Self-organization is not the same thing as self-management
Organisation dynamics…“self-organization” is not something that is within the gift of managers to decide upon. It is at play just as surely in an organization ruled by the proverbial ‘iron fist’ as in one that has all the attributes of empowered self-management. However, the critical thing to emphasize here is that it is the conversational interactions that are self-organizing. And it is through the self-organizing interplay of these ‘local’ conversations across the organization and beyond that ‘global’ outcomes emerge.
Organization design, I see its primary purpose as one of shaping and aligning the various elements of the organization so that it is best placed to achieve its purpose…As part of the design process to achieve this, decisions will be made on structural aspects of organization, as well as on related processes, systems and procedures. And, whether by accident or design, these will both enable and constrain the ways in which people are supposed to work together formally. So the outcome might be one which facilitates greater self-management; or else inhibits (or even prohibits) it, in favour of greater centralized control.
Organization development…is heavily steeped in humanistic, people-based values and recognizes the impact of social, psychological and emotional aspects of organization on performance outcomes…it embraces a philosophy of management rooted in a positive view of the value of greater employee involvement and self-management…people’s willingness and ability to contribute and adopt leadership practices designed to foster mutual trust and enable greater self-regulation.
[In the] talent-based approach to role development…individuals would have greater discretion to organize their own roles and relationships to suit their particular talents and interests. However, implicit in this is the widely-held view that self-organization happens (or doesn’t) as a result of deliberate choice – either by management design or as the result of a ‘grass roots’ initiative…at its centre is placed an individual’s core strengths or distinctive competence, on which their contribution to the organization – and personal growth - will be built. The framework then branches out in four complementary directions. These describe, in turn, the attributes of self-sufficiency, self-direction, self-control, and collaboration.
Related
What Does it Mean to be Self Organising?
Many people, including me, when they first learn of this idea of self-organisation, immediately think of questions like “How can we empower employees to be self-organising?” or “How can we manage our people so that the emergence can take place?
I came to realise that it doesn’t make much sense to talk in this way because humans already always are self organising, even when they work in organisations with top down management approaches. If they are working in an organisation with restrictive management approaches, then they are still self-organising, with a given mix of constraints, power relations and so on that is determined in part by the management approach. This is because top down or highly directive management approaches give a certain combination of constraints and power relations.
A more useful question might be something like “How can we change the constraints and power relating so that different patterns will emerge from the self-organisation?”
The challenge is “How can I influence the constraints and power relationships so that different (hopefully more desirable) patterns of social interaction emerge.
Leaders are not in control of outcomes
Employee performance rides on commitment; which rides on motive, means, and opportunity
On self-organization and emergence: #1 - Processes not systems
Self-organization and emergence: #2 – Organizational dynamics v organization design and development
