Branding: Thoughts on Authenticity, Strategy, Trust and Why It Matters
2025. April 10.
Monoculture vs. Permaculture: Learning to Grow Differently
2025. October 16.
Building effective systems in the workplace: Boundaries, responsibilities, and human behavior
I think it’s crucial for everyone to have a clear understanding of their own and others’ working responsibilities. I generally believe in a hierarchical system in a working environment, but it’s important to understand that it doesn’t rank us as people.
For example, I always use “coordinator” instead of “leader,” because even if my job is to keep track, control, and harmonize others’ work - and sometimes define what they should do - it does not mean my job is more important than theirs. I am not a better or bigger person.
A hierarchy is simply a work-related relational network, separate from our personal lives. I want everyone to understand that what I say should be taken objectively and not personally. If we have lunch together, we should sit around a round table. But at work, a clear structure simply makes things more efficient.
Clear Roles and Written Agreements
I like to have a clear list of tasks and responsibilities (including working co-relations—who reports to whom) attached to a working contract. This way, the requirements are obvious. It also protects everyone, so they only need to do what they’re meant to and are good at. And one thing I cannot stress enough: write down every agreement. It’s crucial.
If someone in a higher position oversteps and asks them to do more or something different, they can easily set boundaries.
I also believe in everyday team-building. Not one forced team-building event in a year, but small day-to-day efforts: eating lunch together, having honest feedback rounds (optionally anonymous for full honesty, or one-to-one, or in a team circle - whichever works best at the time).
The Challenge in Small Teams
I’ve mostly worked in smaller teams, which means fewer people doing more and different tasks. That’s when boundaries and responsibilities blur most easily. Especially if it’s your passion project, when something’s not done, you just do it, regardless of whether it’s your official job or not, because you care.
This can be both a strength and a weakness. On one hand, it keeps things moving and ensures nothing falls into a grey zone. On the other, it can create an imbalance where some people consistently end up carrying more weight than others. Over time, that can lead to tension, resentment, or burnout.
One practical solution I’ve found is to align responsibilities with fair compensation and to have this system clearly written down. This way, there’s transparency, and people are rewarded according to the amount and type of work they actually do. Salaries and fees can be structured in different ways: a fixed monthly salary, hourly rates, project-based payments, or a combination of these.
The point is that the structure should reflect the reality of the work, not just the job title. It’s also important to review and update this system regularly. Teams change, projects evolve, and workloads shift- If the structure stays static, it quickly stops being fair.
For me, this approach is an example of a “good and fair capitalist method” - clear, transparent, and rewarding those who actually put in the work while protecting everyone from quietly picking up tasks that aren’t theirs to carry long term.
Hierarchy vs. Horizontal Systems
I’ve worked in both systems and have strong opinions based on my experience (I’m aware these are my experiences, other places might be different, but I do believe some general characteristics always hold true).
Hierarchical:
The classic workplace system—boss/owner → project manager(s) → coordinators/team leaders → specialized teams.
It has a clear structure: everyone is responsible for their own tasks and decisions, with upper-lower co-responsibilities that require reporting and communication. Certain decisions that will affect others are in the hands of those responsible for that area. This is strictly work-related and doesn’t define anyone as a person.
On the other hand, certain tasks can end up in a grey zone, with everyone washing their hands and not taking responsibility - because they lack, by the nature of this system, the extra dedication to do more or different than their assigned tasks. In the end, the job is either not done or delayed so much (until we figure out who will do it and how) that it affects the outcome of the project.
Horizontal:
Usually more democratic or even socialist in approach (sometimes members have ownership, like in a cooperative). Everyone still has their own field of work, but in decision-making, everyone has either a voice or a vote. Not so long ago I participated in a conference about comparing these two systems and most were praising this horizontal method.
It’s meant to create equal dedication and participation, which sounds idealistic - but my personal experience was different.
Once, I worked in a horizontal environment as a team leader with a lot of responsibilities. We had plenary meetups, don't remember, maybe once a month but every time whenever a big decision came up. Usually there were 2–3 different opinions, each with someone representing them. Anyone could speak, but it was mostly those who were directly involved or had a strong opinion.
Then we voted. Everyone. Even volunteers who only came once a week to set up chairs. And I felt like we were in a theatre - whoever gave the better speech got the most votes. Sometimes the people actually responsible for implementing the decision (including me) knew it was the wrong choice or that it would be difficult, but we had to follow through anyway.
So, I feel that while it’s beneficial to include everyone in some conversations about overall direction, long-term goals, certain decisions need to be made by the people who actually work with the issue.
The Human Factor
This is something so important, yet still not considered enough.
It’s vital to get to know each other as people. That’s why I like to implement some horizontal methods and make time for genuine human connection, open conversations, feedback, and real day-to-day team building, not just a forced “team-building day” once a year. These factors are deeply personal, there’s no one-size-fits-all.
The key is awareness: awareness of each other, of situations that tend to bring out certain traits, and of the overall quality of open communication and relationships.
Some people are naturally more emotionally sensitive, others are more objective and quick to move on from conflicts. If I’m in a leading position, I often partner with someone whose emotional communication style complements my own. While I’m generally straightforward and problem-solving oriented, I know that some may interpret this as being emotionless, even though I have empathy. So, in practice, we sometimes split conversations: I handle the more objective feedback sessions, while my colleague offers the emotional support when needed. This doesn’t mean I’m the “bad cop” and they’re the “good cop”, it’s simply a recognition that no one can be everything to everyone, and different personalities excel in different situations.
That said, it’s equally important to clearly separate work from personal life. Criticism should be strictly professional and not emotional. This separation helps ensure that feedback is taken objectively and doesn’t damage personal relationships. On the flip side, maintaining personal moments, like having lunch together, chatting about life, or showing genuine interest in each other, keeps the team connected as humans, not just co-workers. Balancing these two sides is what allows a team to work effectively while still feeling like a supportive community.
Awareness also means being able to recognize when certain behaviors are too toxic to keep in the team. Sometimes the healthiest choice for the whole group is to say goodbye to a person rather than spend endless time trying to “fix” them.
We can’t change someone’s core personality, and if they have deeper issues - such as strong jealousy, greed, or narcissistic tendencies like manipulation or gaslighting - that’s their own responsibility to work on, ideally with a professional. It is not the job of the team, or any one person in it, to solve those problems. Protecting the overall health of the group must come first.
Preventing Confusion and Conflict
It comes back to the same principles I’ve already mentioned:
- Contracts and task lists so everyone knows their role. A written record removes ambiguity and makes it easy to set boundaries if someone is asked to take on work outside of their defined responsibilities.
- Clear separation of personal and work life. You can be approachable, even vulnerable, as a leader, while still maintaining efficiency and professionalism. This balance sets a healthy example for the rest of the team.
- Proactive personal connection so the team functions as humans, not just job titles. Both professional and personal respect are mandatory.
In my experience, most conflicts in teams come from misunderstandings. Someone assuming another person’s job, expectations not being communicated clearly, or boundaries not being respected. These problems are rarely about capability; they’re usually about clarity and communication. That’s why I believe the “human” side of teamwork is just as important as the “technical” side.
When people understand their responsibilities, respect boundaries, and communicate openly, you create a work environment that is both efficient and genuinely human.
Related posts
LONDON, ENGLAND - SEPTEMBER 03: Banksy's Love is in the Bin (2018) is installed at Sotheby's on September 03, 2021 in London, England. Banksy's Love is in the Bin (est. £4 - 6 million) will go on public view this weekend for a special two day-view at Sotheby's New Bond Street Galleries, before embarking on a global tour ahead of the Contemporary Art Evening Auction at Sotheby's London on October 14. (Photo by Tristan Fewings/Getty Images for Sotheby's)
