Watching Ashley’s videos, you seem to be going down a path of some of the “theory of the firm” researchers. What I am hearing you say supports Yochai Benkler’s argument of the increasing importance and success of “commons-based peer-production” systems, questioning the concept of a physical firm (permanently aggregated factors of production), questioning the inefficiency of constantly going to the market for resources (why firms have employees instead of contractors – rising of the gig economy), and even questioning the idea of firm ownership as reasons for companies. This suggests (as does your emphasis on teams) that the firm has various members rather than owners. The members are not only pursuing economic value, but value in all the differential function systems. Member self-interest must be optimal rather than maximal to keep other members engaged. Maximizing shareholder wealth is replaced by optimizing stakeholders wellbeing—not unlike it is done in the open-source movement, the makers movement or even an Amish barn raising.

So far this feels overly simple, just like the idea of a monolithic culture. Each person is a complex adaptive system, existing in complex adaptive systems, that exist in complex adaptive systems, ad nauseum. My experience (which drove me back to school for my doctorate to try and understand) is that culture (and associated climates) is an emergent property of the moment (including the people, places, things, ideas, experiences at that point in time). Individuals, I included, seek to maximize our well being across lots of different dimensions (like Roth’s 10 differentiated function systems from social systems theory – which gives you a way to harden the concept of values – each system supplies some). What a company offers is an environment that “defines” the limits of those dimensions (scope and scale). Teams then emerge and create an instance of a “culture” with “climates” based upon movement across all those dimensions. Your affiliation with a team is a function of the synchronicity of your needs across the dimensions, and the team’s ability to supply those needs. The work gets done when the needs are being met. Productive teams (engaged) are emergent, self-organizing, non-linear (which is why they outperform forced teams), and evolutionary. My experience is that leaders emerge (see research on special forces teams and how leadership dynamically shifts among members) based upon trust – in the person, in the person’s knowledge, in the person’s conviction (see Fukuyama’s “Trust”). I also think you must think about the team’s purpose – production or creativity/problem solving/innovation have very different dynamics. I’d argue that the best team leaders allow situational leaders to emerge when it is right. Ties well to Dan Pink’s Drive (seek mastery, seek purpose, seek autonomy to do the work my way). Looking forward to the next video.