Subtitle: If we take self-management seriously, we must rethink what leadership actually means—and how this relates to power.

In Part 1 and Part 2, we explored what it means to move beyond hierarchy—in both structure and mindset.

We examined the hidden assumptions behind many “New Work” narratives and how deeply rooted beliefs about people needing control or empowerment still shape even so-called self-managed teams and organizations.

In this third and final part of this article, we turn our focus to leadership.

When we move beyond the binary of technocratic control vs. emotional care, we can question a deeper, often overlooked assumption:

That to lead always means to lead people.

But in truly self-managed systems, leadership often shows up differently.

It happens when someone leads the work by leading their role—with clarity, accountability, and orientation toward purpose. When roles are well defined, individuals can step into responsibility.

They can make decisions, move work forward, and shape outcomes—without needing to be “a leader” in the traditional sense.

In that view, “leading people” becomes just another kind of work—one that can itself be defined as a role, with specific boundaries and expectations. It might be carried by a former manager—or someone else entirely.

What matters is not so much who holds the power, but how it is held.

This shift—from leading people to leading the work through roles— reflects two underlying mindsets we explored earlier in the series: Theory X and Theory Y, first described by Douglas McGregor.

• Theory X, in very short, assumes people avoid responsibility and must be managed.
• Theory Y assumes people are capable of self-direction—if the system supports it.

These mindsets shape how we design leadership—even when we think we’ve moved beyond hierarchy.

Theory X collapses the nuance.

It treats leadership as a fixed identity and assumes people need to be steered, motivated, or developed from the outside.

Theory Y makes a different bet: