It’s finally spring here in Minnesota. The birds are singing and things are beginning to grow, which reminds me of two of my favorite examples of Nature’s self-organization. Let’s start with the birds!
One of the requirements for a bird to fly is a structure that combines strength with lightness. What is easy to miss is how little structure is actually required. Most of a bird’s flight depends on self-organization rather than control.
Birds have many physical features besides their wings that enable them to fly. Their bones are hollow, thin, and reinforced with small internal crosspieces. This creates just enough strength to support movement without adding unnecessary weight. Their feathers adjust continuously in response to changing air currents. Their muscles, skeleton, and sensory systems are constantly coordinating—not because something is directing them, but because the system is organizing itself in real time.
Nature fits form to function, but it does so through self-organization, not centralized control.
If Nature had been designed for control, birds would likely have heavier, more rigid structures to ensure stability. But those same structures would limit their ability to adapt in mid-flight. The capacity to respond—to subtle shifts in air, to changing conditions—is what makes flight possible.
The dangers of organizing by control
Nature’s lesson for organizational leaders is embedded in a simple question: What is the least amount of structure needed for people to organize their work effectively?
But human organizations often begin with a different assumption—that people need direction to be effective. From that old starting point, we create structures, procedures, and processes designed to control behavior and ensure accountability. Over time, those bureaucratic, top-down structures accumulate and become very heavy.
Layers of processes and policies begin to consume organizational energy and attention. Like adding weight to a bird, they reduce the organization’s ability to move, respond, and adapt. These structures aren’t necessarily driven by bad intentions. They are often motivated by a desire to eliminate risk, avoid deviation, or increase accountability. Yet in doing so, they make the organization more rigid at the very moment when adaptability is most needed.
When we add too much structure to an organization, we interrupt those natural patterns of self-organization. We make it harder for people to respond to what is actually happening, which is really dangerous in our constantly changing, chaotic world. In my recent posts on organizational development, I’ve been exploring how living systems scale through relationships and patterns, not through control.
As I’ve mentioned before, individual development is key to organizational development. And it’s crucial for sustained systems change.
Tomato cages and self-organization
Nature consistently uses the least amount of structure necessary to support life. If we applied that lesson more intentionally, our organizations might look quite different. Which leads me to my second example!
People love to grow tomatoes, and often they use a tomato cage. The cage is a simple, open structure placed around a young plant, but it doesn’t dictate how the plant grows, constrain, or control the plant’s movement. The cage provides just enough support to allow the plant to organize its own growth. The tomato cage creates the conditions for self-organization.
Necessary nutrients reach the plant through the cage. It supports the plant as it grows upward, while leaving space for variation and adaptation. The cage is not a silo or a rigid container, but a minimal structure designed to support a living system.
If we used a tomato cage as a model for organizational design, then any structure, process, or policy would need to be evaluated differently:
- Is it providing support or simply adding control?
- Does it allow the system to receive the nutrients it needs?
- Do small interventions help people to do their best work?
- Is it encouraging a growing capacity for self-organization?
Organizations often develop policies and processes in an effort to eliminate risk or enforce accountability. But risk cannot be fully removed, especially in a dynamic external environment. Attempts to control too many variables often work against the organization’s ability to respond effectively.
The goal is not to eliminate structure, but to ensure that structure fits the function. Making this shift requires a different kind of awareness. It asks leaders to notice when default assumptions about structure are shaping decisions. It invites a more deliberate reflection on the purpose of any structure, process, or policy.
As we’ve seen from the examples of a bird’s hollow bones and a tomato cage’s open frame, Nature offers many lessons to help us enable, rather than constrain, a system’s ability to organize on its own and become increasingly regenerative.
Thank you.