Related Articles:

• Self-Management: Required Components
• The boss in a self-management system (coming soon)
• Communication in self-management (coming soon)

How can a busy intersection in New York City function (most of the time) without a central conductor directing each and every move of each car and each pedestrian? Why doesn’t the intersection block at least once an hour? Why don’t cars crash every minute? And how dare pedestrians occupy the same space with two-ton metal machineries seconds apart? Because of rules, of course. Green or white means pass, red means stop, cars have to yield to pedestrians and other cars when turning left, and there is a very high price to pay when someone makes a mistake. Then, if a system can be self-managed only through a set of rules, why do teams need a Commander in Chief to direct their every move in the workplace? Second, would it be desirable to have organizations run based on the same self-management principles, just like an intersection?

Why do teams need a Commander in Chief? Actually, many times they do not, and even more, in many instances, the Commander in Chief does more harm than good.

In general, there are three reasons why a team uses the classic “boss.”

1. “We’ve always done it this way”

   To my shock, during the years I worked as a management consultant, this was the most common answer to the question of “why do you do a certain thing in a certain way?” Routine, inertia, and fear of change are almost always more powerful than an objective analysis. Humans have invented the “boss” as early as a master was given a whip, thousands of years ago, and we have preserved this role through the middle ages, the pre- and the industrial age, and, like any bad habit, we continue to struggle with it in the present.

2. Having a Commander in Chief is easy

   Self-management requires team members who are mature, experienced, trusted, and assertive, as well as a proper management system, something that is much, much harder to achieve than employing a direct or a micromanagement style. Of course, I will argue in the benefits of self-management that the effort to put in place such a system outweighs many times the effort, but at this point, I am only focusing on why the classic management system is a lot more frequent in the current society and business landscape.

3. The classic, Commander in Chief type of management gives the “boss” the illusion of control and feeds the ego of such a person

   To be clear, I am not judging anyone for desiring such raw power and control, since this is in our DNA. I am arguing, though, that self-management, even if it takes longer to implement, brings a lot more satisfaction, from a different type of power, while the control is still there and it is a lot more real.

Self-management to the rescue!

Up to this point, I hope to have demonstrated that the arguments in favor of the classical management approach are questionable, to say the least. I hope this generates enough curiosity in the readers’ minds to join me on a deeper exploration of self-management versus classical management.

In the interest of objectivity and logical structure, I will pursue the following topics:

• What is self-management? (short explanation, as its history is the subject of a separate article)
• Benefits of self-management versus classic management
• Obstacles and risks raised by self-management

The Neuronal Network

In abstract, the concept of self-management is derived from the observation that the neurons forming a neuronal network (or the traffic participants in a busy intersection) are perfectly capable of performing complex tasks and delivering optimal results without constant supervision and direction from a single controlling entity. In the brain, various neurons perform different tasks, but they are able to communicate through electric impulses, and this communication is both functional and cross-functional. A group of neurons works together to interpret an image, but their work intersects with that of others who interpret sound, movement, or tactile sensations in order to form a clear picture of the surroundings and make a decision of fight or flight. More importantly, they do this without having a boss.

Based on this parallel, back to sapiens, self-management can be defined as an approach to organizational structure that empowers individuals and teams to take responsibility for their work, goals, and decisions without relying on a hierarchical authority figure. To be very clear, this does not mean that a hierarchical authority figure is absent from the picture. This role should still exist, but it should have, most of the time, different functions than those of a classic boss.

Objective reasons for embracing self-management:

1. Self-management unleashes creativity, innovation, is a source of continuous improvement, and boosts responsibility

   When managers give very strict directions pertaining to the “how,” it minimizes or completely removes any input that an employee might have. Since managers do not have to be subject matter experts, and even when they are, lower-level employees likely have better ideas for how something needs to be accomplished. These ideas would never surface though, especially when the lower-level employee is more submissive, or the manager has a dominant personality. Additionally, when a person is told how to do something, they are released from the responsibility of the outcome and can only be held accountable for the implementation. For example, imagine that a manager instructs an associate to head over to aisle 6 and pick up two bags of the “Mr. and Mrs. Potato” brand salty chips, then head over to aisle 4 and pick up the organic, grass-fed “Super” hot dogs.

• First, if any of the products are not found in their respective aisles, the associate is released from the responsibility of looking somewhere else.
• Second, the associate is released from the responsibility of looking for alternatives. Aisle 6 might have different brands of salty chips or might have similar flavors from the desired brand. Maybe salt and pepper is perfectly acceptable instead of salty.

Classic management is very likely to result in the task not being completed or being completed in a less than optimal way. “There were no organic, grass-fed “Super” hot dogs in aisle 4, and there were no “Mr. and Mrs. Potato” brand salty chips in aisle 6″ is a perfectly reasonable response.

On the other hand, self-management allows and encourages employees to think for themselves, and a more likely response is “There were no organic, grass-fed “Super” hot dogs in aisle 4. They were, in fact, in aisle 5. And there were no “Mr. and Mrs. Potato” brand salty chips in aisle 6, but I did find the salt and pepper flavor.”

2. Self-management maximizes the utilization of the human resource

   Every single person has skills outside of their core competency, and self-management is the way to maximize the utilization of their skills. A web developer might have data analysis skills. A data entry associate might also have good marketing skills. In classic management, these skills remain mostly unutilized because the employee is put in a virtual box. Several years ago, at Davenport University, the members of the Call Center team showed skills in a variety of secondary areas than their main job… sales. In a self-management work frame, some employees showed great training skills, and they were more than happy to take on training responsibilities. Other employees, with more personal in-depth knowledge of the services (they were simultaneously students at Davenport University while working in the Call Center), were more than eager to take on improving the knowledge base. A final example is several employees who have great natural process improvement skills. Combined with their experience, they were excited to contribute to the improvement of the general workflow. All this translated into huge gains for the Call Center team, with zero cost, but such benefits can usually only be achieved through self-management.

3. Self-management is an amazing morale boost

   Optimal management systems do not force people into unnatural positions but adapt the environment to make the most out of peoples’ natural behaviors. As humans, we all have egos and a desire for meaningful work that goes beyond repetitive tasks (indeed, it is not just the millennials!). In this context, classic management can be compared to a chain while self-management is more similar to a game. A game with rules, with a playing field, with a referee and penalties, but a game in which players have a certain degree of freedom to express themselves.

   Speaking of millennials, in the past decade I ran into a multitude of articles poking fun at this group for wanting their work to matter, for desiring satisfaction from their job. Unfortunately, that is so wrong. It is 100% wrong because all human beings want that. It is not just millennials, but every human being, with one exception … those who have been chained by classic management for so long that their spirit is already broken.

Self-management is the future of work, enabling organizations to adapt quickly to changing market conditions and customer needs.

Tony Hsieh, former CEO of Zappos

In conclusion, when employees are given the freedom to make decisions and solve problems on their own, they are more likely to be engaged and invested in their work. This, in turn, leads to increased motivation and productivity. Additionally, self-management allows for greater flexibility and adaptability in the face of changing circumstances. In today’s fast-paced business world, companies need to be able to pivot quickly and make decisions on the fly. Self-management empowers teams to do just that, without the need for a lengthy approval process or bureaucratic red tape.

Second, when individuals are given the freedom to experiment and take risks, they are more likely to come up with new and innovative solutions to problems. This, in turn, can lead to breakthroughs in products, services, and business models. By fostering a culture of experimentation and risk-taking, companies can stay ahead of the curve and stay competitive in their industries.

Risks in self-management

Despite all of these benefits, freedom comes at a cost, and that cost is the risk of some things going wrong. The most likely thing to go wrong in self-management is the execution of a task in an undesirable way, even when the person executing the task has the best intentions.

For example, in the hypothetical shopping experience described a few paragraphs above, it might happen that the “Mr. and Mrs. Potato” brand of salty chips is a strict requirement, and no substitute is acceptable. It can be a binary choice, all or nothing, and in such a context, the freedom that an associate might have could result in undesirable actions. The good news, however, is that there are ways to mitigate these risks through a performant self-management system.

In terms of limitations, self-management is dependent on experienced employees and trust, and neither of these can be achieved in a short time. Of course, I would never try to implement a self-management system when leading a team in which every employee is fresh out of college. Similarly, I would never give the same freedom to a new employee as I would to a seasoned associate who has been with the organization for many years. Fortunately, though, a self-management system is not a binary choice. The system can still be put in place, but the degree of freedom can be dialed at the organizational or team level, as well as at an individual level.

Related Articles:

• Self-Management: Required Components
• The boss in a self-management system (coming soon)
• Communication in self-management (coming soon)