Leaderless teams always start to build a hierarchy on its own and the longer they exist the harder it gets to get new people into the group. It's really hard to manage.
"The Tyranny of Structurelessness" is a great read on this. TLDR: structure will always form, so it's best for formalize it from the beginning.
That said, I've been interested in the idea of "adhocracies" for a while now, and it seems to me that it would be possible to form structureless groups that, once they have fulfilled their purpose, disband thus becoming immune from the sort of rot that would otherwise happen.
And I'll also say: the same rot can happen in a group with a well-defined structure too. So it's not all cut and dry.
If the culture is adhocracy then leaderless teams are extra effective. Though a self organising or autonomous team can thrive in any organisation. For example Toyota in the glory days of TPS. Where individuals took up their role in driving change and attending the needs of colleagues.
This is exactly what the article seems to be talking about -- how to identify the emergence of leadership where no formal hierarchy exists, and how to coach those individuals to find leaders.
Yep, leaderless teams are either ad-hoc for a short time, or they develop an unofficial hierarchy (often based on the complaining of certain people, not anything else).
