More than you might be used to. Structure hasn’t disappeared, it’s just rearranged. Instead of fixed departments, defined functions and organizational charts, we work with a living system of roles, circles and mutual agreements.

Each role has a clear purpose, a concrete scope of work and explicit expectations. Tasks, domains and authority are visible to all. This makes ownership transparent and prevents duplication of effort or ambiguity. Structure is not created from above, but from what teams need to work well together.

The strength lies in flexibility: if something doesn’t work, we adjust it. Not through reorganizations, but through small iterations in the system. Because the system adapts to the people, not the other way around.

People know what to do because they themselves are involved in what is needed. Direction is not imposed, but emerges from shared understanding of Beleeve’s higher purpose, ongoing projects, and everyone’s role in them.

Every role has a clear reason: there is a need, a tension, or an opportunity that demands action. You take a role because you see something that is important, or because it makes sense for you to take it. You know what to do because it comes from connection with reality.

In addition, we work with rhythms in which goals, actions and responsibilities are constantly realigned. We use these rhythms not to control, but to make room for reflection, adjustment and ownership. The work “steers itself,” as long as people understand the context and have access to all the information they need.

In self-directed structures, agreements are not imposed, but are made together and therefore more powerful. When someone does not fulfill his or her agreements, we speak up. Not with authority, but with responsibility. We do not use tensions to keep people in line, but as an entrance to understand what is going on.

Perhaps the role has become too large, or not clearly defined. Maybe there is a mismatch between expectation and reality. Maybe there is something personal going on. Whatever it is, the system invites dialogue. Not about blame, but about what could be better. And if someone exhibits structurally destructive behavior, it is not ignored, it is bounded, because safety for the whole always comes first.

This eliminates the need for sanctions from above. It does not take a culture of fear to make people accountable. What we have is a culture where it is normal to give and receive feedback.

You work from your roles, in the rhythm that suits your responsibilities and those of your team. You make agreements about availability and cooperation, but you plan your own days. No imposed obligations, but coordinated choices. There are fixed rhythms for alignment and reflection, but how you work in between is up to you.

The absence of managers does not mean that everything floats, it means that you no longer waste energy managing expectations upward. You don’t work to be visible, but to contribute. You know what is important because you help determine what is important.

The work week thus becomes less an agenda full of obligations, and more a landscape in which you have the space to move, choose and create.

Then we don’t look for the “culprit,” we examine what the system needs. Blockages are not seen as faults, but as signals. There is always a reason why something is stalling: unspoken tension, unclear roles, old agreements that no longer work. Making that visible gives the team a chance to realign itself.

We use moments of reflection, external guidance or simple dialogue to move forward together. Not because someone intervenes from above, but because we know: stagnation is an invitation to growth. Instead of escalation, ownership emerges. And that makes the difference between stagnation and development.

Nobody and everybody. Instead of one person “owning” the overview, we ensure that the system is transparent. Roles, responsibilities, decisions and goals are transparent to everyone who needs them. Information is not power, but a shared asset. We use tooling, rhythms and habits that create overview without waiting for permission.

In addition, there are often specific roles that monitor the process, identify bottlenecks or coordinate coherence but without being above the system. Coordination without control. Sight without hierarchy. That’s the difference.

Agreements on deadlines are made together. They are meaningful because they come from commitment, not pressure from above. That means: realistic timelines, room for negotiation, and the ability to adjust as circumstances change.

There is no fear of saying something doesn’t work out, no culture of performing to be seen. This creates reliability: people say what they can deliver. And if things don’t work out for once? Then we look at what is needed. substantively, not personally.

This creates a system in which deliverability need not be enforced. It comes from the combination of ownership and mutual trust.

No. We do not strive for consensus, but for involvement and consultation. The difference is fundamental: in consensus, everyone must agree, which often leads to endless deliberation, fatigue or watery compromises. In the consultation method, your decision is your responsibility. As long as you listen carefully to others, you may eventually decide something that not everyone is 100% behind.

Important: Those who give advice can influence, but do not block the process. And whoever makes the decision knows that advice is not optional. That makes the process thoughtful, quick and inclusive at the same time.

This way of deciding leaves room for difference and prevents one dominant voice from drowning out the rest or standing still because we don’t “agree.”

Difference of opinion is not dangerous; it is a source of growth. At Beleeve, we don’t try to smooth over difference, we try to harness it. If there really is a fundamental difference of opinion, we do three things:

1. We make visible where the tension is: is it substantive, relational, structural?

2. We look for the underlying interest of each stakeholder, rather than discussing positions.

3. We invite someone outside the situation to facilitate, if that helps.

In the end, there does not always have to be agreement, but there must be clarity about who makes the decision and whether the voices have really been heard. Because in many traditional organizations, disagreement is glossed over until it escalates. With us, it’s allowed to be there. And that makes it safer.

The person or group that made the decision bears responsibility for the decision and therefore for the outcome. This may sound exciting, but it is actually liberating. Because you knew you were allowed to decide, it feels logical to also say, “I was responsible.”

What doesn’t happen: pointing the way to “higher layers” or “decisions over my head.” Not a classic shear system where responsibility is diffuse, but clarity: you decided, you learn, you grow.

Importantly, with us, responsibility is not linked to blame or punishment. Failure is allowed, as long as it is shared and examined. That is why we do not talk about ‘who was wrong’, but about what we can learn from it. And those who are honest about what didn’t work don’t get punishment, but respect.

Yes. In fact, we expect it. Self-direction means that you are the owner of your role, including the decisions that go with it. Obviously within the frameworks of the advisory method: you don’t decide in isolation, but neither do you have to wait for permission.

This prevents people from being kept unnecessarily small. In many traditional organizations, employees are made formally responsible but do not have the space to choose for themselves. This leads to passivity, frustration and a sense of dependency.

At Beleeve, you can choose and you are chosen to choose. That makes work more meaningful, faster and more human.

Yes, but not “just like that. Anyone can make proposals, bring in signals or make decisions that impact the organization, provided you involve the right people. Whether you are new or founder, the ground rules are the same: You act through the advisory method and bear responsibility for the impact of your decision.

Influence, then, is not something you “get” from a manager. You take it, through initiative, diligence and willingness to engage with others. This creates a culture in which people do not complain about the system, but help improve the system.

And that is perhaps the most important difference: you are allowed to have an influence here: Not because you are higher, but because you see something that could be better. And if that’s right, you get the space to actually do it.

Good enough is not a score with us. It is a shared feeling that something is right for the intent, the need and the moment. Because we work with ownership and continuous reflection, the quality check is built into the process. Not at the end, by a manager checking the numbers, but in between by people responsible for the value they deliver.

We evaluate constantly: not with KPI reports, but through open conversations, customer feedback and internal signals. If something doesn’t feel right or doesn’t deliver enough, we don’t need a system to point it out. Then someone says so. And that’s where improvement begins.

Good enough with us means: it serves what it was meant to serve. And when that changes, we change with it.

Yes, but they look different. We make plans where it makes sense. We agree on goals when they provide direction. But we don’t treat them as absolute truths. A plan is a tool, not a measuring stick. A goal is an anchor, not a straitjacket.

We work in rhythms. Teams set their own work focus for a period of time. There are meetings where priorities are discussed. And there is transparency about progress. But no one forces you to stick to something that has lost its relevance. Because the world is changing. And we move with it.

The result is that people work not to meet a schedule, but to deliver value within a workable rhythm.

Evolutionary purpose is the deep answer to the question: why does this organization exist? Not what is on our website, but what wants to happen here through us. Purpose is alive, growing and changing. It is not a marketing phrase but a guiding principle that invites us to listen rather than plan.

Instead of a five-year strategy, we keep asking the question: what is right now? What wants to emerge here? And what does that require of us? Strategy is not a top-down document but a collective sense of direction.

We see Beleeve as a living organism, not a machine. And so we do not look upward for direction, but inward and outward at the same time. Because the goal is not ours. We serve it.

No one. And everyone. Direction emerges from an ongoing conversation between people, context and meaning. There is no management dictating plans. There are people who see something, feel something, suggest something. And others who respond, think along, adjust or supplement.

We call that movement strategic listening. Instead of shouting what we are going to do, we are quiet enough to notice what wants to unfold.

Sometimes these are conversations in small teams. Sometimes a broader meeting. Sometimes a moment of tension in which someone names a need that no one had yet expressed. Direction arises not from control, but from collective alertness.

We don’t make it happen, we invite it. Direction with us is not a diktat from above, but a conversation to which you belong. Everyone has access to information, may bring in signals, is given space to ask: is this still correct?

That makes the direction not vague, but lived through. You commit to it because you understand where it comes from, because you identify with it, or because you help shape it. People don’t follow a plan because they have to, but because it makes sense.

And if it chafes? Then we have ways to make that negotiable. We don’t have to swallow anything we don’t support. Because direction without connection is never really direction, it’s pressure.

No. Freedom is not non-committal with us. Everyone is free to take initiative, but always within the framework of our shared commitments and the bigger picture. That means: if you want to do something that affects others or the system, you use the advisory method.

So you don’t have to ask permission, but you are required to involve others who are affected by your action or who have relevant insights. This creates freedom with responsibility, rather than a free space where everyone just does whatever.

Freedom at Beleeve is relational. You get to choose and you are accountable for the consequences.

Everyone works from one or more roles. Those roles are linked to clear responsibilities, authorities and goals. And all of that is visible to everyone in the system. So you don’t have to look for job titles, or go through three people to ask who is “the owner.” You just look in the system, and there it is.

That clarity avoids the classic confusion in organizations where people make decisions based primarily on political lines or informal status. Beleeve is not about who has the most influence, but who is responsible within the agreed-upon role.

Roles make work clearer, fairer and more efficient. Without making it rigid.

Yes. If you experience a tension – something that could be better, something that is missing, something that clashes – then you may make a proposal to take on or adjust a role. In doing so, you use the tension-driven change logic: you name what you are experiencing, you make a proposal, and you take advice.

If there is support and your plan fits with the bigger picture, then you can take on the role. So you don’t have to wait for a job opening, a promotion or approval from a supervisor. Whatever is needed gets space. And those who feel it is needed can put it on the agenda.

In this way, a system is created that continuously adapts. Not by central control, but by signals from within.

In every system there are tasks that are less visible or less attractive, but still important. At Beleeve, we solve this not with mandatory directions from above, but with honesty about what is needed and a willingness to contribute to it.

We use tension rounds to make visible what remains. And then we look for a solution together. That may mean that someone temporarily picks up something, or that we automate the task, divide it differently or make it more compact.

With us, responsibility is not something that can be passed off, nor is it something that is imposed. It is something that is shared from the understanding: if no one does it, the whole suffers.

As often as needed. Roles are not fixed positions with a five-year expiration date. They move with reality. When something changes in the context, in the team, in someone’s energy or expertise, the role changes.

We don’t need an annual restructuring to improve the system – because we’re constantly making small adjustments based on what’s really going on. That makes us adaptive and alive, rather than slow and fixed.

In traditional organizations, people often get stuck in roles that once made sense but now hinder. At Beleeve, if something no longer makes sense, we adjust it.

Then we name it. Not out of resistance, but out of concern. Because no one at Beleeve has a formal position of power, the subtle forms of dominance – such as persuasion, interrupting, “knowing better” – are important to discuss.

We use peer feedback, moments of reflection and cultural agreements to frame this kind of behavior. Not to punish anyone, but to say: this does not fit how we work together.

What disappears is the game of power and loss of face. What remains is a culture where equality is guarded by everyone, not by one leader. And that is more powerful than any hierarchy.

Yes. At Beleeve, transparency about salaries is normal. Everyone knows what others earn and why. Not to compare, but to understand. Because we believe that openness about money leads to equality and trust.

In many organizations, salaries are secret, causing people to guess, become suspicious or undervalue themselves. With us, those hidden layers are gone. The criteria are clear, the process is accessible and there are no backroom deals.

Openness also means that you can ask why something is the way it is. And that you yourself can contribute to improving the system.

Then we engage in that conversation. Not to judge someone, but to explore what is needed. Sometimes it is temporary and there are good reasons. Sometimes a role is no longer appropriate or there is a lack of clarity. Sometimes there is a need for support or reorientation.

What we don’t do is keep paying people for work that doesn’t add value, out of convenience or loyalty. But we don’t just throw anyone out the door either. We engage in conversation, we find a path together, we are honest without being harsh.

Responsibility and humanity go hand in hand. You don’t have to be perfect. But available for dialogue and growth.

Growth at Beleeve is not through promotion, but through development. You take on different roles, increase your impact, deepen your professionalism or broaden your influence. This sometimes includes a change in pay, but not always. You grow because something is calling you, not because you are on a ladder and need to move up a rung.

Instead of waiting for someone to award you a new position, you look at what you can add and what the system needs. You make visible what you are developing, seek feedback and make suggestions. Growth is a conversation, not a one-way street.

You don’t have to become a manager to advance. You don’t have to manage people to be taken seriously. That makes the space bigger and the development richer.

No. We don’t do annual reviews where someone summarizes your work and says whether you’re doing a good job. Instead, with us, feedback is part of everyday work. You ask and receive it in the context of your roles, when it’s relevant. Not as a ritual, but as a resource.

We do have moments of reflection, development interviews and feedback rounds. But these are not linked to reward, promotion or sanction. They are meant to give you insight into yourself, not to judge you on a list.

In traditional organizations, performance management often feels like control. With us, it is an invitation to growth.

Then you can say so. We think it’s important for people to speak up honestly about how their contribution is seen and valued. You can question the system, ask for feedback from colleagues, or make a suggestion for reassessment of your role.

What we don’t do is tell you to wait your turn. You don’t have to be loyal until someone notices. You may make the move yourself: With care, with substantiation and in contact with others.

Appreciation is a shared process. It is something that arises in interaction, not in stasis. And when it chafes, we take it seriously.

Career growth at Beleeve does not mean that you climb up, but that you take deeper root. That you work more and more from your strengths, take on new responsibilities, handle more complex roles or set better boundaries.

Your career moves toward meaning, not necessarily toward power or status. Sometimes growth is a larger project. Sometimes it’s a smaller team. Sometimes it’s letting go of something that no longer serves you.

Instead of measuring your progress by job titles or promotions, look at how your influence is growing. How much space you get and give. How you grow in confidence, visibility and contribution.

Career growth at Beleeve is not something you get. It is something you create together.

Conflicts are not interference. They are information. At Beleeve, we resolve conflicts not through managers, but within the system itself. We talk things out, use mediation if that helps, or invite someone from outside the conflict to guide the process.

We have rituals for looking at tensions in a constructive way. Consider conflict circle discussions, moments of reflection and joint research questions.

What we avoid is polarization, denial or hiding pain under the blanket of professionalism. We choose clarity, even when it is uncomfortable. Because as long as conflicts remain undiscussed, the system remains unsafe.

By making vulnerability normal. Not as something special, but as a source of strength. At Beleeve, you don’t have to stand tall to be taken seriously. You don’t have to perform to belong. You don’t have to hide your emotions to be professional.

We build in safety through our work structures: by not using targets that encourage overload, by decoupling feedback from salary, and by making space for reflection, silence and personal check-ins.

And when someone shares something that is exciting, we make sure it is received. Not laughed off, not denied, not abused.

Vulnerability becomes secure only if the system around it is.

Yes. Indeed, it is necessary. If we always agree with each other, the system becomes flat and colorless. At Beleeve, we don’t see difference as a problem, but as an opportunity. You may see things differently, you may ask critical questions, you may say yes to something different.

What is important: how to do it. Not against people, but before the intention. Not as an attack, but as an invitation to deepen.

There is no punishment for dissent with us. No backroom discussions. No consequences for your position if you express something. We believe that difference is part of mature cooperation. And when that chafes, that’s exactly where we learn.

Boundaries are not a gray area at Beleeve. Everyone has the right to safety. Physically, emotionally and socially. If someone crosses the line, it is taken seriously. Not laughed off, not downplayed, not relativized.

We name it. We check the impact. We listen to the person who has been touched. And we set boundaries where necessary, without anyone having to be above the other person.

There is no hierarchical sanction system. But that doesn’t mean everything is allowed. We trust people, and we also trust that we are allowed to limit each other. Not from power, but from concern for what holds us together.

If so, we take it seriously. Insecurity is a signal, not a complaint. At Beleeve, there is room to discuss that: In the moment, in a 1-on-1, or through a facilitator or buddy role. We don’t have a confidant to take care of everything. We build trust in the people and the system itself.

When there are patterns that cause insecurity, we don’t look away. We don’t pretend it’s an individual problem. We ask questions: what makes this unsafe? What does this require of us as a team? What needs to change in the structure or culture?

Because safety is not an atmosphere. It is something you build together with attention, boundaries and openness.

You coordinate your working hours with your team, but within that space you are free. There is no set schedule that applies to everyone. No obligation to log in at 9 a.m. or justify your breaks.

What matters is not whether you clock in, but whether you take responsibility. You make arrangements for availability and alignment, and you choose work hours that fit your energy, your life and your contribution.

For us, freedom does not mean that you just decide everything for yourself. It means making mature choices in relation to your environment.

Then you are human. At Beleeve, you don’t have to keep up a facade. We don’t believe that everyone should always be full of energy. Not feeling motivation is not weakness, but information. Maybe something about your role needs revision. Maybe you have something to finish. Or something to let go of.

You may share that. And you don’t have to solve it right away. We look together: is it temporary? Is something needed? Is it a signal of something bigger?

We create space to bear that kind of period, without judgment. Because true commitment also means making room for fluctuations.

Not only okay, it’s necessary. A system without clear hierarchy has a right to exist only if people feel safe to guard their boundaries. That requires clarity, respect for no, and a willingness to hold each other accountable for too much.

You don’t have to wait until you collapse. You don’t have to justify your limits with a medical record. Nor do you have to fear being taken less seriously.

Boundaries make the system stronger. Because they make sure you can still be there tomorrow.

At Beleeve, if you have an idea, and it touches on your role or domain, you can execute it through the consulting method. That means you consult people who are touched by the idea or have valuable expertise.

If your proposal stands firm after that consultation, you may proceed. There is no committee left to think about it. No manager to say yes or no. The decision is yours, and so is the responsibility.

This prevents long delays, syrupy decision-making and a culture in which ideas get stuck because no one dares to carry them.

If you believe in something and you can show that it is relevant to Beleeve, you will get space. Maybe in time, maybe in budget, maybe in support. You don’t have to write a business case in quadruplicate. But you do have to take responsibility.

What we love to see: people picking up something no one had formulated, but for which everyone is grateful afterwards. That’s where our growth comes from.

Certainly. Initiative is visible precisely because it comes from roles and tensions that everyone can follow. You don’t have to shout that you’re doing something. The system makes visible who is working on what and why.

For us, appreciation is not a formal assessment or pat on the back from above. It is in how colleagues connect, think along, support or give feedback. And in how roles develop: those who show initiative create influence.

What we avoid is the classic pattern in which initiators become exhausted because the system does not carry them. With us, initiative is not something to be pulled alone. It’s something that goes together.

Then we say something about it. Sometimes beforehand, sometimes along the way. We don’t choose assignments that clash with our core. If it chafes in a way that harms the work or the team, we may decide not to take on the contract or even terminate it.

That may sound exciting, but it prevents something bigger: losing yourself in a client relationship in which you set aside your own values. We believe that lasting cooperation only happens when it’s right on both sides.

Setting limits is not a loss. It is choosing for the long term.

The role of contact person is not automatically linked to a position. We determine together who the logical contact person is based on content and relationship. This can be someone who works on the project in terms of content, or someone who monitors the overview.

What’s important: customers always know who they can talk to. And that person knows what he or she is about, what shared ownership is, and when others need to be involved.

We do not replace the role of project manager with chaos, but with clear roles, transparent agreements and reciprocal communication.

By linking responsibility not to control, but to ownership. For us, quality does not arise because someone else checks the work, but because the person doing it feels ownership of the result.

We build checks and balances into the process itself: peer reviews, feedback loops, moments of reflection. Not from distrust, but from professionalism. Continuity is ensured because work is visible in roles, documentation and consultation, not hidden in a single function.

If someone drops out, someone else can pick it up. Not because the system enforces it, but because it is designed that way.

Customer communication is part of the job, not something passed on to “the person in charge at the top.” Customer-related roles are clearly defined and visible to all.

We agree on frequency, tone, expectations and escalations. And we make sure the client knows who they can turn to for what.

Instead of running everything through one project manager, we provide direct lines of communication. Clients often appreciate that: they talk to people who do the work, not intermediate layers.

The result is often more speed, more transparency and more trust. Not despite the absence of a top structure, but rather thanks to the absence of one.

The course emerges in dialogue. There is no MT that makes plans in private. Instead, there are strategic rhythms in which we explore together: what is right now? What wants to emerge here? What is the world asking of us, and what can we do in it?

The founder is one of the voices in this. Perhaps an important one, because she knows and guards the ideology. But not a decisive voice. Direction is not a diktat with us, but a shared movement.

And precisely because we have no top structure, we can move along more quickly. Not because someone says so, but because we feel it.

No. Not formally, nor informally if it’s up to us. Of course the founder brings context, vision and experience. That is appreciated and taken seriously. But it gives no additional voting power, no veto, no invisible power.

For us, participation arises on the basis of role and commitment. Not on the basis of past or position. The founder must also make proposals through the advisory method. She too can be called to account if something is not right.

We deliberately guard against anyone – including the founder – becoming above the system. Because as soon as that happens, everything changes.

Then the same applies to everyone else: you seek advice from the people who are affected or have relevant insights. And you examine whether your decision is truly servant-driven or mainly motivated by personal conviction, pressure or fear.

If there is resistance, it is not ignored. We engage in the conversation, explore the undercurrent, and slow down when necessary. Not to solve everything by consensus, but to prevent one voice from becoming too dominant.

The founder does not have an edge. Her proposal counts, but is not automatically implemented. And that is precisely the strength of the system.

Yes, without exception. The founder, or whatever you call her, also acts through the advisory method. That means she seeks advice before making a decision that affects others or has an impact on the whole.

Not because we distrust her, but because the system is designed so that everyone participates equally in decision-making. As soon as someone steps outside that process, the system becomes something else. And we don’t want that.

Especially if you are an initiator, it is crucial that you respect the structure. Only then will the system remain safe, fair and powerful for all.

Exactly what services we provide depends on the people who make up us. The specializations they bring, the assignments that resonate with our purpose, and the issues in which we can really make a difference.

We don’t want to be all-doers. We want to do good in what is right with who we are.

We are an IT company and at the same time we are more than that.
Beleeve is an organizational form, a work culture, a living system that provides IT services. But we define ourselves not only by what we do, but especially by how we do it.

This means that clients do not only get a technical solution from us, but also experience a different way of working together. And that employees here not only practice their craft, but are given room to be themselves, grow and shape the whole together.

So yes: we are an IT company. But one built on trust, autonomy and humanity. And that makes us fundamentally different.

Not just like that. Self-direction does not mean that everyone does what they feel like doing. It means taking responsibility for your own choices, in relation to the bigger picture.

When you want to take on a project, you look not only at your own preferences, but also at: does this fit with our course, with our values, with our capacity? You coordinate with colleagues, use the advisory method, and create a proposal that can be supported.

So yes: there is room for initiative. But not arbitrariness. Freedom at Beleeve comes with alignment.

With us, technology and culture go hand in hand.
We believe that the quality of your technology is related to the quality of your collaboration. And that innovation only really happens when people feel safe, free and connected.

In many IT companies, culture is an afterthought. With us, it is the foundation. Because culture is not a bonus, it is the bed in which everything is created.

So yes, we take culture seriously. But not in place of technology. Precisely because we believe that human systems determine what technological systems enable.