Why "Disorganised" Teams Are the Most Successful
Embrace the Chaotic Good in Project Management
In today’s world of agile methodologies, project management certifications, and structured workflows, the mere mention of a “disorganised” team is likely to send shivers down the spine of any seasoned project manager. Chaos? Anarchy? No thanks! The idea of a team operating without a clear methodology, sprint cadence, or tightly defined roles is enough to induce anxiety for anyone accustomed to the rigidity of structured management practices. But what if, counter to everything we’re taught, these “disorganised” teams are the secret to success? Here in out, “project manager” refers to anyone who manages the methodology that which the team follows, and the delivery of projects, it goes by many names, “Delivery Manager”, “Scrum Master”, whatever, you get the gist.
The Beauty of Picking the Right People
Let’s start with the most important element: people. Traditionally, we’ve been conditioned to believe that a team must be formed based on skill sets that fit neatly into predetermined roles, guided by a careful selection of methodologies that promote efficiency (PMI, 2017). But what if that’s simply overcomplicating things?
Pick people who can do the job, who agree they can do the job, and let them do the job.
It sounds radical, right? Yet, it’s a tried-and-tested approach that has seen its fair share of success. When people are given autonomy and the freedom to play to their strengths, without the constraints of rigid methodologies, the results are often remarkable (Pink, 2009). Removing layers of unnecessary management opens up space for creativity, collaboration, and ingenuity (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
Of course, the thought of unleashing an “unmanaged” workforce would likely give most project managers a minor heart attack. But here’s the thing: not all projects need detailed, methodical oversight. Sure, your typical software development process may benefit from agile principles or Kanban boards (Sutherland, 2014), but there’s something refreshing about the laissez-faire approach of picking people and letting them figure it out.
Experience Trumps Methodology
Good project managers, with real-world experience, can often sense the potential of a so-called disorganised team. They’ve herded the cats, navigated the inevitable mess, and still brought projects to a successful conclusion. Why? Because they understand that experience often outweighs the value of rigid adherence to a prescribed system (Lencioni, 2002).
Seasoned managers know what works and what doesn’t. They’ve been through the trenches of “fail fast, fail often” mantras (Ries, 2011), and they’ve seen both sides of the coin. When things start to veer off-course, they don’t panic or resort to micromanaging — they roll with the punches and trust that the team will figure it out.
Sometimes, the best methodology is no methodology at all.
Management Without the Methodology
Upper management might balk at the mere suggestion of a non-methodical approach. After all, they’re the ones that crave structure, predictable timelines, and weekly status updates. But who says they have to know the reality? The beauty of a skilled PM is the ability to cloak what’s happening beneath the surface with just enough polish to keep executives happy.
That’s not to say that these PMs are being dishonest — quite the opposite. They’re skilled in the art of selective transparency (Kerzner, 2017). A good PM knows how to shield their team from the nonsense of upper management while ensuring the project moves forward. They craft reports that focus on results, not process, and they manage expectations so that their team can work with as much autonomy as possible.
This might seem like a dirty little secret of the project management world, but it’s a key reason why disorganised teams often succeed. Management gets their reports and Gantt charts, while the team is left to thrive in the chaos of creative problem-solving.
Infrastructure Projects vs. Software Projects: The Same Rules Apply
“But wait,” you might say, “aren’t we talking about software development here?” Yes, we are. And while the principles of this chaotic success story might seem more aligned with infrastructure projects where the focus is less on writing brand-new code and more on implementation, it’s not just limited to that.
Sure, in software, things might seem more delicate. You’re often dealing with thousands of lines of code, and the temptation to micromanage can be intense. But let’s not forget that even in these contexts, many successful software projects have thrived under “disorganisation.”
The success of a project — be it software or infrastructure — is driven by the team’s ability to collaborate effectively (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). If the right people are chosen, trust is established, and the project manager knows how to handle the balancing act of managing upwards while giving the team space, the results can be just as stunning in software development as they are in infrastructure.
The Myth of Over-Engineering
A critical mistake often made by overly rigid organisations is the obsession with over-engineering project management processes. Teams can get bogged down in documentation, Jira tickets, and unnecessary meetings. This, in turn, suffocates creativity and innovation. By the time the team has adhered to the process, there’s little time or energy left for the actual work that moves the project forward.
Disorganised teams, on the other hand, naturally avoid this trap, also known as “crap”. By skipping the needless bureaucracy, they focus on the essence of the work at hand. They’re not worried about filling out sprint reviews or managing burn-down charts — they’re building, fixing, and shipping. Isn’t that the point of a project in the first place?
The Role of “Methodological Anarchy” in Innovation
Some of the greatest innovations in history were born out of what could be termed “Methodological Anarchism.” When you give people the freedom to deviate from traditional approaches, you allow for experimentation and out-of-the-box thinking. Innovation doesn’t happen in an environment that’s too structured — it needs a little chaos (Christensen, 1997).
It’s in this “chaos” where individuals start finding creative solutions, testing unconventional methods, and pushing boundaries. And often, it’s these very projects — those that were written off as too disorganised to succeed — that become landmark successes.
Consider projects that thrive on skunkworks operations — teams working in secret, outside the bounds of normal processes, with little more than a vision and a ragtag group of people who believe they can make it work. These projects rarely adhere to structured methodologies. Instead, they rely on the collective brilliance of a small group of motivated individuals.
The same holds true on a smaller scale in day-to-day project management. Give your team room to breathe, and they’ll likely surprise you with their ingenuity.
When Methodology Becomes a Crutch
To be clear, methodologies have their place. They provide structure, guidelines, and productive practices that can be helpful in certain contexts. But when methodology becomes a crutch — something that people cling to for the sake of it — the project suffers.
In this sense, a “disorganised” team is one that refuses to be held back by a methodology for methodology’s sake. They recognise when structure is helpful and when it becomes a hindrance. The key is knowing how to strike that balance. When that balance is struck, these teams not only succeed — they thrive.
Embrace the Chaos
While the idea of a disorganised team may cause unease for traditionalists, it’s undeniable that these teams often yield remarkable results. The ability to pick the right people, give them autonomy, and allow them to navigate the project in their own way is a recipe for success.
Upper management doesn’t need to know how the sausage is made and cooked, as long as it’s delicious. So why not embrace a little chaos? It might just be the key to your next big win.
References
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 250–279.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business Review Press.
Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. John Wiley & Sons.
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.
PMI. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) — Sixth edition. Project Management Institute.
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business.
Sutherland, J. (2014). Scrum: The art of doing twice the work in half the time. Crown Business.