also not very skilled at that). How can new work solve for the lack of narrative?

3) you mentioned the inability of a lot of people to think and discuss org theory or alternative forms (blind spots in the Johari window). I fully agree. Developing new ways of working takes time, money and nerve. My experience shows that such initiatives to improve ways of working benefit from a strong sponsor — someone with the vision or pain to change things. And then consultants like yourself to help guide those experiments and developments. How do self-organized networks find the clarity of intent and nerve to run experiments repeatedly as well as conviction to get outside help?

Just some questions. Maybe they are part of the process. Just wondered if you have thoughts on those.