The self managing workplace builds on the group dynamics research of Wilfred Bion over fifty years ago. Bion discovered that when people come together they establish a group quickly. A group is not just a collection of individuals. A group is a separate entity with its own dynamics and behaviors, and it operates on certain assumptions. He observed that, at any given time, a group is operating out of one of two possible modes. The group is either in a productive work mode or basic assumption mode. Fred and Merrelyn Emery applied Bion’s insights to workplace design.
You know a group is in productive work mode when you see people consciously participating and cooperating towards task achievement. When a group has a clear task, goal, and a democratic structure, they do real work.
The basic assumption mode is just the opposite. We call it a “basic assumption” because the group makes an assumption about leadership but its purpose is hidden and unconscious. The hidden, unspoken assumption of the group is that:
· The group exists in order to be taken care of by a leader—it’s called dependency;
· The group has come together not to do a task, but for the purpose of fighting or running away from the leader—it’s fight-flight;
· The group must allow two or more of its members to break away and assume leadership—it’s called pairing.
The way to determine which mode a group is in—productive work or basic assumption— is in the choice of design principle. Group dynamics are the result of human structure. Dependency and fight-flight are by-products of living and working in bureaucratic structures that inhibit cooperative use of all our human capacities for controlling our own destinies.
In the bureaucratic workplace, dependency is as good as it gets. People spend a big part of their workday looking up to see where the boss is, what the boss wants, and how to get around the boss. It’s as though the reason people come to work every day is to look for somebody to rely on. The point is to look good compared to your co-workers. People are distracted from doing productive work by the very structure itself. Instead of seeing these behaviors as evidence of a structural problem, management often calls in Human Resources, complaining of low morale. Unfortunately, you cannot train or team build your way out of a morale problem. When people are responding to a dependent work environment, you need to change the structure so that people are responsible for their workplace.
In fight-flight, the leader is seen (unconsciously) as the enemy, opposed to the preservation of the group. Doing real work is ignored; the task is to win, or avoid losing. The behavior of the group is anger and hostility towards other groups or the leader. It is either expressed (they get mad and fight) or covert (they withdraw in anger.) Fight-flight differs from dependency in that it is an active, not passive, behavioral pattern. Even in extended periods of flight, people will feel stirred up, with adrenaline flowing as in a prelude for battle.
Fight-flight occurs most frequently in workplaces where responsibility keeps shifting back and forth between management and the group. We call this back-and-forth dynamic the “mixed mode,” as the structure of the workplace is a mixture of autocratic management direction and work group autonomy. It is common in organizations caught in transition between a bureaucratic and democratic structure. The epitome of the mixed mode is the self managing group with a facilitator who is still really responsible for the work of the group.
A group operating out of the pairing mode often tolerates a couple of its members engaging in side conversations, distracting or preventing the group from doing its work. Or the group may tolerate some of its members joining forces to plot against some management initiative. When pairing breaks out in a bureaucratic workplace, management often responds by repressing or stopping it. In a democratic workplace, on the other hand, pairing is welcomed as a sign of creative energy on the part of the group. Two or more group members may come together because they are excited about a new idea or perspective. It is the embryo of workplace creativity.
Try using Bion’s structural way of looking at group dynamics, instead of group development models. “Forming, storming, norming, performing” is a popular group-development model. It suggests that any group goes through these four stages in order to become a high performing team. But this is a developmental model not a structural model. It cannot help you when changing to a democratic design. If a group is storming, with its members rebelling, or fleeing responsibility, it’s because they are in an autocratic structure. The solution is to change the structure, not work through a developmental process. The democratic workplace, in which people are responsible for the control and coordination of their own work, goes immediately into the productive work mode and stays there.