Sounds a lot more active and interesting than the more traditional work environment, I would say this helps to keep staff/specialists on their toes because they work to the completion of the project rather than for a company.
You’ve highlighted just how reasonable a producer has to be, the same as a contractor who is on a fixed term position.
I like the concept, but @Neela felt there was real value in the traditional org model. I'm not in a corporate setting, so it's hard for me to judge. Thanks for the comment.
Paul, this resonated deeply. Your analogy of Hollywood’s agile, project-based teams formed around specific goals is compelling and timely.
Interestingly, I've been exploring a similar concept through what I call the "Greenhouse Model", where teams intentionally step away from traditional structures for one day every two weeks to form around purpose-driven projects. In this environment, diverse and seemingly random combinations of skills aren’t accidental, they’re intentional features, enabling creativity and adaptability.
Both the Hollywood Model and the Greenhouse Model highlight a fundamental rethinking of how work is structured in the AI age:
Efficiency → Adaptability
Control → Empowerment
Rigid Roles → Fluid Teams
Measurement → Meaning
This alignment feels powerful, clear, and actionable, providing leaders and teams with a tangible way forward amid the complexity and speed of the AI-driven landscape.
I’d love your thoughts on this. Do you see additional connections or practical ways these ideas might enrich each other even further?
Thanks again for the thoughtful insights, I eagerly look forward to your next installment.
Thank you, Roi. I appreciate your insights. This week's issue continues that topic, albeit approached less metaphorically. Look for it Wednesday morning. I'll check out your Greenhouse Model and get back to you regarding your question. Thanks!
I read a piece recently from an IT leader who said part of the reason burnout is so high in tech is that so many specialized roles have been collapsed. So nstead of a cinematographer, lighting director, and editor you’ve got one person doing it all.
I wonder how this will play out in project-based models like this where agility is key but the workload might stack up fast and high.
It's probably the same way, Bette, which is why we have to focus on AI-proofing our roles. What that looks like now is akin to an orchestral conductor, but who's to say what it will look like in six months?
That’s a great point. The conductor analogy really fits. It’ll be fascinating and a bit challenging to see how that role evolves as AI reshapes everything. Definitely keeps us on our toes!
I’ve worked both in traditional hierarchies and in project-based teams, and I’ve never felt more alive than when dropped into a scrappy, cross-functional group with a clear mission.
Sounds a lot more active and interesting than the more traditional work environment, I would say this helps to keep staff/specialists on their toes because they work to the completion of the project rather than for a company.
You’ve highlighted just how reasonable a producer has to be, the same as a contractor who is on a fixed term position.
I like the metaphor, Paul.
I like the concept, but @Neela felt there was real value in the traditional org model. I'm not in a corporate setting, so it's hard for me to judge. Thanks for the comment.
Paul, this resonated deeply. Your analogy of Hollywood’s agile, project-based teams formed around specific goals is compelling and timely.
Interestingly, I've been exploring a similar concept through what I call the "Greenhouse Model", where teams intentionally step away from traditional structures for one day every two weeks to form around purpose-driven projects. In this environment, diverse and seemingly random combinations of skills aren’t accidental, they’re intentional features, enabling creativity and adaptability.
Both the Hollywood Model and the Greenhouse Model highlight a fundamental rethinking of how work is structured in the AI age:
Efficiency → Adaptability
Control → Empowerment
Rigid Roles → Fluid Teams
Measurement → Meaning
This alignment feels powerful, clear, and actionable, providing leaders and teams with a tangible way forward amid the complexity and speed of the AI-driven landscape.
I’d love your thoughts on this. Do you see additional connections or practical ways these ideas might enrich each other even further?
Thanks again for the thoughtful insights, I eagerly look forward to your next installment.
Thank you, Roi. I appreciate your insights. This week's issue continues that topic, albeit approached less metaphorically. Look for it Wednesday morning. I'll check out your Greenhouse Model and get back to you regarding your question. Thanks!
Love the Hollywood metaphor Paul!
I read a piece recently from an IT leader who said part of the reason burnout is so high in tech is that so many specialized roles have been collapsed. So nstead of a cinematographer, lighting director, and editor you’ve got one person doing it all.
I wonder how this will play out in project-based models like this where agility is key but the workload might stack up fast and high.
It's probably the same way, Bette, which is why we have to focus on AI-proofing our roles. What that looks like now is akin to an orchestral conductor, but who's to say what it will look like in six months?
That’s a great point. The conductor analogy really fits. It’ll be fascinating and a bit challenging to see how that role evolves as AI reshapes everything. Definitely keeps us on our toes!
I’ve worked both in traditional hierarchies and in project-based teams, and I’ve never felt more alive than when dropped into a scrappy, cross-functional group with a clear mission.
Can’t wait to read Part Two!
Happy Wednesday, Paul...
Thanks! And read it, you will, in two weeks.