The Triangle of Self Organization

The idea of self-organizing teams is at the core of contemporary approaches to managing complex work. It underpins all agile methods as well as other new approaches to corporate governance like Holacracy.

Self-organization is, however, still frequently misunderstood as something anarchic, that will just happen if we let it, needing no attention nor guidance. In reality productive self-organization within a group, one that supports the purpose for which the group was formed and helps it transform into a team, occurs only if certain conditions are met.

The Triangle of Self Organization identifies three such conditions, that are most important and have to be taken care of in order to successfully use self-organization as a management tool. I have created this model as a teaching tool primarily, hoping to visually reinforce the importance of the triangle’s elements to students. However, it turned out that it could be used in practice when working with a self-organizing team to help ensure all elements are provided and lead to desired outcomes.

The Triangle of Self-organization consists of three key conditions influencing group self-organization. Managing self-organizing teams is done indirectly, mostly by managing the elements of the triangle.

If any one of them is missing the self-organization will not occur (meaning the group will not start to discuss ways of doing the work/activity – the work might not be done at all or it might be one or more of the individuals in the group) or it will occur but not in a desired way (typically people in companies people self-organize to resist the management’s efforts to direct and control them – collectively gaming bonus schemes is a typical example).

The three elements of the triangle are: goal, rules and tension. They are explained in detail below.

First and foremost there must be a clear goal that everyone in the group is aware of. This goal will shape how the group will organize itself – different goals require people to apply different skills and methods. The existence of a shared goal is also the primary difference between a group and a team – if we want our group to become a team we must give it a goal to coalesce around.

Ideally, the goal should be compelling and all in the group should share willingness to achieve it. It can be just implied, but it is easier to make sure all in the group know & embrace it if it is openly stated. If the group shares a physical space it is a good idea to display the goal somewhere to make sure the group stays aware of it.

Shorter, more concise goals usually work better – they are easier to memorize and understand and therefore more compelling.

Second element is a set of rules the group must abide by. They will govern the group as it organizes to achieve the goal. Those are the shared “dos” and “don’ts” of the group. They will wary from case to case and just as the goal they can be just assumed or – better – stated openly. In most cases some of the rules will come from the organizational context the group operates in. Technical standards or rules of a methodology employed by the organization are good examples of such rules that are in effect imposed on the group. The group may then add some additional rules on its own as it works towards achieving the goal.

Rules should be few and simple, just like the goal. Too many rules or rules that are complex are likely to be ignored by some or all members of the group.

Third, final element is tension (I would even sometimes call it pressure) – a short term motivator, reason why the group members should expand energy in the effort to self-organize into a team, engage and achieve the goal rather than remain passive and wait.

Usually the pressure of time is enough to get the group going – a due date creates enough tension. However, sometimes the tension may result from a challenge or a reward.