The two faces of self-organisation

Why a differentiated understanding of self-organisation makes all the difference

‘We work in a self-organised way!’ I have come across this statement frequently in recent years. In job ads, on company websites and in conversations with managers. But what exactly is meant by this?

As an Agile Coach, I have been working intensively on the design of organisations for many years. During this time, I have worked as both an internal and external coach in a wide range of organisations. In doing so, I have repeatedly experienced how differently the term is interpreted and lived.

There is the development team that understands ‘self-organised’ to mean that they estimate their user stories themselves and perform their daily stand-ups without a product owner. There is the manager who, when it comes to self-organisation, thinks of employees who prioritise their tasks independently. And there is the organisation that has introduced a complex framework to enable self-organisation through detailed rules and processes.

This diversity of interpretations is not problematic at first glance. However, it becomes problematic when we start to make concrete decisions based on our respective understanding. Depending on which definition we use, consciously or unconsciously, the consequences for the design of leadership, cooperation and organisational structures are fundamentally different.

In this article, I would like to take a closer look at the different facets of the term self-organisation. In doing so, I will present two fundamentally different perspectives: self-organisation as an emergent phenomenon that we can observe in nature and in social systems, and self-organisation as a consciously constructed organisational principle that is shaped by rules and parameters.

Let us explore together the practical implications that arise from these different perspectives. One thing is clear: a reflective approach to the concept of self-organisation is a prerequisite for its successful application in practice. I am driven by the conviction that people can develop their full potential and achieve extraordinary things together if we create the right parameters. To do this, we need a deeper understanding of what self-organisation actually means.

Two different perspectives on self-organisation

The first face: emergent self-organisation

Imagine a flock of birds moving in perfect coordination in the sky. Or how people move around in a busy square without constantly bumping into each other. In both cases, we observe a fascinating phenomenon: order arises without central control, solely through the interaction of the individual elements.

This is the first face of self-organisation: an emergent process that is ubiquitous in nature, but also in social systems. Biologists, systems theorists and complexity researchers have taught us that such forms of self-organisation are not ‘made’ – they arise from the inherent properties of the system itself.

The second face: constructed self-organisation

In contrast to this, there is a second understanding that I encounter particularly frequently in agile organisations: self-organisation as a consciously designed organisational principle. This is about parameters, rules and processes that are intended to enable autonomous action. From Scrum to Holacracy to Sociocracy – many modern organisational models are based on this understanding of self-organisation.

The crucial difference between the different perspectives

What may appear to be a purely academic distinction at first glance has far-reaching practical consequences. Emergent self-organisation is a value-neutral process that can produce both beneficial and dysfunctional patterns. By contrast, constructed approaches usually assume that adherence to certain rules and principles will automatically lead to positive results.

In my work, this distinction has often helped me to make sense of seemingly contradictory observations. When a team develops dysfunctional patterns of behaviour despite (or sometimes because of) a sophisticated framework, we see emergent self-organisation at work. On the other hand, when a minimally structured team achieves excellent results, we often experience the positive side of emergent processes.

In the following, I would like to take a closer look at these two perspectives. This will help us to better understand many of the practical challenges and apparent contradictions.

Emergent self-organisation: when order arises of its own accord

In my work, the understanding of self-organisation as a natural, emergent phenomenon has proven to be particularly valuable. It shows us that self-organisation is not something we can ‘introduce’, but something that is always already there.

What does emergence mean?

A typical example that I see time and again: Organisations decide to ‘introduce more self-organisation’ and invest a lot of time in defining new processes and rules. Nevertheless, their own, sometimes informal practices continue to develop – completely independently of the official guidelines. What we see here is pure emergent self-organisation: people organise themselves in a way that nobody planned or foresaw.

In my opinion, the fundamental difference between traditional and agile management approaches is not the presence of (emergent) self-organisation. It always takes place, whether you like it or not. The difference between the approaches is whether you acknowledge this fact or not. While classical management tries to achieve controllability through control and perceives self-organisation as disruptive, agile thinking recognises the ubiquity of self-organisation and tries to use it constructively.

The power of local interaction

Systems theorists like Niklas Luhmann have taught us that social systems generate and reproduce their own elements and their relationships through their own operations. [1] This may sound very theoretical at first, but it describes exactly what I observe in organisations every day: teams, departments and entire organisations develop their own communication patterns, routines and informal hierarchies – whether we want them to or not.

What I find particularly exciting about this is that the larger the context, the more complex and unpredictable these patterns become. While it is still possible to recognise and change dysfunctional patterns together at the team level, this becomes much more difficult as soon as several teams or entire departments are affected. The dynamics become more subtle, the interactions more diverse and the possibilities for targeted interventions decrease.

The value neutrality of emergent processes

An important aspect that I have to emphasise again and again in my work: emergent self-organisation is initially value-neutral. It can produce both beneficial and dysfunctional patterns. I have seen teams that functioned excellently without formal structures because positive patterns of interaction had been established. But I have also seen teams that fell into dysfunctional routines despite the best intentions.

This insight has important practical consequences: Instead of trying to ‘implement’ self-organisation, we should concentrate on understanding and designing the conditions under which constructive patterns can emerge.

And what does this mean in practice?

From this perspective, I see three central fields of action:

1. Observation and understanding: Which organisational patterns have already emerged? How do they work? What do they achieve?
2. Designing conditions: Which parameters favour the emergence of constructive patterns? Which interventions are helpful?
3. Patience and humility: The realisation that we cannot control emergent processes directly, but can only influence them indirectly.

In my experience, this understanding of self-organisation leads to more sustainable changes than trying to impose new structures from above. However, it also requires more patience and a finer sense for the subtle dynamics in organisations.

Constructed self-organisation: the attempt at conscious design

After this consideration of the emergent character of self-organisation, I now turn to the second perspective – the attempt to enable self-organisation through consciously designed parameters and rules. These approaches have gained in popularity in recent years and I encounter them more and more frequently in my practice.

The logic of frameworks

The basic idea of these approaches is initially compelling: if we create the right rules, processes and structures, teams and organisations will be able to organise themselves effectively. Based on this conviction, various frameworks have been developed, each providing its own answers to the question of how self-organisation can be designed.

In the following, I would like to look at the most important approaches and their respective focuses:

Scrum: self-organisation in a team

In the context of agile software development, I consider Scrum to be perhaps the most pragmatic approach: here, self-organisation is primarily understood as team competence. The framework provides a clear framework – with defined accountabilities, events and artefacts – within which the team can organise its work independently.

What I appreciate about this approach is that it makes the boundaries clear. Teams organise themselves within a defined framework, but not beyond it. This creates clarity and reduces complexity.

Holacracy and Sociocracy: The attempt at holistic organisational models

Frameworks such as Holacracy and Sociocracy pursue a much more comprehensive approach. They attempt to enable self-organisation at the level of the entire organisation through detailed ‘operating systems’. Both approaches work with a system of nested circles and defined decision-making processes.

What I keep coming back to in practice is that these models assume that self-organisation will automatically take place if defined rules and goals are adhered to. My observation is that reality is more complex. Even within this framework, emergent patterns and unintended developments inevitably arise. This is not a question of the quality of implementation, but lies in the nature of social systems. Of course, the way in which implementation is carried out has a significant influence on how well an organisation can deal with these developments. Above all, the ability to recognise unfavourable patterns at an early stage and to take effective countermeasures is crucial.

The limits of constructive approaches

This observation leads me to a central point: constructed approaches to self-organisation reach their limits where they do not sufficiently take into account the emergent character of social systems. Time and again, I experience that the careful implementation of a framework alone is no guarantee for successful self-organisation.

This becomes particularly clear when it comes to scaling: the larger the context, the more difficult it becomes to control self-organisation through rules and processes. The number of interactions increases exponentially and with it the probability of unexpected dynamics.

What can we learn from constructed approaches?

Does this mean that constructed approaches are worthless? Not at all! In my practice, they have proven to be a valuable guide – less as a blueprint and more as a compass. They provide

• a common language for designing the organisation,
• proven practices and processes that can be used as a starting point, and
• explicit principles that provide orientation.

For me, the key is not to see these frameworks as a guarantee for successful self-organisation, but as tools that can help us to create favourable conditions.

Synthesis: An integrated view of self-organisation

The limitations of constructive approaches described above raise the question of how you can combine the strengths of both perspectives. I believe the key lies in an integrated view – a view that recognises both the emergent nature of social systems and the value of conscious design.

Reality is hybrid

What I observe again and again in my practice: Successful organisations combine both perspectives. A medium-sized IT service provider provides a vivid example: several development teams used the Scrum framework for internal orientation and for collaboration with each other. However, they developed their own cross-team practices for working with the specialist departments – from regular informal coordination meetings to self-organised innovation workshops. The organisation recognised the value of these emergent patterns and consciously created space for them to develop. Over time, a hybrid organisational form emerged: while the development teams worked internally and with each other according to Scrum principles, more flexible, situationally adapted forms of collaboration were established at the interfaces to other company divisions. This combination provided both the necessary stability for technical development and the required adaptability when dealing with different stakeholders.

Examples such as these show that self-organisation cannot simply be ‘introduced’, but it can be fostered by providing suitable parameters.

The purpose of the system as a compass

A critical aspect that I repeatedly encounter in my work is the question of the actual purpose of the system. Stafford Beer formulated it aptly: ‘The purpose of a system is what it does’ – the purpose of a system is revealed in its behaviour, not in its declared intentions.

This insight has far-reaching consequences for the design of self-organisation:

• The actual purpose of a system is revealed by its behavior, not by its declared intentions.
• When self-organisation is constructed, there is a risk that the system will primarily align itself with internal interests.
• The external reference (e.g. the market) must be actively anchored in the system as a corrective mechanism.

The art of balance

What I have learned from my work in different contexts: It is not an either/or between emergent and constructed approaches, but rather a matter of finding a clever balance. This balance must take three essential aspects into account:

1. Frameworks and structures should provide orientation without stifling natural self-organisation. They are guard rails, not rails.
2. The ability to recognise and understand emerging patterns at an early stage is more important than perfect processes. This requires constant observation and reflection.
3. The chosen parameters must be able to adapt if they do not achieve the desired effect.

Practical implications

For me, the following key points arise when working with self-organisation:

• Modesty in design
  Accept that you cannot control emergent processes directly, but only influence them indirectly. Focus on creating favourable conditions.
• Systematic observation
  Develop the ability to recognise and understand organisational patterns. What works? What doesn’t work? What unintended effects occur?
• Step-by-step adaptation
  Avoid major restructuring. Instead, work with small, continuous adjustments based on concrete observations.
• Focus on learning
  Create spaces and mechanisms for collective learning. The ability to learn from experience and adapt is more important than perfect planning.

With this integrated understanding of self-organisation, you can use the strengths of both perspectives: the insights of the emergent approaches help you to understand and use the natural dynamics of organisations. And the constructed approaches offer you practical tools for consciously designing beneficial parameters.

Conclusion: A reflective approach to self-organisation

My exploration of the various facets of self-organisation has led me to some important insights. What seems particularly important to me is that there is no single correct definition of self-organisation – but it makes a big difference which understanding underlies one’s own work.

Looking back on my own experiences, one insight in particular has proven valuable to me: self-organisation is not a method that we can introduce, but a natural phenomenon that we must understand and use. This requires a fundamentally different approach than traditional management approaches – an approach that understands emergence not as a disruptive factor, but as a force that can be shaped.

At the same time, I have come to appreciate the value of structured approaches. Frameworks, rules and defined processes can provide valuable orientation – as long as we understand them for what they are: tools for designing parameters, not guarantees for successful self-organisation. In my experience, less is often more: the leaner and more focused the chosen structures are, the greater the scope for constructive emergent patterns to unfold.

From my point of view, this means one thing above all: the quality of working with self-organisation is not so much reflected in the implementation of specific frameworks, but rather – driven by the realisation that emergent self-organisation always takes place – in the ability to recognise emergent patterns and to create conducive conditions for constructive self-organisation. This requires both systematic observation and humility, as well as the willingness to constantly review one’s own assumptions.

My hope is that this article will help you to reflect on and develop your own approach to the topic of self-organisation. Because one thing is clear: in a world of increasing complexity, the ability to shape self-organisation constructively is becoming ever more important – not as a fashionable term, but as a fundamental organisational skill.

Notes (in parts in German):

[1] Kneer/Nassehi: Niklas Luhmanns Theorie sozialer Systeme – Eine Einfuehrung
[2] Stafford Beer: The purpose of a system is what it does

Peter Rubarth has prepared a detailed analysis of the various definitions and their theoretical bases, which he is happy to make available to interested German-speakting readers. Simply contact him on LinkedIn.

Peter Rubarth has published more posts on the t2informatik Blog, including: