Complexity leadership theory (CLT) is about balancing formal and informal organization to leverage dynamics of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and produce learning, creativity, and adaptation in organizations. Based on interviews with sixteen agile coaches (AC) at Spotify, this study examines how AC practice enabling leadership, a key balancing force in complexity leadership. Coaches practice enabling leadership by increasing the context‐sensitivity of others, supporting other leaders, establishing and reinforcing simple principles, observing group dynamics, surfacing conflict and facilitating and encouraging constructive dialogue. The AC as complexity leader values being present, observing and reacting in the moment. Findings suggest flexible structure provided by an attentive coach may prove a fruitful way to navigate and balance autonomy and alignment in organizations.

No abstract

This paper examines the sources of knowledge workers’ work intensity and the self-leading strategies they apply to deal with it. The paper is based on focus group interviews with management consultants in a Danish management consultancy firm. Work intensity was identified as resulting from a combination of: (1) a results-only focus, (2) vagueness, (3) boundaryless work, and (4) low control of the quantitative load. A framework for self-leading strategies is developed based on the dimensions of reactive/proactive and self-focused/externally focused strategies in different combinations. The results indicate that while consultants expressed a belief in internal self-discipline strategies of a more reactive nature, in fact, external and proactive strategies were the most effective in practice. In conclusion, the paper contributes to an extension of self-leadership theory to better account for current research on self-control.

Cover image by Gisela Bäcklander "Ask not what's inside your head, but what your head is inside of."

Most work on activity-based working centers on the physical environment and digital technologies enabling flexible working. While important, we believe the key components for implementing activity-based working are employee and manager behaviors. To measure the degree of enactment of activity-based work, based on workshops with experienced practitioners as well as previous literature, we have developed and validated a behavior-focused measure of activity-based working behaviors. In our initial sample (Sample 1, N = 234), three subscales were identified: task – environment crafting, workday planning, and social needs prioritization. In the replication sample (Sample 2, N = 434), this model also showed adequate fit. Moreover, task – environment crafting was related to general health and lower stress in sample 1 (multi-organization sample), but not in the single-organization sample (sample 2). Workday planning was associated with higher concentration in both samples and in the second sample with general health and work engagement; the latter was also related to social needs prioritization.