Understanding the Global Rise and Evolution of Self-Managed Organizations

This paper emerged from a persistent intellectual tension I encountered throughout my doctoral journey: How do organizations function effectively when traditional hierarchies are removed—and why do some of them excel under such conditions? Self-managed organizations (SMOs) have steadily gained prominence in management discourse, yet the academic knowledge surrounding them felt dispersed across decades, disciplines, and theoretical lenses. I often found that while practitioners celebrated cases like Morning Star, Semco, and Buurtzorg, scholarship had not been synthesized in a way that captured the full breadth and evolution of the field.

This gap—between a flourishing global interest in alternative organizing and an under-integrated academic landscape—became the impetus for undertaking a systematic literature review (SLR) that would trace how SMO scholarship has developed over time. Our goal was not only to map research trends but to understand the conceptual patterns, intellectual influences, and best practices shaping this domain from 1989 to 2023.

The Intellectual Spark

The idea took shape during sustained conversations with my co-authors, each coming from different strands of organizational research. We repeatedly encountered questions that remained unanswered: Where did the SMO conversation truly begin? Which regions and scholars shaped it? What empirical evidence exists to support or critique self-management? And how might these insights inform the future of organizational design?

As we reflected on the modern workplace—characterized by distributed teams, remote work, autonomy demands, and rapid technological transformation—it became clear that a comprehensive synthesis of SMO research was timely and necessary. Self-management is not merely a structural choice; it reflects changing assumptions about human capability, trust, and collective responsibility.

Designing a Rigorous Review

Constructing the SLR was a demanding process. We quickly realized that self-management is a concept expressed through multiple terminologies—self-directed teams, autonomous work groups, empowered teams, lean structures, agile organizing, and more. Capturing this conceptual variety required deliberate and carefully validated search strings across Scopus and Web of Science.

Our first search retrieved over 9,000 documents, reflecting the methodological breadth and thematic diffusion of SMO-related research. The task of narrowing this to a meaningful corpus became a meticulous process involving abstract screening, the exclusion of grey literature, adherence to our inclusion criteria, and repeated cross-validation between reviewers. Ultimately, 83 peer-reviewed studies formed the basis of our synthesis—the most representative literature on self-management across three decades.

What the Data Revealed

Once the final corpus was compiled, patterns began to surface with striking clarity:

1. A strong geographic bias
The United States emerged as the intellectual centre of SMO research, with Arizona State University serving as a key hub—primarily due to the foundational contributions of Charles Manz and colleagues. European scholarship, particularly from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, formed the second major cluster, reflecting the region’s openness to experiments in organizational democracy and community-based structures.

2. A multidisciplinary foundation
Although business and management dominated the publication landscape, psychology, sociology, nursing, public administration, and organizational design all played notable roles. SMOs clearly occupy a space where human behaviour, organizational structure, and social systems intersect.

3. The influence of iconic cases
Real-world cases such as Morning Star, Semco, and more recently Buurtzorg, did more than inspire managerial curiosity—they shaped the very conceptual frameworks through which researchers examined self-management.

A Conceptual Turning Point: Linking SMOs to Senge’s Learning Organization

One of the most profound insights of the project surfaced during the synthesis of best practices. Independently, many studies highlighted characteristics such as autonomy, systems thinking, shared visioning, continuous learning, and collaborative decision-making. Initially, these appeared as a dispersed set of themes, but as we examined them more closely, an underlying coherence emerged.

Peter Senge’s Learning Organization Framework provided that coherence.

His five disciplines—systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning—aligned remarkably with the operational philosophies of successful SMOs. Recognizing this connection allowed us to position SMOs within a well-established theoretical tradition rather than as isolated organizational innovations. It also revealed why some organizations sustain self-management effectively while others struggle: the underlying disciplines of learning must be cultivated intentionally.

This conceptual bridge is one of the contributions of our paper: it integrates decades-old organizational theory with contemporary empirical insights on self-management, offering a unified lens through which to interpret SMO practices.

Challenges That Shaped Our Thinking

The research journey was not without complexities:

• Conceptual ambiguity:
  SMOs are interpreted differently across industries and contexts. Distilling these interpretations into a coherent analytical frame required sustained debate and conceptual precision.

• Database constraints:
  The exclusion of non-English literature inevitably limits global representation. We suspect that countries such as Brazil, Denmark, and Germany—strong proponents of workplace democracy—may be underrepresented in English-dominated databases.

• Sustainability questions:
  Much of the literature celebrates SMO benefits, but fewer studies examine the long-term sustainability or crisis resilience of these organizational forms.

These challenges became catalysts for identifying future research directions, including leadership dynamics in post-hierarchical systems, the role of technology in coordinating self-managed work, and the cultural contingencies that shape SMO effectiveness.

Reflections Beyond the Literature

Beyond data synthesis, this research deepened my appreciation for the philosophical foundations of self-management. SMOs challenge many long-held assumptions about motivation, authority, and human potential. The literature suggests that when employees are trusted with autonomy and held accountable through shared norms—rather than imposed control—organizations can become more adaptive, innovative, and humane.

Yet the research also reminds us that self-management is demanding. It requires emotional maturity, clarity of purpose, collaborative discipline, and the capacity to navigate ambiguity. These human capabilities—not the absence of hierarchy—are what ultimately enable SMOs to thrive.

Why This Paper Matters

We hope this work contributes to the scholarly and practitioner communities in three key ways:

1. It offers the first comprehensive map of SMO research over 34 years, highlighting intellectual trajectories and global patterns.

2. It integrates best practices through the lens of Senge’s Learning Organization Framework, offering a structured theoretical anchor for future work.

3. It identifies underexplored areas, inviting researchers to engage more deeply with questions of sustainability, leadership, technological mediation, and cultural variation.

Producing this paper was a profoundly enriching experience. It required patience, collaboration, and a willingness to revisit long-held assumptions about how organizations function. More than anything, it reaffirmed the value of integrative scholarship—of stepping back to see the whole landscape rather than only its individual parts.

My hope is that this work not only informs ongoing research but also inspires new conversations about the future of organizing in an increasingly complex world.