People seek out, form, or join teams basically wherever they go, in whatever they do. While every team has an introvert, every team has a lead that works to pull the introvert into the fold. This is largely the "leaders/managers self identify themselves." Or, the introvert that strikes on on their own to do their own thing? Well if they're good..... they end up forming a team to support it.
It's not about knowing you're on the A-league or not, or implying it or not. That issue, while you're correct about the taboo nature of implying one's team is anything less-than, is very besides the point.
It's about how individuals time after time find fulfillment from performing at your (company, in this case) local optimum, with a hearty dose of feelings and actuality of personal autonomy, lack of micromanagement, clear standards that are just far enough of a stretch to be able to be met, etc. The nerdiest of nerds on a CTF team or hackathon will give each other a high five. In turn, to your point, the best players will seek out better teams.
It's a primordial behavior, we all do it. There's a wealth of organizational/leadership science out there. It's a fun read that unlike many social sciences, actually has a pretty well proven lemmas behind it, which control for personality types across the spectrum. The military is a one great source of this, flat orgs are another, and everything in between still displays the same behavior (for orgs that do "well"). The behavior and incentives of A->Z people in high performing, high satisfaction environments tend to be very similar, just the implementation is a little different depending on specific org charts.
I'm not sure we disagree all that significantly. ;)
I didn't mean to imply that we don't work in, join or even thrive in "teams." I meant the elite sports team analogy is a bad idea, usually. That's the analogy I netflix is going for, I believe. They meant it in that context, as you said:
There's no shame in getting cut, and you should be proud that you had the talent to perform at our level for the time you did.
All this has to be thought of as a management philosophy, because that's what it is. A Theory Of How We Do Things Here." Most os the time, work isn't sports-like. Objectivity is one fundamental difference, and actually running things like a sports team requires it. Hackathons are done to create sports-like scenarios on occasion. Trying to go past that, objectivity ends up biting you. ... you'll end up with productivity measures or some other low-autonomy management style.
This was my point about taboo. It's an example of reality leaking into the metaphor, making it unsustainable. Companies mostly don't operate in objective scenarios. Contribution is very difficult to ascertain, especially for the kind of work that requires elite performance.
Ultimately, a sports team is the way it is because of what it is. A team of artists shouldn't try to organise like a team of rowers or a software team like a sales team.
Incidentally, many sales teams run exactly like netflix aspires to... and without much effort. Their reality is objective. A 10X salesman can actually earn 10X, like an elite athlete does. There are elite teams and it is prestigious to have a stint there, even though most don't last.
People seek out, form, or join teams basically wherever they go, in whatever they do. While every team has an introvert, every team has a lead that works to pull the introvert into the fold. This is largely the "leaders/managers self identify themselves." Or, the introvert that strikes on on their own to do their own thing? Well if they're good..... they end up forming a team to support it.
It's not about knowing you're on the A-league or not, or implying it or not. That issue, while you're correct about the taboo nature of implying one's team is anything less-than, is very besides the point.
It's about how individuals time after time find fulfillment from performing at your (company, in this case) local optimum, with a hearty dose of feelings and actuality of personal autonomy, lack of micromanagement, clear standards that are just far enough of a stretch to be able to be met, etc. The nerdiest of nerds on a CTF team or hackathon will give each other a high five. In turn, to your point, the best players will seek out better teams.
It's a primordial behavior, we all do it. There's a wealth of organizational/leadership science out there. It's a fun read that unlike many social sciences, actually has a pretty well proven lemmas behind it, which control for personality types across the spectrum. The military is a one great source of this, flat orgs are another, and everything in between still displays the same behavior (for orgs that do "well"). The behavior and incentives of A->Z people in high performing, high satisfaction environments tend to be very similar, just the implementation is a little different depending on specific org charts.