A leaderless organization?

The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra was featured in a New York Times article because of their peculiar organizational structure: the orchestra has no conductor.

I've seen this article held up as an example that says "aha, a well functioning group with no leader!" And yet upon closer inspection, there is more to the situation than first meets the eye.

First off with no conductor, each member of the group takes on more responsibility for knowing the music as a whole, including the parts of others. Thus they become better tuned into one another, and less dependent on an authority figure to think for them. This is just good practice.

Also there is in fact a concertmaster for each piece of work, although the role rotates. Thus it looks like at any given time, there is someone at the "head" of the group, albeit a self-responsible group that can think for itself. Plus there are smaller core groups, within which the leadership roles rotate.

And then there is a board of directors, an executive committee, and an executive director. Thus the organizations has structure.


I propose that what's really different here is that although there is a stable "backbone" at the executive level, at the level of music leadership the head person changes. Furthermore the whole orchestra takes responsibility and thinks like leaders.

Ed Friedman, who greatly influenced my thinking on leadership, used to often say that groups become too dependent on leaders, especially charismatic ones, that it is bad for both sides. Thus I'd say that the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, rather than getting rid of leadership, is redefining how it is done.

It still leaves the question, "Why does that need for leading exist at all?"