This HBR article highlights a compelling asymmetry in team dynamics: large teams excel at development and deployment, while small teams are better suited for disruption. Large teams execute. Small teams disrupt. The former march in formation; the latter think in rebellion.
Anecdotally, that rings true. Smaller teams, leaner in structure and tighter in cohesion, thrive at birthing radical ideas and reframing paradigms. They move quickly because they aren’t bogged down by bureaucracy and status meetings. They share context without memos, pivot without permission, and fail without fanfare. Their edge is subtraction: less red tape, fewer egos, and, mercifully, no corporate pep talks. That’s why Amazon swears by the “two-pizza team” rule—agility thrives in small bites.
Large teams thrive at refinement. They have the muscle to scale, test, and adapt ideas for customers. Their access to resources, infrastructure, and markets gives them an advantage in execution.
Disruption favors the quiet hum of concentrated minds, not the roar of crowded rooms. That’s why forward-thinking companies seed Skunkworks, nimble innovation cells within large organizations, designed to marry the agility of small teams with the power of big ones. A lightweight alternative is the ad hoc hackathon: short, focused bursts of innovation where small teams or cross-company partnerships can rapidly prototype with minimal overhead.
Some managers inspire loyalty. Others, despite good intentions, slowly drain morale. This isn’t about tyrants—it’s about the well-meaning but unaware. If your team looks tense every Monday, there’s probably a reason.
Southwest Airlines didn’t rise to prominence through spreadsheets or sycophancy. It was built by a jolly, chain-smoking Texas lawyer named .jpg)

What struck me most in Penang is how Confucian values—often dismissed as rigid—are anything but. They 

Life admin—the endless personal tasks like making appointments, coordinating with kids or a spouse, switching insurance, paying bills, responding to personal emails, dealing with financial issues, and managing shopping returns. It’s the behind-the-scenes work that keeps life running smoothly.
It struck me recently: while we obsess over leadership—how to be a good leader, how to measure it, and so on—there’s barely a peep about being a good follower..jpg)

The Stakhanov Movement capitalized on the collective desire for improvement and transformation, leading to increased productivity through better-organized workflows. However, as often happens, when metrics become the sole focus, they overshadow the true purpose of the work. In the Soviet system, the state had to ensure control over production, align workers’ efforts with central economic plans, and maximize output. Quotas played a key role in this strategy, setting mandatory production targets across various industries. Over time, these quotas became the primary measure of success, with workers judged by numbers rather than the quality or long-term impact of their efforts. Those who failed to meet the targets risked being labeled as “wreckers” and accused of sabotaging the system. Stakhanovites were celebrated as heroes, rewarded with media attention, lavish rewards, and even having their names immortalized on factories and streets.
When someone asks, “What’s your leadership or managerial style?” the best response often comes down to, “It depends.”