Addressing the Tyranny of Structurelessness

The "Tyranny of Structurelessness" is a term developed by a sociologist in the 1970s to describe the resistance of some group members to developing formal agreements about how they would conduct work and decision-making (Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Vol. 17, 1972-73, pp. 151-165). This sociologist, known only as Joreen, noted that when women's conscious-raising groups started moving to more concrete tasks, some group members resisted the effort to create explicit agreements about how work and decision-making would be conducted.

Joreen pointed out the reality that there is no such thing as a "structureless" group, because groups may not have formal agreements or structures, but they always have informal structures. Joreen's primary point is that some group members dislike efforts to create formal structures of work and decision-making because they wield a disparate amount of power within the group's informal structure and are attempting to hold onto that power. Note that their resistance to formal structure is also directly related to efforts to avoid accountability for their behavior.

With these insights, the Tyranny of Structurelessness (TOS) provides an important lens for deciphering workplace conflict, especially regarding conflict in teams, and in senior management teams in particular. Team members can often have legitimate differences about what they are trying to accomplish, how to accomplish it, and in what time frame. However, when team conflict arises regarding having explicit agreements or structures for how the team operates, makes decisions, and communicates, the conflict has likely entered the realm of TOS.

Engagement agreements are an increasingly common device for getting clarity, buy-in and accountability for following a wide range of team and workplace norms. They can be very simple, such as an agreement to reduce distractions in meetings by turning off phones and other electronic devices. Or they can be more elaborate statements of how a senior leadership team has agreed to be with each other and hold each other accountable for upholding their engagement agreements.

When people are resistant to entering into engagement agreements or other agreements about work, decision-making, and even job descriptions, that resistance is often a symptom of TOS. In effect they are saying to others in the group that they don't feel comfortable with increased agreements and clarity likely because they feel that their informal power will be diminished by them. How does a group or leader respond to such unhelpful resistance? There are several ways:

• Gentle confrontation. When group members say they see no need for clearer agreements, ask them why. Often provide simple but direct feedback is sufficient to get them to back down: "Help us understand why you are opposed to such agreements...it sounds like you are arguing against having clarity about how we work together, make decisions and hold each other accountable..."
• Use group consensus. Usually the holdouts against adopting engagement agreements or clearer work or decision-making processes represent a small minority of a group and are reluctant to actually articulate their objections publicly, allowing a consensus on the agreements to move forward.
• Try it and then evaluate. If there are strong objections to utilizing engagement agreements or other agreements, see if the group will be willing to try them out on a trial basis for a set period of time, after which the impact of the agreements will be evaluated by the group. An increasing number of organizations openly reassess their engagement agreements and their ability to abide by them on a annual cycle. Many of these organizations have also modified individual performance reviews to include assessment of a person's ability to abide by group engagement agreements.
• Address the issue head-on at the group level. Make a willingness to try new, more explicit approaches to conducting work and making decisions one item in a list of engagement agreements.
• Educational approach. Distribute this article (or the original academic article) to the group and make a point of having an open discussion about it.

More Coaching Insights available at leadershipcoach2.com