jazz is a fascinating subject in many respects: as the counterpart to the symphonic constraints of structured scores and the pursuit of standardised precision, it is a symbol of the emerging flow of joint development. This dazzling jazz metaphor has inspired works by Karl Weick, Mary Jo Hatch and others, and has had a lasting impact on the rationalist management discourse of the last century. Currently, jazz is often used as an image of successful spontaneous interaction in the discourse of self-organisation. Where degrees of freedom are placed in antithesis to structure, the metaphor sometimes overshoots its target.

It is certainly true that jazz is based in a special way on free forms of interaction and improvisation. But of course it has Structures – even if sometimes only in minimal form. These include rhythms, keys and chord progressions with their scales as a frame of reference for improvisation. Beyond free jazz, the repertoire of jazz standards, which most experienced jazz musicians have at least partially absorbed, provides a common playing field. Finally, the dynamics of interaction and impulse are governed by a codex that describes how individual lead (solo) and background support (comping) are sequenced in a session, and how presence on stage is distributed fluidly and evenly. When everyone is aware of these rules and reference points (or at least sensitive to them) and can draw on them even in experimental mode, jazz flows. When the players are unfamiliar with or ignore these conventions, when the structural openness is abused for ego shooting, excessive pattern interruptions or vocal competition, the flow quickly breaks down.

The tyranny of structurelessness

Apart from such framing and Soft Structures there are informal structures in every system. In the early 1970s, Jo Freeman brought up a controversial criticism of the „unstructured group“ model“ within the feminist movement. In her essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness she argues that the absence of formal structures and hierarchies merely obscures the inevitable informal power dynamics.

 „A ‚laissez faire‘ group is about as realistic as a ‚laissez faire‘ society; the idea becomes a cover for the strong or the fortunate to establish unchallenged hegemony over others. This hegemony is so easy to establish because the idea of ‚structurallessness‘ prevents not the formation of informal structures, but only that of formal structures. (...) As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules by which decisions are made are known only to a few, and the knowledge of power is limited to those who know the rules.“ (Freeman, 1971)

Freeman's main argument is clear and compelling: while informal power does not entail any obligation to be accountable to the group as a whole, formalised authority always comes with its flip side – accountability. In this respect, it is preferable to establish a transparent formal hierarchy (which may also be topic-based or rotational) than to allow an opaque informal hierarchy to develop. Max Weber made a similar argument with regard to bureaucracy: the progress of bureaucracy consists in abolishing arbitrary rule and replacing it with rational power, thereby limiting the abuse of power, privileges and discrimination. In the best case scenario, a well-structured system combines power with responsibility.

Despite this recognition, there is widespread mistrust of formalised structures among liberals and leftists: structures restrict freedom, stifle initiative and generally appear to be the opposite of self-determination. This position is succinctly expressed in an article published in response to Freeman's position in the Anarchist Library under the heading The tyranny of tyranny published:

„What we definitely don't need are more structures and rules that provide us with simple answers and ready-made alternatives, but offer no space in which we can shape our own lives“ (Levine, 1979).

As much as this resonates with the claustrophobia of the symphonic world, the important role of minimal structures in jazz clearly echoes through. Successful interaction – also in the context of self-organisation – requires structural frameworks and role structures.. Ralph Stacey aptly notes:

„The importance of self-organisation and the collective order that results from it is easily misunderstood. In the context of organisations, we tend to equate self-organisation with self-empowerment or, worse still, with lawlessness, where anyone can do anything – leading to anarchy... Self-organisation is not lawlessness; it is exactly the opposite.“ (Stacey, 2010)

Attractors in self-organising systems

From a system dynamics perspective, Structure two facesStructures stabilise a system and make it resilient to environmental disturbances; at the same time, as a constantly growing concrete ceiling (structure breeds more structure), they increasingly inhibit its ability to adapt and develop. As emergent patterns, they are the result of self-organisation; as sedimented configurations, they are its enemy. What exactly happens in between? A brief excursion into system dynamics.

Self-organisation is the process by which order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered open system.. As this definition shows, this is neither an intentional or even purposeful act of design nor a specific resulting constellation. Regardless of whether in the context of natural or social phenomena, the process of Self-organisation follows the mechanisms of system dynamics: To the extent that an open system exchanges energy with its environment, it receives impulses that challenge and disrupt its order. Internal feedback loops within the system affect these disturbances in different ways: while negative feedback loops protect the equilibrium of the system (by dampening external impulses), positive feedback loops amplify them and thus invite escalating system change. This can lead to either system-wide transformation or internal differentiation.

The effectiveness of these laws in systems does not mean that they cannot be manipulated from outside: Just as applied physics seeks to control self-organisation in energy and matter systems (e.g. to generate laser beams), biology endeavours to control pattern formation in bacterial colonies, while some applied social sciences seek ways to influence discourse and collective action in groups and societies. If we want to promote successful self-organisation, we must similarly promote the Moderate pattern formation in the system.

To understand the emergence of behavioural patterns in open nonlinear systems, it is helpful to consider the concept of attractors familiarise yourself with. An attractor marks a specific area on the map of possible system states. The complete map is referred to as the „state space“. The attractor describes the set of states within this space towards which the system naturally tends.. This can be a single equilibrium point (e.g. the lowest point of a water basin), a line (e.g. the orbit of a planet around the sun) or even a constantly changing path (e.g. an ice cream van moving through a neighbourhood – poetically described in systems theory as Strange Attractor called).

Depending on the strength of the attractors, the system exhibits more or less „noise“, i.e. system states that do not belong to the set of attractors and thus blur the „mainstream“ behaviour pattern (incidentally, this noise is one of the prerequisites for innovation). In jazz, one of the main attractors is the chord progression used – it defines a series of scales with notes that form the backbone of the music. Players can deviate from this path and use notes outside the scale to build creative tension. If this is overused, the tension turns into dissonant chaos. Which brings us back to minimal structures...

support structures

The The idea of minimum viability is based on Eric Ries‘ concept of minimum viable product (MVP), which „has only the features that enable the product to be released, and nothing more“. An application to the design of social systems was presented in the context of the agility discourse, for example with the idea of Minimum Viable Bureaucracy (MVB). The aim here is to establish just enough processes to make systems work, but not so many that they become cumbersome.  The concept of Minimum Viable Structures does not refer to product features or processes, but to stable configurations in general. It asks how much fluidity we can and want to live with and where trellises are necessary to maintain a certain order or a certain potential for action.

Just as musical scales do not dictate which note should be played at what point in time, trellises do not dictate how plants grow – they merely provide a supportive framework for fruitful and productive growth. They are support structures (Scaffolding Structures), which, in the words of the MD research group, can be described as „higher-order design".“ be designated.

They enable you to, „To utilise emergence rather than attempting to either plan it away or view it as an imperfection in our predictive techniques. We are confronted with emergence, so we should find out how we can use it! The idea is to align the design with the structures that control the dynamics of the system, rather than with the results themselves: we refer to such structures as supporting structures.“ (MD Manifesto/Emergencebydesign, 2018)

Below, I present two relevant types of such support structures: design principles that form the basis for practices in line with the common set of values; and adapter practices based on agreements and standards that ensure compatibility and smooth cooperation within the system.

Design principles / Core principles 

The first type of support structure ensures the integrity of the collective value base and its separation from the environment, and thus the Identity of the system.

Attractors are not necessarily the result of conscious organisational design. They often arise from embedding in higher-order systems. For example, cultural norms or prevailing market strategies can shape behavioural dynamics at the organisational level. Consciously designed structures shield organisations from such environmental influences and create new attractors that promote desired internal development. A practical tool for this design work can be found in the Operating System Canvas, which is provided by The Ready It is based on the following logic: For every function that we do not consciously design, we will most likely „inherit“ the dominant solution from our environment. If we do not consciously design our remuneration model (for example, based on needs), we will probably fall back on „normal“ performance-related remuneration models. If we do not consciously establish a rotating or distributed power structure, we will most likely inherit the classic leadership constellations (and with them the familiar bottlenecks in responsibility and power conflicts). The same applies to decision-making models and much more. It makes sense to focus on the aspects that are particularly important for our purpose and our values. The fundamentals of these aspects are codified in the core principles.

adapter practices

The second group of relevant support structures in self-organised systems is more functional: it relates to the compatibility of contributions within the system. Since one of the core characteristics of self-organisation is a high degree of autonomy among subunits, standards and processes that structure the interaction between these units are indispensable.

• Where is information stored?
• What are coordination points and channels for joint consultation?
• How are the units and roles assigned, and how are they held accountable for fulfilling their tasks?
• What standards must an internal service or product meet in order to be usable?
• What do decision-making processes look like when more than one unit is involved?
• How do we define common key concepts and metrics?

These and other questions need to be answered so that a loosely coupled system of units can work together synergistically and smoothly. Here, too, the aim is not to standardise everything, but to identify the critical points that promote interaction. Methodologically, there is a lot to be found in the process development toolbox for this work, e.g. in the area of Intelligent Structured Workflows, which combine ad hoc decentralised and binding structured process elements.

Where does that leave us? A lack of structure is actually inconceivable – structure is always there, in music as well as in organisation. We can only become aware of how we can design helpful structures and how we can move confidently within them. The basic idea behind minimal viable structures is that this does not involve as much regulated commitment as possible, but as little as possible – just enough to guarantee strategic cooperation, but so little that improvisation and emergence can unfold their magic.