What generates the capacity for a group of people (team, organization, community, family) to function as a system?

By Amina Knowlan of the Matrix Leadership Institute, Writer for The Beyond Hierarchy Project

Before we can shift from organizations that function within a hierarchical structure, to one of self-organizing (or self-managed) systems, we need to stop and look at the fundamental assumption of what generates the capacity for a group of people (team, organization, community, family) to function as a system. What must shift in order to move to collaborative leadership that accesses collective intelligence as a path to adaptive and innovative change—that emerges from the system (the team or organization) itself?

Beyond Separateness

First, we must break down the fundamental assumption of separateness itself. When we sit down in a group, we most often look around the table (or circle) to assess the individuals. We relate to a group as 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 (individuals) = a group of 7. We must instead train ourselves to see a group as a set of relationships (assuming that each person has a connection with each other person in the group, regardless of how formed or developed), this same group would have 7 x 6 = 42 connections. This assumes that each connection or relationship is 2-way. If the math excites you, the same group of 7 has 21 relationships. Ignore the math. Just remember, a group is a set of relationships. When we begin to see the group as a set of connections or relationships, we start to perceive and relate to it as an interconnected system.

Leadership is not an individual phenomenon

The same principle applies to the concept of leadership. Leadership is not an individual phenomenon, though individual leaders’ abilities and styles impact it. Leadership that emerges from a system (an organism) arises from the interactions of all its members. It resides in the relationships, in multi-perspective dialogue.

Secondly, we must understand the most basic requirements for any system—including a human system—to function as an interconnected system. At a minimum, two things must be true. First, theparts must be connected (and interconnected) . Secondly, the parts must be differentiated from each other. In reality—they must be able to be constantly differentiating and stay in connection—if the system is to adapt and evolve as a whole (system).

What counts as connection between the parts?

Translating this to a human system (team or organization) what counts as connection between the parts? Basics that are familiar (though not frequently realized) include, speaking directly to each other (vs. to the group), includingrespondingdirectly to each other -- in the open. For the connections to be functional and sustainable, they need to be formed intentionally with practices that build trust, openness and resilience—all while respecting individual and cultural differences in comfort with disclosure and vulnerability, etc. And each of our connections must be tended to and maintained over time. Simple practices are known to put money in the bank of keeping our relationships resilient and thriving: starting with strengths or what’s going well, getting to know what ‘lights the other person up outside of work’, and potently—expressing gratitude and appreciation. In Matrix Leadership we now conceive of this group (system) as arelational infrastructure—upon which many other capacities can be built.

Parts Must Be Differentiated

The second basic requirement for functioning as a system is that the parts (Individuals) are differentiated. They are different, unique and valued as such. Everyone understands that for a team to function optimally, it must have individuals who have different talents, intelligence, roles and perspectives. In our Newtonian, mechanistic assumptions, differences are basically related to as threats—win/lose, good/bad, right/wrong, my way/your way. So how do wefunctionallymove beyond the power-over conditioned response to differences? There are two maps and practices that lay the foundation for the crucial capacity ofdiffering in connection.

First, shift from relating to differences as either-or to both-and. Engage with differences. Discover the intelligence of the other’s perspective. (You already know all there is to know about yours.) Help teams shift from debate to curiosity.

The Need to Redefine Feedback Culture

Secondly, completely redefine feedback culture. An advanced course. But to lay the groundwork, in human relationships, our differences impact each other, our relationship and the work or life we live together. Key word: impact. For constantly differentiating individuals to stay in connection, and for the system (whole) to find its most adaptive and evolutionary response, feedback—peer-to-peer—is essential.

When feedback is de-coupled from the power-over (hierarchical) assumption of criticism—so called ‘negative’ or ‘constructive’ feedback becomes differentiating feedback. Feedback about the impact of another person’s behavior or a team’s decision—on an individual. Often, feedback about theimpact of a differencethat causes a ‘rub’ or some kind of friction (tension, irritation, confusion, etc).

Undelivered differentiating feedback typically builds into conflict ( a word that literally translates to part-against-part). When we can begin to think of feedback as an investmentin the relationship, or the work we are doing together—we are on the road to living and working in self-organizing, thriving relationships, organizations and communities. We are laying essential groundwork for shifting from hierarchical assumptions of command and control to self-organizing systems characterized by connection (interconnections) and collaboration.

Let us know what’s working and not working in your group/team/organisation, and the biggest challenges you are facing in relation to these themes. It helps shape our research.

What's Working & Not Working?