Self-Managing Organizations

Michael Y. Lee; Amy C. Edmondson

Article | Research in Organizational Behavior | 2017

Self-Managing Organizations: Exploring the Limits of Less-Hierarchical Organizing

Abstract

Fascination with organizations that eschew the conventional managerial hierarchy and instead radically decentralize authority has been longstanding, albeit at the margins of scholarly and practitioner attention. Recently, however, organizational experiments in radical decentralization have gained mainstream consideration, giving rise to a need for new theory and new research. This paper reviews the literature on less hierarchical organizing and identifies three categories of research: post-bureaucratic organizations, humanistic management, and organizational democracy. Despite this extensive prior work, scholarly understanding of radical decentralization remains limited. Using the term self-managing organizations to capture efforts that radically decentralize authority in a formal and systematic way throughout the organization, we set forth a research agenda to better understand less-hierarchical organizing at its limits.

Keywords: Self-Managed Organizations; Self-Managed Teams; self-organizing systems; self-managing organizations; Flat Organization; Decentralization; organization design; non-hierarchical organizations; less-hierarchical organizing; Organizational Structure; Organizational Design; Research;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Lee, Michael Y., and Amy C. Edmondson. "Self-Managing Organizations: Exploring the Limits of Less-Hierarchical Organizing." Research in Organizational Behavior 37 (2017): 35–58.

This case focuses on the genesis and development of the open innovation unit at BT, the strategic value of the unit, and its operating model. As the business environment becomes increasingly dynamic and firms are pressured to achieve faster innovation rates, there may be accompanying shifts in the way they pursue innovation. This case illustrates the challenges that this poses to large corporations as well as the key activities the open innovation unit engages in to deal with them. In particular, it must manage relationships with various stakeholders to leverage the value of matching external ideas and technologies with internal resources and capabilities. The case poses the question: Should the open innovation unit fully incubate some ideas, instead of always seeking partnership with commitment from a customer-facing unit?

Despite discussion in the management literature about agile organizations or learning organizations, many large organizations are top-down, slow to change, and fraught with obstacles to learning. We describe “strategy-as-learning” to contrast with the traditional concept of “strategy-as-planning.” Practicing the work of organizational strategy as a learning process implies eschewing a set of firm decisions and preconceived courses of action. Instead, strategy formulation and execution develop from setting a direction and posing a set of questions to be defined, refined, and iteratively answered. Strategy-making is thus about developing and advancing hypotheses to be tested. In this context, psychological safety plays a crucial role in shaping the quality of strategy-as-learning, as psychological safety enables speaking up, error reporting, dissenting, and candidly discussing risks. Without these behaviors, especially at the executive levels, organizations are at risk of strategic failures that could have been avoided.

Faculty & Research

Self-Managing Organizations: Exploring the Limits of Less-Hierarchical Organizing

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors