SelfOrganizingteams

Let's start this discussion with an opinion of mine:

All teams are self-organizing.

What I think we're looking for here is explicitly and intentionally self organizing teams. Any disagreement?

Of course, if we want to be explicitly and intentionally self organizing, we probably ought to learn about implicit and unintential ways that teams organize themselves, so we can avoid some traps. - JerryWeinberg 2003.04.06

I've just been thinking and writing about this topic. The written results of these musings follow:

When living agents work together for some common purpose in the absence of a central organizing force, they are exhibiting self-organizing properties. Interactions between the agents drive self-organization and simple rules (strategies) guide their actions. In the biological world�ant behavior for example�the simple rules are built in as instincts. Ants can�t change their instincts, but humans have the capacity to alter their strategies or rules, but we often make up so many that the emergent properties of self-organization are stifled.

Hierarchy and imposed control are the antithesis of self-organization. Egocentric authoritarian managers advocate ruthless imposed discipline�obey the rules or be punished. Self-organization requires rigorous self-discipline, discipline imposed from within, based on a keen understanding of the process the team has agreed to employ. If a manager dictates that team members use pair-programming and that failure to comply will result in termination, the manager is imposing authoritarian discipline. If a team, including the manager, decides to use pair-programming, then they are agreeing, in principle, to impose rigorous self-discipline on themselves. �Self� is the common denominator of both self-organization and self-discipline.

Ant colonies demonstrate complex, emergent behavior. Each type of ant (queen, soldier, forager) has a role governed by very simple instinctual rules. From the interaction of thousands of individuals guided by these rules, self-organization occurs and complex results (ant hills) are created. Self-discipline comes from these instinctual rules�ants have no choice (although there may be slacker ants that don�t pull their load).

People do have a choice. If a team of 10 individuals can�t agree on a set of common rules (strategies, principles) and each therefore operates on their own set of rules, self-organizing produces chaos. In this case, the manager steps in with her set of rules and imposes them on the team. In a team without a set of common rules, chaos reigns and little work gets accomplished. When the manager imposes rules, at least some work gets done, but the workplace becomes authoritarian and creativity suffers. When the team commits itself to a set of common rules, and the self-discipline to follow them, managers can do less imposing, the team feels more egalitarian, and innovation flourishes. Democracy flourishes when people exercise their civic responsibilities as voters and informed participants. Self-organizing teams flourish when team members are self-disciplined. --JimHighsmith 2003.04.10

Thanks, Jim. You've got me thinking about a couple of things. First, I read recently that the term "queen ant" (and queen bee, as well) is a misleading misnomer imposed on us by Victorian English biologists, for obvious reasons. The title of "queen" erroneously suggests a hierarchy, which leads many people to belive that such insect colonies are not self-organizing. I think business and military titles provide the same kind of misdirection, both for people who have them and people who don't.

Second, I just started a thread on the InformationBlackHole. When I read your exposition, I see that one motivation for these people is to make the organization be non-self-organizing. Suppress or conceal information and you hinder self organization.

Third, there is a phenomenon whereby excessive information also suppresses self-organization. That's why one of the first (and often least well-done) jobs of self-organization is boundary maintenance - not too weak, not to strong, but just right. Semi-permeable. JerryWeinberg 2003.04.10

Absolutely to your last comment. Ralph Stacey from the UK wrote a book, "Complexity and Creativity in Organizations" that makes this point in several different ways. Also the complex adaptive systems concept of the "edge of chaos," brought about by studying self-organizing agents, looks at information flow. Too much flow drives the system towards chaos, to little towards rigidity. --JimHighsmith 2003.4.12

I have embarked on a learning journey to explore the notion of self-organizing teams in the context of agile projects. More information is here: LaurentBossavit 2004.03.31

Semco is a company that self-organizes bottom-up and top-down. Employees choose their managers and define what their responsibilities are. The founder, Ricardo Semler, calls it "democracy in the workplace."

A quote from :

I've been saying for many years that HR, as a function, has to disappear. HR people aren't generally excited about hearing this. My feeling is that when an HR department is in place, they necessarily specialize in understanding people. Line managers then delegate their problems to HR, and are therefore free to be less connected to the issues, which makes those problems worse, and forces HR to grow. We have to break that cycle.

Semler wrote the books The Seven-Day Weekend and Maverick!, which I haven't read yet.

KeithRay 2004.04.29

Updated: Thursday, April 29, 2004