Reimagining Work: Self-Managed Organizations

Posted on April 18, 2020 by David Cooper, One of Thousands of Business Coaches on Noomii.

This article is the second in The Change Leaders series: Reimagining Work.

The Change Leaders is a community of change practitioners, created by the alumni of HEC Paris / University of Oxford Saïd Business School’s specialized Master’s Degree in “Consulting and Coaching for Change.” As a global network of professionals, our mission is to help organizations positively address the human side of change. Environments are dynamic, needs vary over time, and adaptive change is necessary.

In this series, we asked a simple question: What does the future of work hold for us? From the rapid adoption of automation and AI technologies to demographic shifts and different consumer pulls, the world is changing at a fast pace, and with it the workplace, the workforce, and the nature of work itself. We speak of the 4th industrial revolution and the 3rd cognitive revolution. A new era is upon us that has fundamentally altered the way we live, work, and relate to one another. Today, we face a future of untold possibilities and grueling uncertainties. New modes of employment are on the rise, such as the gig, sharing, and platform economies. Progressive models of organizing are gaining in popularity with the move from hierarchy to “wirearchy” and a marked emphasis on horizontalism, self-management, and agility. What’s more, the traditional boundaries between home and office, night and day, work and leisure have blurred.

As the industrial and cognitive revolutions continue apace, then, and as the world and how we relate to each other continues to change — sometimes right before our very eyes — how might we then reimagine the future of our work? What might the emerging story of work be? What might leadership look like in the future; how might work be organized; what meaning might we derive from work in the future; and what can we do today to reimagine and reconstruct our work, our organizations, and our societies? These questions we wrap ever so caringly inside an open invitation to connect, create, and challenge.

With that, let’s continue with the series …

Lisa Gill and Mary Curran on Self-Managed Organizations

The Change Leaders owe a big thanks to Lisa Gill (@disruptandlearn) and Mary Curran (from Wellbeing Teams, UK), who guided us on an inspiring and educational journey through the world of self-managed teams and organizations. Self-management (i.e., team-based planning and decision-making in the absence of a formal leader) is, of course, anything but new, and more and more companies are embracing the concept — and doing so successfully. But the inspiration Lisa and Mary provided came attached to an admonishment to be a tad more practical and a good deal more intentional about what it means to self-manage. They reminded us that there is more to building a self-managed organization than merely inventing a few new organizational structures. Indeed, a lot more. I’m reminded that Lisa and Mary could well have borrowed from the US Navy SEAL’s credo. “When it comes to making the shift to self-management,” they might have said, “the only easy day was yesterday.” But all the best challenges are well worth the effort.

Lisa jumpstarted the chat in a familiar way. Using Impromptu Networking (a Liberating Structure — @liberatingstructures.com), she asked us to pair up and consider two seemingly simple questions:
1. What is most on your mind today regarding reimagining work?
2. What is your biggest challenge when it comes to reimagining work in your context?

But before we reimagine work, we might begin by recalling that the French translation of “work” is, well, “torture.” And it’s not so difficult, for some anyway, to imagine work as exactly that — torture. Because for many, it is. What do the numbers say? Well, depending on which studies you cite, anywhere from 50% to 85% of us are unhappy in our jobs and an equal number are disengaged.

So, in reimagining work, we might first imagine it as rather less tortuous, enjoyable even. (Is that too much to ask?) And when we do that, when we imagine work as fulfilling, many of us might imagine dismantling those tired, antiquated hierarchies still extant in traditional organizations today. Curiously, though, while hierarchies, and the bureaucracies that emerge from them, often leave us gnashing our teeth, we should remember that they themselves appear almost any time a group of people comes together to perform a task. That is to say, before culture comes hierarchy, whether one based on status (a dominance hierarchy) or skill (a prestige hierarchy) or some combination of the two. But just because a particular phenomenon emerges naturally when a group of people interacts, does not mean it is necessarily a good one.

Lisa’s take on the traditional organizational structure began with, of all things, the non-traditional — startups. As she explained it, startups are often progressive in their attitude toward such hierarchical structures: they want a more streamlined organization than the traditional one they might have worked for in the past, but then they inadvertently find themselves struggling with what leadership looks like in this new, “flat” landscape. Empowering organizations, on the other hand, tend to focus less on altering entrenched structures and more on cultivating mindset, leadership, and culture. And, finally, radical organizations are those that endeavor to do both; that is to say, they’ve adopted (perhaps from complexity theory?) not only a “both/and” mindset as opposed to an “either/or,” but they seem to have discovered the virtue of the middle road as well. Buurtzorg in the Netherlands, Wellbeing Teams in the UK, WL Gore and Morning Star (tomatoes) in the US, Haier in China — these and other organizations have combined flatness with culture, leadership, and mindset to produce successful, self-managed (and I dare say self-organized) organizations.

But are they effective, these experiments in self-management? Do these companies perform? Traditional hierarchies might be bureaucratic and wholly resistant to change, their leaders might at times be focused more on their own careers than on clearing the way for their teams to succeed, and the glut of their employees may be working there for purely economic reasons, but they do get stuff done.

Borrowing from her interview with Miki Kashtan (Leadermorphosis podcast, episode 37), Lisa suggests that for self-managed organizations to work, to really work, and by consequence out-perform their more traditional counterparts, shifts have to take place in three places; namely, in the people who hold structural (i.e., formal) power; in the people who do not hold structural power; and in the structures within which — and from which — we operate. That is to say, power dynamics will have to shift from a command-and-control mindset to a newfound openness to diverse perspectives (regardless of social status) and responsiveness to individual and collective needs.

Invoking Mary Parker Follet (who should perhaps be summoned a lot more), Lisa suggested that this “dynamic” is nothing other than the distinction between “power over” versus “power with” — doing things to others without involving them in the decision-making (i.e., power over) versus honoring one’s freedom to participate, to include saying “no” (i.e., power with). A person with structural power, then, must transform his or her transactional habits (i.e., behaviors) in order to exercise “power with,” in order, that is, to honor that freedom to participate.

Easier said than done, of course. And by that I mean the person with structural power might not have to re-wire his or her brain, but he or she will likely have to re-map it, and that means a healthy influx of time, energy, will power, and, perhaps above all, self-motivation.

And equally daunting, those who lack formal power will have to overcome their fear and habits of deference, obedience, and ultra-conformity, a change that undoubtedly carries personal risks, real and perceived. But both changes or shifts, if they stick, have the power to move people in the direction of greater psychological safety and collaboration.

Interestingly, these shifts begin with selecting the right people, or excluding the wrong ones. This biased inclusion (or exclusion), an initial condition if you will, is an aspect of one of the core structures within which all people in groups operate — the conflict management system. How is conflict viewed? How is it handled? What agreements are in place about what to do when conflict arises? And if employees cannot solve their own conflicts, to whom can they go to for support and advice, and to whom can they go to mediate the conflict and restore the peace, as it were? So, if nothing is said or done about the toxic person in the group that we are forced to include or can’t exclude (i.e., the person whose values and goals are diametrically opposed to the group’s), the system cannot effectively self-manage for the simple reason that people will be miserable. And not only that, but they will likely end up embracing all the traditional (and ineffective) forms of conflict mismanagement: avoid, erupt, suppress, quit, fight, get fired, learn to be helpless, or some combination of all of these unhealthy coping mechanisms.

The same with decision-making — another core structure. Who makes the decisions? Are those who are affected by the decisions and who have expertise allowed to provide input and advice? It seems logical that they would, but then again, logic doesn’t always prevail in a business world full of us — at times irrational — humans.

And when it comes to resource distribution or allocation, what are the mechanisms, like dialogue, that people use to sort out how money, people, technology, and machinery are used? And how does information flow in the organization? As we all know, information is vital for good, adaptive decision-making. In self-managed organizations, formal leaders do not decide what information people need or don’t need, nor is access to information left to chance. It has to be managed appropriately, and those who are in the best position to do so are often those who are expected to act on the information — the frontline troops, as it were. Ironically, they are often the last to know in hierarchical organizations. So while hierarchies do indeed get things done, what gets done might be of mediocre, maintain-the-status-quo quality.

Lastly, how is feedback given in the organization? Maybe a better question is: Is feedback even sought? Feedback is crucial to self-managed teams — not to mention starlings (I’m thinking murmurations) and every other organism on the face of this planet. The difference is that starlings and other animals and insects don’t mind feedback. But humans do.

Our loss.

From the complexity standpoint, then, feedback is the magic behind self-organization. It’s not simple rules or the guiding principles, per se, it’s also simple feedback. But a healthy attitude toward giving and receiving feedback requires an organizational structure where it’s ok to disagree with the person in charge.

And what happens without feedback? Well, at best, leaders and team members will have no information about the impact of their decisions, and at worst, the organization will founder. Or, like government bureaucracies around the world, it’s kept alive by a constant influx of capital, also known as life support or your tax dollars at work.

In complexity-speak, then, in the absence of feedback there is only disorder. That’s great if you are an oxygen molecule — all the people around you can breathe because oxygen is quick to explore (and thankfully fill) a space in the most disorderly and rapid manner possible. But it’s not so great if you are human. Some would say it’s torture.

These are the core structures (decision-making, resource distribution, information flow, feedback, and conflict management) — the last of the three shifts — that need to be redesigned and in place to support the success of self-managed organizations. None of these is easy to pull off, which is why it might make more sense to start a new organization off this way (initial condition) or, in the case of an established organization, make the change slowly, one team at a time; that is to say, change the condition — the environment — slowly over time.

Enter Mary Curran

Next, Mary Curran stepped up to offer us a case-in-point: Wellbeing Teams. Founded by Helen Sanderson, Wellbeing Teams is a radically different home healthcare company in the UK, comprised of small, self-managed neighborhood teams that live their values, one of which is an unblinking focus on the wellbeing of the people they support as well as the people they employ. As such, it’s an organization in which Mary and arguably all her teammates play a significant role. They run their own show if you will.

And to enable that show to run as smoothly as possible and achieve its performance potential, Mary offered a set of guiding principles — 10 promises that Wellbeing Teams makes to its employees (remarks in parentheses are mine):

1. You will be part of a team that makes the decisions that matter together. (Choice matters)

2. You will have a balance of structure and the space to be creative. (Autonomy matters)

3. You will be inspired to bring your whole self to work. (Engagement matters, but only if high-performance is important to you)

4. You will have a range of opportunities to advance your career. (Acquiring and demonstrating competency matters)

5. You will see the impact and difference you make by working with a purpose. (Purpose and meaning matter a lot — see Katie Bailey at King’s College for a discussion on meaning)

6. You will develop through feedback and recognition from colleagues and coaches. (Feedback and recognition matter)

7. You will feel like you belong and be connected to your team. (Sends a powerful signal about trust, cooperation, and belonging — they all matter)

8. You will be supported to focus on your own wellbeing. (Resiliency matters)

9. You will be supported to develop your own strengths, to learn, and to flourish. (Mutual support and commitment matter)

10. You will be part of changing the future of care. (Insert your own professions for “care” and be that proverbial change you want to see in the world)

Incidentally, in the world of home healthcare, Wellbeing Teams is among the most effective and innovative organizations in the UK market — and with the awards to prove it — with high levels of engagement and a paltry amount of turnover to boot. As such, I’d say Wellbeing Teams is on to something.

Like Lisa, Mary also talked about core structures, but with a decided emphasis on those specific structures relevant to Wellbeing Teams in particular. For instance, at Wellbeing Teams, team meetings are used to facilitate the flow of information, to discuss what is working well and what is not, and to handle conflict productively. Confirmation practices are also shared in the team setting. For instance, a coach (the formal leader of a region) might make a statement such as: “I’m confident that I am delivering safe care.” Employees then score themselves on the practice and share with their teammates how they are going to raise their scores. Openness to feedback, commitment to continuous improvement, and humility — these elements of high-performance (and high-performance relationships between team members) are enabled by such a practice.

Team metrics serve a similar feedback function — How well are we doing and how do we know? — and are agreed upon by the team members themselves. How to measure growth and improvement? That is a question we all struggle with — finding the right metrics — and there is no one right or perfect way. The bottom line is an essential but imperfect measure, and by itself is incomplete. At Wellbeing Teams, the employees themselves decide on the appropriate metrics and whether or not a particular metric remains relevant over time.

Of course, conflict is bound to emerge when so many diverse people are given a say. Diversity, when integrated, is the answer to our complex problems and, paradoxically, the primary cause of our conflict. At Wellbeing Teams, when conflict arises, the non-productive type, that is, members might first go to a designated “buddy” who will then raise the issue during a team meeting. And if the problem cannot be resolved at the team level, tensions are then raised (a practice they call “raising tensions”) to the coach, the final arbiter in the matter. Rather than being decided on and then promptly forgotten, however, many of these conflict scenarios, as well as real-world decision-making scenarios, show up at team meetings in the form of “What if?” scenarios. For instance, Mary asked us to put on our empathy hats and consider this actual scenario:

The team has been supporting someone at the end of his/her life and the family is incredibly grateful. They email you and say they would like to take one team member out for dinner as a thank you. How would you react?

You’d be surprised at how many of us “traditionals” said, “Absolutely not! Verboten!” But the traditional point of view, one constrained by the past, is not always the best one. As Mary said, “The family wanted to show their gratitude. And the team decided to let them.”

Of course, context matters — we all know that. These principles and structures might not be “right” for you or your organization as is. But the idea behind them is well worth exploring, especially if you want to take the torture out of work and put the enjoyable and the meaningful back into it. And if you decide to make the switch to self-managed teams, do it slowly over time. Eat the elephant one bite at a time, as they say. While this does beg the question, “Who in their right mind eats elephants?” you get the point, I think.

Building a successful, self-managed organization (or team) is anything but easy. But it’s also more these days than just a novel idea. People are making self-management a reality, and with it they are making fulfilling and meaningful work a reality. It starts with selection — the right people with the right skills and mindset matter. But more than just skill — or “part attributes” — the relationships that form around the tasks that people perform matter as well, even more so when one considers that from those relationships cultures emerge. And from there, it’s about exploring for those structures that, to borrow from Richard Hackman at Harvard, foster effectiveness and minimize obstacles to success.

That last sentence is a noteworthy observation, I believe. Skillful people, with solid relationships between them, and the right structures supporting them, don’t necessarily guarantee effectiveness; they foster it. And they don’t necessarily guarantee zero obstacles to success; they minimize them. In that regard, self-managed teams are built for complex environments, where elegant solutions are the stuff of utopia, but workable solutions are the stuff of adaptation, resilience, and sustainable performance.