# How open leadership cultivates high-performance teams in product-driven organizations

Organizational dynamics are ever-shifting, and the shapes that organizations might take contiue to surprise and inspire us.
In their book *Team Topologies*, authors Matthew Skelton and Manuel Pais argue that today we might distinguish between "product-driven organizations"—in which teams are aligned with specific product lines or customer-facing services, allowing for more direct impact on business outcomes—and "platform-driven organizations," which organize teams around the internal platforms that support multiple products or services.
These different structures—or rather, these differing *topologies*—demand different modes of leadership.

Open leadership is one powerful model for guiding product-driven *and* platform-driven organizations through complex transformations and fast-paced innovation cycles.
It's capable of doing this because its principles and tactics are not limited to hierarchical contexts; it focuses on empowering individuals and teams to navigate challenges autonomously, across conventional operational boundaries.

At its core, open leadership fosters an environment of psychological safety, where individuals feel safe to express ideas, challenge assumptions, and take risks without fear of retribution.
Open leadership emerges as a powerful framework designed to foster collaborative, high-performance teams by emphasizing transparency, adaptability, collaboration, inclusivity, and community.
When leaders embrace it, open leadership forms the foundation of both a dynamic mindset and a set of behaviors that prioritize service to others within teams or organizations.
They promote the principles of transparency, inclusivity, adaptability, collaboration, and community, as defined by the Open Organization Definition.
These leaders are not static figures but evolve based on the demands of the team or enterprise, giving agency to and empowering those around them.

In this chapter, I'll argue that open leadership is a compelling and advantageous framwork for fostering environments built on these foundational pillars, enabling organizational leaders to work in novel organizational topologies to build teams that are agile and resilient, especially in volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world.

## Psychological safety: The foundation for high-performance teams
The concept of psychological safety, first introduced by Amy Edmondson, is central to open leadership.
Psychological safety refers to "a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.”
Edmondson describes it as “felt permission for candor,” where team members feel safe to express ideas, ask questions, admit mistakes, and share concerns without fear of reprisal.
When psychological safety is present, teams become high-impact and high-performing.

In simple terms, this means that companies that prioritize this principle see a range of concrete benefits, such as increased employee engagement, higher innovation rates, and better overall team performance.
For instance, Edmondson's studies highlight that psychological safety enables teams to provide candid feedback, admit mistakes, and learn from one another without fear, fostering a culture of trust and openness.
This leads to better problem-solving, more creative ideas, and resilience in facing challenges. One example from the business world is Google’s Project Aristotle, which found that psychological safety was the most critical factor for high-performing teams.
Teams with psychological safety were more likely to collaborate effectively, share insights, and meet their goals, reinforcing its practical importance.
These outcomes align with broader organizational research, showing that trust and open communication reduce internal friction, encourage learning, and enhance adaptability—key traits of high-impact, sustainable teams. Edmondson's book The Fearless Organization explores these dynamics in detail, emphasizing that creating a safe space for interpersonal risk-taking is essential in today's complex and fast-paced business environments
Without psychological safety, teams face internal friction, limiting creativity and productivity.
This environment is crucial for fostering high-performance teams, as it encourages open dialogue, creative problem-solving, and continuous learning.

In contrast, environments where team members are burdened by fear of making mistakes can lead to stifled creativity, miscommunication, and disengagement.
High-impact teams are those that not only achieve outcomes but also do so efficiently by distributing leadership roles fluidly across different members based on the task at hand.
This aligns with the shift from outcome-driven to output-driven approaches, where the focus is not just on completing tasks, but on the value and results generated by these tasks (more on this in a moment).

In short, psychologically safe environments encourage innovation, as team members feel confident to explore new ideas and challenge the status quo, essential in product-driven and platform-driven organizations.
Product-driven teams focus on creating marketable items—physical goods, software, or services—optimized for their target audience. Their success is often tied to how well they anticipate and fulfill customer needs.
Platform-driven teams, on the other hand, create ecosystems that connect diverse users or entities, facilitating interactions and value exchange.
Think of platforms like Airbnb or app marketplaces, which must constantly evolve to meet the complex needs of varied stakeholders.

### Cultivating psychological safety

In organizations striving to balance product-driven and platform-driven models, and as they transition from outcome-driven to output-driven mindsets, the need for psychological safety becomes even more pronounced.
These environments demand agility, innovation, and collaboration—qualities that thrive only when team members feel safe to voice their ideas, challenge assumptions, and take risks without fear of reprisal.

For leaders, this isn’t just a theoretical ideal; it’s an active, ongoing commitment.
Psychological safety doesn’t emerge by chance—it is cultivated.
Teams working within product-driven frameworks often experience pressure to innovate quickly, while platform-driven teams must constantly adapt to diverse user needs and operational complexities.
Without psychological safety, these pressures can lead to a fear-based culture that stifles creativity and engagement, ultimately slowing progress.

Imagine a team brainstorming solutions for a critical product feature.
If members fear being judged for "bad ideas," the most innovative suggestions might never surface.
On the flip side, a psychologically safe team turns brainstorming into a creative free-for-all where even unconventional thoughts spark breakthroughs.
Leaders play a pivotal role here by setting the tone for openness and curiosity.

So, how can leaders rise to this challenge?
Start by asking yourself: Do I actively invite my team’s input?
Do I celebrate their learning moments, even when they come from missteps?
Strategies for fostering psychological safety include:

Modeling vulnerability: This means showing your team that it’s okay not to have all the answers. Share your own mistakes and lessons learned to normalize imperfection as part of growth.
Encouraging open dialogue: Create a culture where questions, concerns, and ideas are welcomed. Acknowledge diverse perspectives and explicitly state that everyone’s input is valued.
Creating structures that amplify every voice: Use practices like structured brainstorming, rotating meeting facilitators, or anonymous idea-sharing platforms to ensure that quieter or less confident team members can contribute without hesitation.

## Managing cognitive load for optimal performance

Effective open leadership also entails managing the cognitive load placed on team members.
In simple terms it refers to the mental effort required to process and retain information.
Cognitive load theory, introduced by John Sweller in the field of cognitive psychology, refers to the amount of working memory resources used during tasks.
It helps us understand how people process and manage information.
It categorizes cognitive load into three general types—intrinsic, extraneous, and germane—and provides a useful framework for leaders looking to support their teams effectively.

Sweller defines them this way:

1. Intrinsic cognitive load: This is the natural complexity of a task. Open leaders need to ensure that their teams are well-equipped to handle this by providing clear instructions and necessary resources.
2. Extraneous cognitive load: This results from poorly designed processes or unnecessary distractions. Open decision-making processes—where the rationale behind decisions is shared transparently—reduce extraneous load by clarifying roles, expectations, and workflows.
3. Germane cognitive load: This is the effort that individuals put into learning or problem-solving. Open leaders can promote this by creating environments conducive to continuous learning and personal development, helping team members build the knowledge and skills needed to thrive.

In technology-driven organizations, especially those undergoing digital transformation, the complexity of tasks can lead to cognitive overload, which in turn reduces team efficiency and decision-making quality.
In high-performance environments, minimizing extraneous cognitive load—unnecessary information or distractions—is essential to help teams focus on the tasks that matter most.
In fact, reducing cognitive load and fostering psychological safety goes hand-in-hand with creating high-performance teams.
Leaders who create psychologically safe environments allow teams to function more effectively by reducing cognitive load—the mental energy required to process information and make decisions.
When cognitive load is reduced, teams can focus on the essential work of generating ideas and driving innovation, ultimately increasing their capacity for high-impact outcomes.

Open leaders minimize extraneous cognitive load by clarifying goals, streamlining processes, and ensuring that teams focus on high-priority tasks.
They also facilitate knowledge sharing, which fosters germane cognitive load, enabling teams to build lasting expertise and capabilities.
Additionally, by managing cognitive load effectively, open leaders can help reduce burnout and increase focus, enabling teams to operate at peak efficiency.
This approach is especially relevant in organizations navigating complex transformations, where the ability to balance short-term outputs with long-term outcomes is critical.

### Methodologies that help reduce extraneous congnitive load

**Agile and Lean methodologies**
Agile and Lean methodologies, both built on iterative and incremental processes, are powerful tools for reducing extraneous cognitive load within teams.
These methodologies break down larger projects into smaller, manageable tasks that can be completed in short cycles, often referred to as sprints in Agile.
This approach allows teams to maintain focus and clarity by avoiding overwhelming, complex workloads, thus reducing the mental strain caused by unnecessary complexity.

In Agile, the emphasis on frequent feedback loops and adaptability ensures that team members aren't burdened by uncertainty or unclear objectives.
By continuously reassessing progress and adjusting course as needed, teams remain aligned and can swiftly address any obstacles without overcomplicating the work.
Lean methodology similarly focuses on minimizing waste—whether that's time, resources, or mental energy—by simplifying processes and eliminating unnecessary steps.

**Design thinking**
Design thinking is an approach to problem-solving that aligns with the principles of open leadership by prioritizing user-centered solutions and collaborative ideation.
It encourages teams to understand the problem deeply, empathize with the people affected, and explore multiple perspectives before rushing into solutions.
This process ensures that the focus remains on solving the right problem in the most effective way, preventing premature conclusions and fostering creativity.

The five stages of Design Thinking—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test—allow teams to break down complex problems into manageable steps, helping them identify core issues rather than surface-level symptoms.
This approach is particularly beneficial in open leadership contexts, where leaders encourage diverse input and value iterative learning and feedback.

By engaging in deep understanding and iteration, teams using Design Thinking ensure that their solutions are both relevant and innovative, providing real value rather than simply addressing immediate, superficial needs.
The iterative nature of Design Thinking also creates space for continuous learning, a key feature of psychological safety, as teams are encouraged to refine ideas based on feedback rather than being judged for early-stage attempts.

Together, these methods allow open leaders to structure their teams for success by reducing cognitive burden and promoting innovation.

## Outcome vs. output: Shifting the focus

A key component of open leadership is the shift from focusing on outputs (e.g., deliverables, features) to focusing on outcomes (e.g., the real impact or results of the work).
The distinction between focusing on outputs and outcomes is pivotal for open leaders because it directly informs how they guide their teams toward meaningful, impactful work.
While outputs like deliverables and features are often seen as tangible indicators of progress, it’s the outcomes—the real impact of that work—that align more closely with an organization’s strategic goals and mission.
Open leaders, through their emphasis on transparency, inclusivity, collaboration, community and adaptability, can help their teams keep this focus on outcomes, ensuring that every effort is aligned with the broader business objectives and user needs.

For open leaders, the distinction means actively engaging with the team to ensure clarity around *why* the work is being done, not just *what* is being done.
When leaders maintain an open, collaborative environment, they create a sense of shared ownership of the outcomes.
This transparency helps everyone—from executives to team members—understand how their efforts connect to organizational goals, fostering a sense of purpose and motivation.
Research on leadership, including Edmondson’s work on psychological safety, shows that when teams are encouraged to engage in open dialogue and share their insights, they are more likely to focus on the true value of their work rather than being distracted by the mere completion of tasks (Edmondson, 2019).

In this context, open leadership practices such as regular feedback loops and stakeholder engagement play a crucial role.
By encouraging continuous communication with users and other key stakeholders, leaders can ensure that the team remains aligned with business priorities and can adjust course quickly when necessary.
Agile and Lean frameworks naturally support this process by structuring work in small, iterative cycles, with regular opportunities to reflect and pivot based on real-time feedback.
This iterative approach, when paired with a culture of openness, allows teams to stay focused on delivering impactful solutions, rather than simply ticking off a list of deliverables.

Moreover, open leadership encourages a mindset of adaptability, which is essential for outcome-oriented work.
In product-driven organizations, the ability to pivot based on new information or shifting priorities is a hallmark of high-performance teams.
Leaders who foster a safe environment for experimentation and learning enable their teams to focus on outcomes without the fear of failure.
By promoting openness and inclusivity in decision-making, these leaders make it easier for their teams to adjust their approach and stay on track toward delivering real value, rather than being bogged down by outdated goals or irrelevant tasks.

Open leadership practices help ensure that teams remain agile and responsive to user needs, business goals, strategic priorities and can pivot quickly when necessary, making the organization's efforts more adaptable and responsive.

## Team topologies: Structuring for success
Recall Skelton and Pais' distinction between product-driven organizations and platform-driven ones. The former, the authors write, are structured around delivering specific products or customer-facing services; the latter focus on creating and maintaining the underlying infrastructure that supports multiple products or services.
According to Skelton and Pais, key team structures within Team Topologies include:

* Stream-aligned teams: These are end-to-end teams aligned to a specific product or service stream. They are empowered to make decisions and work autonomously, delivering value without being bogged down by excessive dependencies on other teams.
* Enabling teams: These teams support stream-aligned teams by providing expertise, training, and resources to help solve complex problems, thus reducing cognitive load.
* Platform teams: In platform-driven organizations, platform teams develop and maintain internal tools and services that enable product teams to move faster and focus on core product development without having to reinvent shared solutions.

It must be emphasized that "stream-aligned teams" are a central focus of *Team Topologies*.
These teams are structured to work autonomously, delivering value without excessive dependencies on other teams.
Open leadership supports the development of such teams by empowering them to make decisions, fostering collaboration and minimizing cognitive overload through transparency and clearly defined workflows.
Open leaders need to be adept at guiding teams through these structures, ensuring that psychological safety is maintained, cognitive load is managed, and teams can focus on delivering high-impact work.
Research on team topologies suggests that organizational design plays a crucial role in how effectively open leadership principles are implemented.
The Team Topologies framework provides a model for structuring teams to optimize for flow and reduce dependencies, designing and managing teams that reduce cognitive load and enhance collaboration.

Open leaders can leverage these concepts to build high-performance teams, particularly in product-driven organizations where speed, agility, and innovation are crucial.
In my role at Red Hat as Principal Open Leadership Coach and product owner, for example, I had the first-hand experience of testing the stream-aligned team concept to create the "Open Leadership for Product Teams workshop."
Using practices from the Open Practice Library, in two sprints we were able to lay the groundwork for establishing the mission and objectives of the workshop, create the first iteration of the workshop flow, structure and organize the content, identify the measures of success and be ready for a test-run in the shortest amount of time.
By structuring teams in alignment with these topologies, open leaders can reduce the friction caused by handoffs and dependencies, thereby boosting performance and increasing the speed of innovation.
This approach aligns with the principles of open decision-making—where decisions are made transparently, with input from all relevant stakeholders, and where the rationale behind those decisions is clearly communicated to the team.
This focus on team topologies and thoughtful organizational design enables teams to move more quickly and with greater certainty, even in complex environments.

## Open decision making: Enhancing transparency and trust
Open decision making represents a transformative approach to organizational leadership, particularly within complex and dynamic environments.
And it is a hallmark of open leadership.
Open decision-making refers to the process of sharing not only outcomes of leaders' decisions themselves but also the underlying logic and considerations behind those decisions.
This transparency ensures that team members understand why certain choices are made, even if they were not directly involved in the decision-making process.
By elucidating the rationale, open leaders build trust and alignment, further enhancing the psychological safety within the team.
Moreover, open decision-making reduces cognitive load by minimizing ambiguity.
When people are clear about the factors influencing decisions, they can make better-informed contributions to future initiatives and avoid unnecessary speculation.
This practice is particularly beneficial in product-driven organizations where cross-functional collaboration is key to innovation.[^see-sjolund]

Open decision making, defined by the Open Decision Framework, emphasizes transparency, inclusivity, and customer-centricity.
It involves clearly communicating problems, requirements, and constraints to all stakeholders, fostering a collaborative environment where diverse opinions and feedback are actively sought and integrated into the decision-making process.
By managing relationships and expectations across competing needs, open decision making ensures that decisions are well-informed and aligned with organizational goals and values (Open Decision Framework, n.d.).

We can observe a prime illustration of open decision making in many open source software communities.
In such environments, decisions about software development are often made through collaborative discussions where contributions are valued based on their relative effectiveness and merit rather than the organization's hierarchy.
For instance, the development of the Linux kernel, spearheaded by Linus Torvalds, exemplifies this approach.
Contributions from developers around the world are reviewed through a transparent process where the best ideas, regardless of their origin, are incorporated into the final product.
This meritocratic system not only accelerates innovation but also aligns with the principles of open decision-making by involving a global community in shaping the software's evolution (Open Decision Framework, n.d.).

Implementing open decision-making practices can significantly enhance organizational effectiveness by promoting transparency and engagement.
For leaders, this means facilitating an environment where team members and stakeholders are encouraged to participate in the decision-making process, thereby fostering a sense of ownership and alignment with organizational objectives.
By embracing open decision making, organizations can build stronger, more resilient teams that are better equipped to navigate complex challenges and drive sustained success.

## Toward more resilient teams

Open leadership is not merely a management style but a transformative approach to building high-impact, high-performance teams.
By embedding principles of psychological safety, managing cognitive load, and practicing open decision-making, leaders can create resilient, adaptable teams capable of delivering meaningful outcomes.
In doing so, they shift the focus from simply completing tasks (outputs) to achieving impactful results (outcomes), aligning their organizations with the demands of modern, agile, and innovative environments.

## References

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly.

Open Decision Framework. (n.d.). What is an open decision? Retrieved from https://github.com/open-organization/open-decision-framework/blob/master/ODF-community.md#what-is-an-open-decision

Skelton, M., & Pais, M. (2019). Team Topologies: Organizing Business and Technology Teams for Fast Flow. IT Revolution Press.

[^see-sjolund]: See Jimmy Sjolund's chapter in this volume.