The Self-Organizing Leadership Paradox
Self-organizing teams is a trend in the professional world for some time now. An increasing amount of organizations are turning to self-organizing teams, looking for the promised increased ownership, teamwork and collaboration. But just handing over the reins to a collection of individuals, doesn’t instantly transform them into a smooth operation self-organizing team. Successful self-organization needs careful leadership and management.
But first, let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing. Self-organizing teams are teams that have a mandate to organize themselves in the best way they see fit. They can figure out how to communicate, collaborate and deliver results. Without management interference; they manage themselves. In some cases they also have the freedom to decide on their own what to work on.
A typical structure for self-organizing teams is the egalitarian-approach. In this approach teams adopt a democratic practice where consultation and deliberation are key. These democratic teams move forward, only when the majority of members agree on the path to take and no one vetoed. Where everyone is listened to and every opinion is weighed equally. For many mature teams this works very well. But, this also led to a common misconception. Because this practice works so well, some assume the hive mind should be in the lead all the time and that this is the only way self-organizing can and should work. That there is no room for leaders, inside and outside of the team.
Yet, leaders are all around us. Presidents run countries. Silverback gorillas guide their troops. And influencers on social media inspire their followers. Some leaders we elect. Some rise to power because of their display of strength. And others we follow by choice. All social structures need leaders. Organizations are a social structure and so are teams. Self-organizing teams are no exception. The leadership role might over time transition from one person to another or might be different based on the topics at hand, but there will always be leaders. Self-organizing teams are no exception. If not, the team will come to a grinding halt.
One side note though, before we continue. Management is often confused with leadership, but these two are not the same. Management is about making sure day-to-day operations are running smooth. Leadership is about inspiring and gathering people around ideas. Both are necessary in organizations and teams, and some leaders are also managers, but don‘t mistake that for it being the same.
This mix-up of leading and managing, and the notion that the collective intelligence of teams should be leading, has a lulling effect on many. Team members no longer stand up and take the lead when they could, assuming the collective will work it out. At the same time, it has a crippling effect on managers outside of the team. Out of fear of interfering with a team’s autonomy, they are reluctant to share their vision and opinions.
Self-organizing teams is a trend in the professional world for some time now. An increasing amount of organizations are turning to self-organizing teams, looking for the promised increased ownership, teamwork and collaboration. But just handing over the reins to a collection of individuals, doesn’t instantly transform them into a smooth operation self-organizing team. Successful self-organization needs careful leadership and management.
But first, let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing. Self-organizing teams are teams that have a mandate to organize themselves in the best way they see fit. They can figure out how to communicate, collaborate and deliver results. Without management interference; they manage themselves. In some cases they also have the freedom to decide on their own what to work on.
A typical structure for self-organizing teams is the egalitarian-approach. In this approach teams adopt a democratic practice where consultation and deliberation are key. These democratic teams move forward, only when the majority of members agree on the path to take and no one vetoed. Where everyone is listened to and every opinion is weighed equally. For many mature teams this works very well. But, this also led to a common misconception. Because this practice works so well, some assume the hive mind should be in the lead all the time and that this is the only way self-organizing can and should work. That there is no room for leaders, inside and outside of the team.
Yet, leaders are all around us. Presidents run countries. Silverback gorillas guide their troops. And influencers on social media inspire their followers. Some leaders we elect. Some rise to power because of their display of strength. And others we follow by choice. All social structures need leaders. Organizations are a social structure and so are teams. Self-organizing teams are no exception. The leadership role might over time transition from one person to another or might be different based on the topics at hand, but there will always be leaders. Self-organizing teams are no exception. If not, the team will come to a grinding halt.
One side note though, before we continue. Management is often confused with leadership, but these two are not the same. Management is about making sure day-to-day operations are running smooth. Leadership is about inspiring and gathering people around ideas. Both are necessary in organizations and teams, and some leaders are also managers, but don‘t mistake that for it being the same.
This mix-up of leading and managing, and the notion that the collective intelligence of teams should be leading, has a lulling effect on many. Team members no longer stand up and take the lead when they could, assuming the collective will work it out. At the same time, it has a crippling effect on managers outside of the team. Out of fear of interfering with a team’s autonomy, they are reluctant to share their vision and opinions.
Self-organizing teams is a trend in the professional world for some time now. An increasing amount of organizations are turning to self-organizing teams, looking for the promised increased ownership, teamwork and collaboration. But just handing over the reins to a collection of individuals, doesn’t instantly transform them into a smooth operation self-organizing team. Successful self-organization needs careful leadership and management.
But first, let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing. Self-organizing teams are teams that have a mandate to organize themselves in the best way they see fit. They can figure out how to communicate, collaborate and deliver results. Without management interference; they manage themselves. In some cases they also have the freedom to decide on their own what to work on.
A typical structure for self-organizing teams is the egalitarian-approach. In this approach teams adopt a democratic practice where consultation and deliberation are key. These democratic teams move forward, only when the majority of members agree on the path to take and no one vetoed. Where everyone is listened to and every opinion is weighed equally. For many mature teams this works very well. But, this also led to a common misconception. Because this practice works so well, some assume the hive mind should be in the lead all the time and that this is the only way self-organizing can and should work. That there is no room for leaders, inside and outside of the team.
Yet, leaders are all around us. Presidents run countries. Silverback gorillas guide their troops. And influencers on social media inspire their followers. Some leaders we elect. Some rise to power because of their display of strength. And others we follow by choice. All social structures need leaders. Organizations are a social structure and so are teams. Self-organizing teams are no exception. The leadership role might over time transition from one person to another or might be different based on the topics at hand, but there will always be leaders. Self-organizing teams are no exception. If not, the team will come to a grinding halt.
One side note though, before we continue. Management is often confused with leadership, but these two are not the same. Management is about making sure day-to-day operations are running smooth. Leadership is about inspiring and gathering people around ideas. Both are necessary in organizations and teams, and some leaders are also managers, but don‘t mistake that for it being the same.
This mix-up of leading and managing, and the notion that the collective intelligence of teams should be leading, has a lulling effect on many. Team members no longer stand up and take the lead when they could, assuming the collective will work it out. At the same time, it has a crippling effect on managers outside of the team. Out of fear of interfering with a team’s autonomy, they are reluctant to share their vision and opinions.
This is a dangerous development. Collaboration and deliberation are necessary for teams to make collective decisions as well as for individuals to learn and grow. The hive mind is very important in teams, but won’t work without leadership. Members on self-organizing teams need autonomy, but they need leadership just as much. Team members need to feel engaged, responsible and accountable for their own contributions, but should never feel overwhelmed and unable to deliver results. Self-organizing teams need clear boundaries within which they are autonomous. These boundaries can be set by both leaders in and outside the team.
Within these boundaries, team members have to take the helm now and then. If no one takes the lead, teams will at some point come to a standstill. But, there needs to be a balance. There needs to be room for other team members to contribute, make mistakes and learn all the while making sure the team progresses and avoids big screw-ups. Self-organizing teams are supposed to work everything out as a collective. But, it cannot do that without individual team members taking the lead. .
For managers outside of the team, the trick is to balance autonomy with alignment. Henrik Kniberg created the following four quadrants to illustrate this:
This is a dangerous development. Collaboration and deliberation are necessary for teams to make collective decisions as well as for individuals to learn and grow. The hive mind is very important in teams, but won’t work without leadership. Members on self-organizing teams need autonomy, but they need leadership just as much. Team members need to feel engaged, responsible and accountable for their own contributions, but should never feel overwhelmed and unable to deliver results. Self-organizing teams need clear boundaries within which they are autonomous. These boundaries can be set by both leaders in and outside the team.
Within these boundaries, team members have to take the helm now and then. If no one takes the lead, teams will at some point come to a standstill. But, there needs to be a balance. There needs to be room for other team members to contribute, make mistakes and learn all the while making sure the team progresses and avoids big screw-ups. Self-organizing teams are supposed to work everything out as a collective. But, it cannot do that without individual team members taking the lead. .
For managers outside of the team, the trick is to balance autonomy with alignment. Henrik Kniberg created the following four quadrants to illustrate this:
Organizations with self-organizing teams cannot let go of alignment. Moreover, it is a requirement to allow autonomy. It is up to senior-management and leadership to share the vision and lead the troops. But here’s the kicker, it needs to happen on the right level. Don’t tell a team what it is they need to do or how to do it. Inspire them. Make sure they understand the challenge at hand. Allow them to understand the why of their assignment and let them work it out from there. An excellent tool for team members to identify and document their shared ambition and the path towards it is the Alignment Canvas.
If you look at the picture above, in the “Innovative”-quadrant, you see a leader sharing the challenge, not the solution. In this example, this is the right level. The team consists of skilled engineers that can be trusted to solve the problem of crossing a river. The river problem could be a sub-problem of a much bigger vision, though: “we need a connection over land between New York and San Francisco”. Would the manager in this example have shared the grand ambition instead, without the river problem, the team would have been crippled. There is no way this team of four engineers, specialized in crossing fast moving water, could pull that off. By choosing the right level, managers inspire and motivate teams. Too high, and teams don’t know what to do. Too low, and they will lose motivation because of micromanagement.
There is a place for leadership in and around self-organizing teams. But, the challenge is to show direction on the right level while respecting the boundaries of the autonomy of team members and teams.
