Team Membership: Controlled or Self-organized?
I am a member of Amnesty International. I am also a member of a Dutch political party. I am a member of Harvard Business Review (as a subscriber), Forbes.com website (as a contributor), Happy Melly network (as a Funder), at least six airline loyalty programs (as a frequent flyer), and a dozen or more LinkedIn groups (as a group member). I am a member of many more groups, brands, and organizations. And for each of them, it was a personal decision to join them.
Every team, business unit, community, or company has members. Members are those who feel that they belong to, or are part of, the group. They can be either people or other (sub)groups, or even both. But who decides who is a member of your team or community? Where lies the responsibility for considering a person (or a subgroup) to be a part of your group?
In my company Happy Melly One, team membership is a joint responsibility for our self-organizing team and me. When a new candidate gets a thumbs up from five team members, that person will join our team, unless yours truly (as the business owner) vetoes the team’s decision. Likewise, I cannot hire anyone without getting at least four thumbs up from other team members. (As one of the members, the fifth thumb up would obviously be my own.) On the agility scale, I call this kind of membership green:
The membership of this team, unit or group is well-defined and jointly controlled by a higher management layer and the group members.
In the Happy Melly network, anyone can become a member. The way this works is defined in our Constitution. This document was written by me, with input from a few others, but our members can make changes to it. In other words, I’ve initially guided the decision process, but the rest is up to the members themselves. I call this kind of membership blue on the agility scale:
The membership of this team, unit or group is well-defined and self-organized among the group members, based on the initiative or suggestions of a higher management layer.
I know other teams, business units, communities, and companies with wildly diverging types of membership. Sometimes, membership is pure red: only management decides who is in and who is out. (Many departments and teams at traditional organizations come to mind.) Other times, membership is entirely pink: the group is self-managed, and there is no higher management involved. (I know many meetup groups like that.) But very often, teams find themselves in a position somewhere in between.
The best position for your team, unit, or community depends on context. Does your group need to be efficient or effective? Centralized or decentralized? Focused or unfocused?
For most teams and departments, managers make no deliberate choice concerning the agility level of membership. Quite often, this means that teams and departments end up on the left of the scale (red or orange) when they are better placed on the right (blue, violet, or even pink).
For informal communities, it is sometimes perhaps the other way around: the default is usually quite self-organized (violet or pink), but some communities could be more efficient and more focused with a bit more direction (orange or yellow).
It all depends.
What is the proper position on the agility scale for your team, company, or community? And how will you make sure it stays there for as long as its context requires it?
