Brave New Work

Brave New Work Plot Summary

Introduction

Why do so many organizations feel broken despite our best efforts to improve them? For decades, we've been trying to optimize our companies using methods from the industrial era—hierarchies, centralized control, rigid processes—yet most workers remain disengaged and innovation suffers. This fundamental disconnect exists because we're applying outdated operating principles to an increasingly complex world. The core premise presented here is revolutionary: organizations are not machines to be controlled but complex adaptive systems that can evolve. By adopting two essential mindsets—People Positive (trusting humans' capacity for self-direction) and Complexity Conscious (embracing uncertainty and emergence)—we can transform how work happens. This framework challenges us to reconsider twelve interconnected domains of organizational life, from authority and decision-making to information flow and compensation. Through this lens, we discover that the future of work isn't about better management but about creating the conditions for people and organizations to thrive organically.

Chapter 1: The OS Canvas: Understanding Your Organizational Operating System

Every organization has an operating system—the collection of rules, practices, habits, and beliefs that determine how work gets done. Much like a computer's operating system, these patterns run silently in the background, defining boundaries and possibilities. Unfortunately, most organizations operate on what could be called a "Legacy OS"—a set of assumptions inherited from the industrial era that views organizations as machines to be controlled rather than living systems to be nurtured. The OS Canvas provides a framework for seeing and understanding this operating system. It reveals the interconnected domains that govern organizational life—purpose, authority, structure, strategy, resources, innovation, workflow, meetings, information, membership, mastery, and compensation. These domains don't exist in isolation; they reinforce one another to create a coherent system. When one element changes, others feel the ripple effects. What makes the OS Canvas powerful is its ability to make visible what is typically invisible. Most organizations never consciously design their operating system—it evolves haphazardly through inherited practices, knee-jerk reactions to problems, and accumulated bureaucracy. The canvas allows teams to examine their assumptions critically and identify which elements of their OS are fostering vitality and adaptivity, and which are creating bureaucracy and rigidity. Consider how meetings function in most organizations. The default approach—large groups, tight agendas, status updates—emerged from industrial-era thinking about efficiency and control. But when viewed through the OS Canvas, we might ask different questions: Do our meetings enable psychological safety? Do they distribute authority or concentrate it? Do they facilitate information flow or restrict it? By examining each domain of our OS with fresh eyes, we can identify patterns that no longer serve us. The canvas isn't merely analytical—it's transformative. Organizations can use it to experiment with alternative approaches in each domain, gradually evolving their OS to become more adaptive and human-centric. This might mean abandoning annual budgets for more dynamic resource allocation, replacing top-down decision-making with consent-based processes, or reimagining performance management to foster continuous development rather than compliance.

Chapter 2: From Legacy to Evolutionary: Rethinking Management Principles

The Legacy Organization was born on factory floors more than a century ago, when Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced the principles of Scientific Management. Taylor's revolutionary idea was to separate thinking from doing—managers would think and workers would execute according to precise instructions. This approach, which optimized for efficiency and control, became the foundation of modern management and still dominates organizational life today. Evolutionary Organizations operate on fundamentally different principles. Rather than seeking to control uncertainty through planning and hierarchy, they embrace it as inevitable and even beneficial. They distribute authority to the edges where information is richest, allowing decisions to be made by those closest to the work. Instead of implementing change through top-down mandates, they foster continuous participatory change—a process where tensions are sensed, experiments are conducted, and learning is leveraged throughout the system. The shift from Legacy to Evolutionary involves reconsidering assumptions across multiple dimensions. While Legacy Organizations view people as resources to be deployed efficiently, Evolutionary Organizations see them as whole human beings with intrinsic motivation and untapped potential. Where Legacy Organizations attempt to predict and control the future, Evolutionary Organizations build systems that sense and respond to emerging conditions. Instead of organizing for efficiency and specialization, they organize for learning and adaptivity. This transformation isn't theoretical—it's happening in organizations around the world. Companies like Buurtzorg, a Dutch healthcare organization, have eliminated traditional management hierarchies, allowing self-organizing teams to deliver better care at lower costs. Valve, the video game company, lets employees choose which projects to work on rather than assigning them from above. Morning Star, the world's largest tomato processor, has employees write their own job descriptions and set their own salaries through a peer-based process. The results speak volumes. These organizations aren't just more humane places to work—they're often more profitable, innovative, and resilient than their traditional counterparts. By aligning their operating systems with the complex reality of today's world, they're able to adapt quickly to changing conditions while creating the conditions for people to do their best work. The transition from Legacy to Evolutionary isn't a matter of implementing best practices but of fostering a fundamentally different relationship with complexity and human potential.

Chapter 3: People Positive: Embracing Human Potential and Motivation

The People Positive mindset represents a profound shift in how we think about human nature, motivation, and behavior at work. It rejects the deeply entrenched assumption that people must be controlled, incentivized, and closely managed to perform well. Instead, it recognizes that human beings have an innate drive toward growth, mastery, and contribution when the right conditions are present. This isn't idealism—it's supported by decades of research in psychology and demonstrated by organizations achieving extraordinary results by trusting their people. At its core, the People Positive approach draws from what psychologist Douglas McGregor called "Theory Y"—the belief that work is as natural as play, that people seek responsibility, and that creativity is widely distributed throughout the population. This contrasts sharply with "Theory X," which assumes people inherently dislike work and must be coerced to put forth adequate effort. What's striking is how deeply Theory X assumptions are embedded in most organizational practices, from performance reviews to approval processes to compensation systems. The People Positive mindset manifests in several key principles. First is the commitment to psychological safety—creating environments where people feel secure enough to take risks, speak up, and be vulnerable. Second is radical transparency, sharing information broadly so people can make informed decisions. Third is the distribution of authority, pushing decision rights to those with the relevant expertise and information rather than those with the highest rank. Fourth is the emphasis on intrinsic motivation—designing work that satisfies our needs for autonomy, mastery, and purpose rather than relying primarily on external rewards. Consider Buurtzorg, a Dutch healthcare organization with 14,000 nurses and only 50 headquarters staff. Nurses work in self-managing teams of 10-12 people, making decisions about how to care for their patients without managers telling them what to do. They're guided by purpose and supported with information and resources, but the how is up to them. The results are remarkable: higher patient satisfaction, lower costs, and the highest employee engagement in their industry. What makes the People Positive mindset transformative is that it's self-reinforcing. When you trust people, they become more trustworthy. When you give them autonomy, they develop greater self-direction. When you create safety, they take more intelligent risks. Organizations that commit to this approach often find it creates a virtuous cycle, where positive assumptions about people lead to behaviors that validate those assumptions. The question isn't whether people can handle freedom and responsibility—it's whether we can create environments that bring out the best in them.

Chapter 4: Complexity Conscious: Navigating Uncertainty with Adaptivity

Complexity Consciousness represents a fundamental shift in how we understand and interact with organizational reality. Traditional management approaches treat organizations as complicated but predictable machines, where problems can be solved through analysis, planning, and control. A Complexity Conscious mindset recognizes that organizations are actually complex adaptive systems—more like living ecosystems than engineered mechanisms—where patterns emerge from countless interactions that can't be precisely controlled or predicted. The distinction between complicated and complex is crucial. A complicated system, like a watch or an engine, can be broken down into component parts, analyzed, and fixed following established procedures. A complex system, like the weather, a forest, or a marketplace, cannot be reduced to its parts because the interactions between components matter more than the components themselves. In complex systems, small changes can have huge effects, and big interventions may yield minimal results. They exhibit emergent properties that couldn't be predicted by examining their elements in isolation. Organizations are unquestionably complex. They consist of human beings with diverse motivations, histories, and interpretations who interact in ways that generate unpredictable patterns. Add to this the complexity of markets, technologies, and societies, and it becomes clear why so many management interventions fail to produce the intended results. When we treat complex problems as if they were merely complicated, we set ourselves up for disappointment and failure. Complexity Consciousness manifests in several key practices. Instead of detailed five-year plans, Complexity Conscious organizations use adaptive strategies that evolve based on what's emerging. Rather than comprehensive rules and policies, they establish minimum viable agreements that provide boundaries while allowing for judgment and adaptation. They replace prediction and control with rapid experimentation and learning, making smaller moves more frequently to discover what works. And they shift from hierarchical control to distributed intelligence, recognizing that no single person or group can have sufficient perspective to guide a complex system effectively. Consider how Svenska Handelsbanken, a Swedish bank, abandoned the practice of budgeting entirely over fifty years ago. Instead of creating detailed annual forecasts that inevitably become obsolete, they operate with a simple principle—branches should perform better than the average of their peers. This relative target adjusts automatically to changing market conditions, allowing local responsiveness while maintaining overall coherence. By embracing complexity rather than trying to control it, Handelsbanken has outperformed its industry for decades. The Complexity Conscious approach isn't about surrendering to chaos—it's about developing capabilities that allow organizations to thrive amid uncertainty. By designing for adaptivity rather than efficiency, organizations can respond more effectively to emerging threats and opportunities, innovate more consistently, and create more resilient operations. In a world of accelerating change, this mindset isn't just enlightened—it's essential for survival.

Chapter 5: Continuous Participatory Change: Evolving Together

Traditional change management treats organizational transformation as a linear journey with a clear beginning and end. It assumes we can predict the future state, create a detailed plan, and execute our way to success. This approach might work for installing new software or redesigning an office, but it fails miserably when applied to evolving complex human systems. Continuous Participatory Change offers a fundamentally different paradigm—one that recognizes change as an ongoing, emergent process that involves everyone in the organization. The "continuous" aspect acknowledges that change isn't a project with a finish line but a perpetual state. In complex environments, conditions are constantly shifting, requiring ongoing adaptation rather than periodic restructuring. Instead of waiting for crises to trigger large-scale transformation efforts, organizations practicing Continuous Participatory Change make smaller adjustments constantly, creating cultures of experimentation and learning that evolve organically over time. This continuous approach reduces resistance and allows for more rapid adaptation to changing conditions. The "participatory" element recognizes that lasting change can't be imposed from above—it must engage the wisdom and agency of those throughout the system. When change is done to people rather than with them, it typically generates resistance and superficial compliance rather than genuine commitment. Participatory change distributes the authority to sense tensions and implement experiments broadly, allowing solutions to emerge from anywhere in the organization. This approach taps into diverse perspectives and generates solutions that central planners could never devise. At the heart of this approach is a process called "looping"—a simple but powerful practice where teams identify tensions in their current way of working, propose experiments to address those tensions, and conduct those experiments to see what works. The results inform the next cycle of sensing, proposing, and experimenting. This iterative process allows for evolutionary rather than revolutionary change, reducing risk while building momentum and learning continuously. Pixar demonstrates this approach beautifully with "Notes Day"—a day when the entire company stops normal operations to reflect on how they work and propose experiments for improvement. In 2013, they identified 106 topics across 171 sessions, resulting in dozens of changes to their practices. But rather than being a one-time event, this participatory process has become part of how Pixar continuously evolves its culture and practices, making change an everyday occurrence rather than a disruptive event. The power of Continuous Participatory Change lies in its alignment with both human psychology and complexity science. It respects people's need for agency and meaning in the change process while acknowledging the unpredictable nature of complex systems. By making change more incremental, distributed, and experimental, organizations can evolve more rapidly and organically, developing greater adaptivity while reducing the trauma often associated with transformation efforts.

Chapter 6: Practical Implementation: Looping Through Tensions and Experiments

Looping is the engine of continuous participatory change—a practical method for evolving your organization's operating system through iterative cycles of sensing, proposing, and experimenting. Unlike traditional change approaches that start with a predetermined solution, looping begins with tensions—the gaps between how things are and how they could be. These tensions aren't problems to be solved so much as signals pointing toward potential improvement. The first step in looping is sensing tensions—noticing friction points in how work happens. This could be anything from ineffective meetings to slow decision-making to information silos. What makes tension-sensing powerful is that it's grounded in lived experience rather than abstract theories about what should change. When someone says, "I notice our weekly status meetings consume hours but rarely lead to action," they're identifying a tension that matters in their context. Organizations can facilitate tension-sensing through various practices, from dedicated reflection sessions to ongoing dialogue about what's working and what isn't. Once tensions are identified, the next step is proposing practices—potential experiments that might address the tension. This is where exposure to alternative approaches becomes valuable. Learning how other organizations handle similar challenges can spark ideas that wouldn't emerge from within the current system. For instance, a team struggling with meeting effectiveness might propose trying a new format, eliminating status updates, or reducing meeting frequency. The key is to focus on what's safe to try rather than seeking perfect solutions, making proposals concrete and time-bound. The third step is conducting experiments—trying new approaches to see what works. Effective experiments are small enough to be reversible but substantial enough to generate learning. They have clear success criteria and timeframes, allowing teams to evaluate results objectively. For example, a team might experiment with a new decision-making process for one month, collecting data on speed, quality, and engagement. After the experiment concludes, the team reflects on what worked, what didn't, and what to try next, beginning a new loop. What makes looping powerful is that it democratizes change. Anyone in the organization can identify tensions and propose experiments, not just designated change agents or leaders. This distributed approach allows multiple loops to run simultaneously throughout the organization, with successful experiments spreading organically as others notice their effectiveness. Over time, this creates a culture where change becomes normal rather than exceptional. The Morning Star Company, the world's largest tomato processor, demonstrates looping in action. Their Colleague Letter of Understanding (CLOU) process allows any employee to propose changes to their role, compensation, or working relationships. These proposals are reviewed by colleagues, refined through dialogue, and implemented through agreement. This ongoing process has allowed Morning Star to evolve continuously over decades, maintaining remarkable flexibility and performance without traditional management hierarchies.

Chapter 7: Leadership in Self-Managing Systems: Creating and Holding Space

Leadership takes on a dramatically different character in evolutionary organizations. Rather than commanding and controlling from the top, leaders create and hold space for others to contribute, experiment, and grow. This shift requires letting go of the heroic leader archetype—the all-knowing figure with all the answers—and embracing a more facilitative role that distributes authority while maintaining coherence around purpose and principles. Creating space begins with establishing psychological safety—the shared belief that team members won't be punished or humiliated for speaking up, taking risks, or making mistakes. This safety is a prerequisite for self-management because without it, people will defer to authority rather than exercising judgment and agency. Leaders create safety through their own vulnerability, by responding positively to mistakes, and by demonstrating curiosity rather than certainty. When General Stanley McChrystal transformed how Joint Special Operations Command functioned in Iraq, he began by modeling openness, admitting what he didn't know, and inviting others to share information that was previously hoarded. Beyond safety, creating space involves establishing clear boundaries that define where experimentation is welcome. These boundaries might be organizational (a specific team or division), temporal (a dedicated period for testing new approaches), or conceptual (specific domains of the operating system open for change). The boundaries create a liminal space—a protected zone between the old and new way of working where different rules apply. Jos de Blok created such a space when founding Buurtzorg, establishing principles of self-management and patient-centered care that gave nurses freedom to operate differently within those boundaries. Holding space is equally important but often more challenging for traditional leaders. It means resisting the urge to jump in with solutions, allowing tensions to be felt and addressed by the system rather than being resolved from above. When a team is struggling with a difficult decision, the leader's instinct may be to make the call, but holding space means supporting the team to work through the challenge themselves. This doesn't mean abandoning responsibility—leaders still articulate purpose, establish guardrails, and model principles—but it does mean trusting the collective intelligence of the organization. The shift to this form of leadership requires significant personal development. Leaders must develop comfort with uncertainty, letting go of the illusion of control that defines traditional management. They must learn to distinguish between situations that require intervention (those that might cause irreversible harm) and those where allowing struggle and failure will foster learning and growth. And they must find fulfillment in enabling others' success rather than being the hero themselves. Handelsbanken demonstrates the power of this approach. When CEO Jan Wallander decentralized authority to local branches in the 1970s, he maintained coherence through a clear purpose and simple principles rather than detailed controls. When a later CEO attempted to recentralize power, the board removed him after just 18 months, recognizing that protecting the space for distributed leadership was essential to the bank's success. This story illustrates that holding space isn't a passive act—it requires active vigilance against forces that would revert to command and control.

Summary

The future of work isn't about better management techniques or more sophisticated hierarchies—it's about fundamentally reinventing our organizational operating systems. By embracing the dual mindsets of People Positive and Complexity Conscious thinking, we can create organizations that are simultaneously more adaptive and more human. This transformation involves rethinking every domain of organizational life, from how authority is distributed to how resources are allocated, ultimately creating systems that can continuously evolve through distributed experimentation and learning. The journey toward evolutionary organizations isn't utopian idealism—it's a practical response to the limitations of industrial-era management in a complex, rapidly changing world. The pioneering organizations featured throughout demonstrate that this approach isn't just more fulfilling for participants but often produces superior results by unleashing human potential and enhancing adaptivity. As traditional bureaucracies struggle with disengagement and disruption, these new models offer a compelling alternative—one where organizations function less like machines to be controlled and more like living systems that can learn, adapt, and thrive on their own. This shift represents our best hope for creating organizations worthy of the human spirit and capable of meeting the challenges of our time.

About Author

Loading...

Aaron Dignan

Read more