The Self-Management Hype: Aren't We Just Reinventing The Wheel?
We read a lot about the rise of self-managing teams in contemporary organizations. Although the label, self-managing teams, has gained traction in recent management literature, it is by no means a novel phenomenon.
Recently we made a deep dive into academic research on self-managing teams. (One of us started a PhD on the subject.) To our surprise, we tracked the idea back to 1941. What we found shows the concept of self-managing teams is really nothing new.
The academic roots
Almost from the birth of modern organization studies, researchers have argued for a more decentralized and democratic approach. Even in the 1940s, theorists suggested alternatives to ‘bureaucracy’s confining routines and rules.’
The academic roots, and empirical evidence of, self-managing teams can be traced to the 1950s when British scientist, Eric Trist, reported on self-regulating coal miners in his now famous article, ‘Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal Getting.’
Subsequently, Trist’s work was built upon. Examples include Scandinavian experience with semi-autonomous teams in the 1970s, self-managing teams at the American Gaines Dog Food plant in the 1980s, and self-managing organizations like Morning Star, Zappos, Valve, FAVI, Haier, Handelsbanken, and Buurtzorg in more recent publications.
Almost from the birth of modern organization studies, researchers have argued for a more decentralized and democratic approach.
In older academic papers, researchers advocate that ‘organizations must radically change their managerial structure by converting to worker-run teams and thereby eliminate unneeded supervisors and other bureaucratic staff.’ This particular statement originates from Professor James Barker’s 1993 article ‘Tightening the Iron Cage, concertive control in self-managing teams'. Although published more than two decades ago, the statement sounds suspiciously like advice from the top-notch management gurus of today, right?
If we delve further into Barker’s landmark article, he makes the case even stronger: ‘workers in a self-managing team will experience day-to-day work life in vastly different ways than workers in a traditional management system. Instead of being told what to do by a supervisor, self-managing workers must gather and synthesize information, act on it, and take collective responsibility for those actions.’
Revival of an old concept
As illustrated by Barker, the rise of self-managing teams in management literature could be better described as the revival of ancient self-managing team concepts.
Other familiar concepts described by Barker that would fit modern day management literature like a glove.
‘Self-managing team workers generally are organized into teams of 10 to 15 people who take on the responsibilities of their former supervisors. The team’s members are cross-trained to perform any task the work requires and also have the authority and responsibility to make the essential decisions necessary to complete the function’.
‘Usually, a self-managing team is responsible for completing a specific, well-defined job-function, whether in production or service industries. Along with performing their work functions, members set their own work schedules, order the materials they need, and do the necessary coordination with other groups.’
‘Top management often provides a value-based corporate vision that team members use to infer parameters and premises (norms and rules) that guide their day-to-day actions. Guided by the company’s vision, the self-managing team members direct their own work and coordinate with other areas of the company.’
‘Besides freeing itself from some of the shackles of bureaucracy and saving the cost of low-level managers, the self-managing company also gains increased employee motivation, productivity, and commitment. The employees, in turn, become committed to the organization and its success.’
These claims sound even more modern-day when the author argues ‘that self-managing teams make companies more productive and competitive by letting workers manage themselves in small, responsive, highly committed, and highly productive groups.’
organizations the wheel
Subsequently, the push for flatter organization structures became something of an obsession in the 1980s and 1990s business literature. Academic researchers, together with influential business consultants like Peter Drucker and Tom Peters, urged their readers to start de-bureaucratizing their firms.
Some three decades ago, those scholars unleashed a flood of literature announcing the approaching doom of bureaucracy and hierarchy. All of them proposed more human-centered organization designs, built on agile structures and practices.
Their central argument? ‘By cutting out bureaucracy and rules, organizations can flatten hierarchies, cut costs, boost productivity, and increase the speed with which they respond to the changing business world.’
The topic then seemed to vanish from academic interest for many years, only to be picked up again more recently by a new generation of gurus styling it as a ‘novel and exotic phenomenon’.
Calling self-managing teams a novel phenomenon is utter nonsense, as we have shown this concept is firmly grounded in academic literature.
What seems to have changed, however, is that self-management is now actually being ‘practiced’ more visibly, and with more mainstream traction.
What seems to have changed, however, is that the concept is now actually being ‘practiced’ more visibly, and with more mainstream traction. It is something we happily witness more and more in the Bucket List companies we have visited.
Nevertheless, it should be clear by now that many contemporary self-managing organizations are not only reinventing their organization, they are just as much reinventing the wheel.
Subscribe to our newsletter
> Calling self-managing teams a novel phenomenon is utter nonsense
Did anybody really say that or you guys are modern-day Don Quixote fighting with imaginary windmills?
> it should be clear by now that many contemporary self-managing organizations are not only reinventing their organization, they are just as much reinventing the wheel.
Ah, now I understand why you did the well-researched debunking of "self-managing TEAMS" as novelty: just to conflate that term with self-managing ORGANIZATIONS that manages complexity on an order of magnitude larger scale.
Thanks for your message. Good point. We are talking about the broader phenomenon of self-management which covers both self-managing teams and self-managing organizations. In the academic literature they don't talk much about the term self-managing organizations (only till recently by Amy Edmondson), neither about the term reinventing organizations (which for us is not a direct synonym for Frederic Laloux's book). They rather talk about things as post-bureaucratic organizations, democratic organizations or humanistic organizations.
I hope that answers your questions.
I (Joost) read many (contemporary) popular management books over the last three years and only recently found out that self-management was already described in academic literature for decades. I don't see the point in naming and shaming, so there will be no particular names. I hope you understand.
Thank you Rebels for these substantiated reflections.
One (main) comment and one question (on such a gigantic issue).
The comment. The point in Barker's paper is that peer, team-based control, in more subtle and much stronger than bureaucratic control, and the data he shows and comments are consistent with Max Weber predictions about the evolution of modern organizations toward increasing rationalization and control. In brief, self-managing teams might not be a step towards employees' greater autonomy but instead a step toward greater organizational control, although in a different, more subtle, and more effective version.
The question: what shall we infer form this historical, periodical, iterations of claims for more self-management? Shall we hope for more and more self-management in our organizations until, some day in the future, those claims will be unnecessary. Or shall we take those iterative claims as a proof that, notwithstanding mainstream discourse on organizational adaptability, bureaucratic predetermination and discretionary action always come together?
The main difference I see between a bureaucratic organisation and one that self manages is the level of contribution from the employees. Typically bureaucratic organisations have rules, fixed processes and manuals, where self managed organisations prioritise vision, values and guidelines about the outcome they desire to create for their customers, and wider stakeholders.
The strict rules about safety, care, regulation and risk management are necessary and in a self managing environment are often more rigorously adhered to because their relationship to the desired outcome is more obvious to all
There is also the concept of the Learning Organisation which relates to what you write. Peter Senge has a lot of the concepts in his thinking 20 years back in time as well.
Another thought: I feel that in the older times the approach was more influenced by the political left and today it is more seen as logical approach to improve outcomes.
Great stuff. The wheel continues to be reinvented by every next generation. The difference here is that the level of emancipation, self-respect, guts and education has risen tremendously so workers can contribute in an effective way in the design of the business process they execute together.
Now it's more about 'Who' is reinventing the wheel! It's the end-to-end process team instead of the technocratic expert or manager who dictates what others must do. This is by the way a confronting responsibility where people need some guidance with to feel safe in their new role, not only to work in the process but also to periodically work on the process. (Experiment, Design, Test, Evaluate, Learn)
For a few years I argued that most pioneering firms on our Bucket list move beyond traditional multi-layer hierarchies via organizational models focused primarily on principles of communal sharing or market pricing. But a new round of interviews suggests they use a third model to organize their radically decentralized workforces: namely, a focus on the principle of reciprocity.
Ford's management model became the most influential one in the early 20th century. It embraced the possibilities enabled by the assembly line. This was followed by the General Motors' model (i.e. the multidivisional firm), and later by Toyota's model (i.e. Lean). More recently, electronic technologies (like computers and the Internet) have enabled the rise of the global 'Agile movement' with Spotify's model as the poster child. But now, with more and more IoT technologies, what will become the most influential management model of the future?
Maria Popova writes, “The history of the world is the history of telling others who and what we are—from tribal markings to national flags to family crests to pronoun-specifying email signatures.” How we choose to tell our stories—and what artifacts we choose to highlight—alters the way we hear our past, experience our present, and create our future.