Beyond Hierarchy: Three Principles of Effective Leadership in Self-Managed Systems
If we take self-management seriously, we must rethink what leadership actually means—and how this relates to power.
In Part 1 and Part 2, we explored what it means to move beyond hierarchy—in both structure and mindset.
We examined the hidden assumptions behind many “New Work” narratives and how deeply rooted beliefs about people needing control or empowerment still shape even so-called self-managed teams and organizations.
In this third and final part of this article, we turn our focus to leadership.
When we move beyond the binary of technocratic control vs. emotional care, we can question a deeper, often overlooked assumption:
That to lead always means to lead people.
But in truly self-managed systems, leadership often shows up differently.
It happens when someone leads the work by leading their role—with clarity, accountability, and orientation toward purpose. When roles are well defined, individuals can step into responsibility.
They can make decisions, move work forward, and shape outcomes—without needing to be “a leader” in the traditional sense.
In that view, “leading people” becomes just another kind of work—one that can itself be defined as a role, with specific boundaries and expectations. It might be carried by a former manager—or someone else entirely.
What matters is not so much who holds the power, but how it is held.
This shift—from leading people to leading the work through roles— reflects two underlying mindsets we explored earlier in the series: Theory X and Theory Y, first described by Douglas McGregor.
Theory X, in very short, assumes people avoid responsibility and must be managed.
Theory Y assumes people are capable of self-direction—if the system supports it.
These mindsets shape how we design leadership—even when we think we’ve moved beyond hierarchy.
Theory X collapses the nuance.
It treats leadership as a fixed identity and assumes people need to be steered, motivated, or developed from the outside.
Theory Y makes a different bet:
That people can take responsibility when the conditions are right— and that leadership can be distributed without being diluted.
So what makes leadership effective in self-managed systems?
Let’s look at three principles that redefine leadership beyond hierarchy.
1. Anchor Responsibility in Role Clarity
Effective leadership isn’t based on charisma or intention.
It rests on clear accountability carried by capable people.
In practice, that means:
For every important decision, it’s clear which role holds the accountability—so responsibility doesn’t bounce around like a hot potato.
The person in the role has access to the necessary context—or knows how to seek advice.
Legitimacy grows when the person in the role enjoys credibility and trust among peers. Hierarchy, in this sense, has its rightful place—as a hierarchy of competence, not status.
2. Understand Leadership as an Emergent Process
Leadership isn’t a personal trait—it’s a relational process.
It emerges in context, through the way people relate to their roles, to each other, and to the purpose they’re serving.
Responsibility isn’t simply “taken” or “delegated”—it is co-created. This goes beyond “empowering” others, which still assumes a central source of power. Instead, shared leadership builds structural conditions that allow people to step into responsibility by design.
Two core aspects of leadership are power and trust—and both emerge in relationship.
Power in self-managed systems doesn’t come from a title.
It arises when others recognize and accept your influence—because it’s grounded in clarity, relevance, and trust.
And influence, in turn, becomes possible when people trust each other enough to loosen their grip on control—enough to allow themselves to be influenced.
Trust can’t be demanded. Saying “Just trust me” rarely works.
Trust grows when people consistently act in alignment with shared goals and values—and are transparent about differences in perspective, quality, or approach and hold themselves accountable or are willing to be held accountable by others.
Effective leadership is about creating conditions in which trust can grow and influence can flow—on equal footing.
And: Leadership is no longer tied to position.
In role-based systems, leadership becomes contextual and dynamic.
Whoever holds the relevant expertise in a given situation can lead—while following in another.
This is the essence of shared leadership: fluid and dynamic, without becoming vague.
Its potential is clear:
Leadership happens where it’s most needed—not because someone sits “at the top,” but because someone steps up with clarity, trust, and legitimacy.
This is how organisations remain adaptive—not despite, but because of distributed leadership.
3. Calibrate Responsibility to Capacity
Not everyone can hold the same kind of responsibility—and that’s not a flaw.
Complexity requires differentiation:
Responsible leadership demands the capacity to integrate multiple inputs and act under uncertainty—especially in VUCA conditions.
This is not just a skill—it’s a function of inner maturity and cognitive-emotional processing depth.
Organisations can support development, but they can’t enforce it.
It’s harmful to assign responsibility that exceeds a person’s current capacity—no matter how well-intended the gesture of trust or equality.
Shared leadership doesn’t mean everyone carries the same weight. It means leadership is situated and contextual—aligned with expertise, relevance, and capacity.
What a Theory Y System Must Provide for Responsible Leadership
To move beyond heroic individuals and random delegation, an organization grounded in Theory Y must design systems that:
Make the most suitable person visible and legitimized for each decision—through clearly defined roles
Standardize and document transparent decision-making processes, so relevant input can flow easily, regardless of people’s communication styles
Redistribute leadership dynamically, without status loss—using flexible, transparent roles instead of fixed positions
A working example of this is Holacracy: an organizational operating system that replaces traditional management hierarchies with constitution-based roles and explicit decision-making rules.
Holacracy demonstrates what becomes possible when distributed leadership is embedded in clear structure:
Faster decisions. Clearer responsibilities. Higher resilience—especially under complexity.
And all of this not because of charismatic leaders, but because of well-designed systems that truly move beyond hierarchy.
Beyond Hierarchy Starts with a Different View of People
The backlash against self-management and New Work isn’t just a cultural “vibe shift.” It’s an opportunity—a chance to gain clarity. To sharpen our understanding of what self-management can and cannot deliver. To realise that values like trust, purpose, or psychological safety are not enough without structures that distribute responsibility in real, tangible ways.
The core hypothesis of this article is simple:
Many teams and frameworks that explicitly refer to Theory Y still operate based on implicit Theory X assumptions—just in a more empathetic tone.
This mismatch makes transformation efforts fragile. Inconsistent. Frustrating for everyone involved.
But there is an alternative:
If we’re willing to confront these contradictions, we can begin to design organizations that are not just decentralized in structure, but truly post-hierarchical in practice. Systems that are adaptive and resilient—not because they rely on heroic individuals, but because they embed shared leadership, transparent decision-making, and reflective processes into the very fabric of how they work.
In closing for all three parts of this article
Maybe something in this article sparked a reflection.
Maybe you’ve recognised how even well-meaning systems can reinforce old patterns of power.
We’re not here to promise a perfectly agile, human-centred, radically efficient system—
one that avoids all conflict, feels empowering for everyone, and delivers results at scale.
(Feel free to add your favourite consulting fantasy here.)
The invitation is different.
It’s to lead with clarity and care.
To move beyond hierarchy—not just in form, but in mindset.
To keep learning how we co-create power, participation, and responsibility.
🧪 Run this Week’s Experiment: Try One of these Five Ways to Move Beyond Hierarchy
If you’re a leader, coach, or transformation practitioner trying to support your team or organisation in becoming truly post-hierarchical, here are five places to start:
1. Surface the underlying beliefs
Use Theory X and Y as a conversation starter.
Which assumptions about people shape your decisions, structures, and expectations—consciously or not?
Notice where support starts to slip into subtle control.
Where “help” implies that others aren’t ready or capable.
Where responsibility is held back until someone proves they deserve it.
2. Create systems instead of relying on good intentions
Help leaders stop acting as “developers of others”—and start designing conditions where development can happen by default.
Ask:
Where are decision spaces undefined?
Where are roles fuzzy, goals ambiguous, and expectations implicit?
Make your assumptions explicit. Turn vague values into tangible working agreements. A solid framework doesn’t constrain people—it gives them something to lean on.
3. Reflect on your own defaults
Where do you fall into the X trap yourself?
Where do you step in instead of holding space?
Where do you solve a problem yourself instead of helping the system learn?
What assumptions shape your leadership when things get hard?
4. Get serious about roles
Explore frameworks like Holacracy, Sociocracy, Collegial Leadership, or the Viable System Model—not just in theory, but in practice.
Go beyond the buzzwords.
Not everything branded as “New Work” is built on coherent system thinking.
5. Rethink transformation itself
Don’t treat transformation as a temporary program.
Treat it as an ongoing practice—across structures, culture, and capacity.
Make space for experimentation.
Let people experience the impact of clear roles, real responsibility, and shared authority—long before they fully believe in it.
Share the Results of Your Experiment with Us Here.
