Sixth Step of the Cooplexity Model: Distributed Organisation
The sixth step of the Cooplexity model addresses distributed organisation through effective delegation.
Article Content
The sixth step of the Cooplexity model closes the complete process of trust generation: effective delegation as the path to distributed leadership. The concept of distributed organisation is intimately linked to decentralisation, commitment, and autonomy of action. And to achieve it, delegation is the key instrument.
Have you ever been in a group that seemed to function like clockwork? Everyone focused on the task, maintaining good relationships with one another, suggesting actions, sharing resources, considering the common objective, and celebrating mutual successes. It is not easy, but I assure you it is possible.The Faurecia case
Years ago, I spoke with an executive at Faurecia, one of the world's leading automotive component suppliers specialising in seat manufacturing. He explained that, at times, they had to bid at cost and that their challenge was to innovate quickly enough to generate the accumulated surpluses required before the end of the contract, which usually lasts four years. The alternative meant remaining on the sidelines of an improvement process that would easily put them at a disadvantage relative to the competition that had won the contract and was incentivised to achieve that innovation.
To achieve it, the entire organisation focused on that objective from the first day. The specific anecdote he recounted involved a worker who devised a buoyancy system to prevent the sagging of foam injection moulds used for seat moulds. He eliminated subsequent handling, thereby considerably reducing costs. What the employee did not only involved his knowledge of the process under his responsibility but also implied a personal commitment and space to share his initiatives at an organisational level.The Team as a System
To understand how a situation like the previous example can occur, we must consider the organisation and its teams as systems.
In The Fifth Discipline, one of the key works in the dissemination of systems thinking, Peter Senge describes it as a discipline for "seeing wholes" rather than isolated parts, focused on interrelationships rather than something static, and on patterns of change rather than snapshots. A system is not merely the sum of its components but the dynamic outcome of its connections and feedback loops, in which small actions can generate large, unforeseen impacts. The concept of interaction and its importance in the co-creation of new realities turns the relationship between team members into an evolutionary dynamic, infinitely richer and more sophisticated than the mere static aggregation of individual capabilities.
Behaviour Over Time
That dynamic, if considered over time, allows us to observe how behaviour evolves. Senge refers to "Behaviour Over Time (BOT)" as the first step in moving from "event thinking" to "behaviour patterns" and then to systemic structures.
Once the team-as-system paradigm is accepted, in which the parts are interdependent and mutually affect one another, we will incorporate the behaviour-over-time perspective to influence positively through feedback loops that generate reinforcement patterns for desirable behaviours.
Systemic Structures
According to Senge, systemic structures are the underlying ones that generate observable behaviour patterns over time within a system.
To put it plainly, it is any established agreement that influences people to act one way rather than another. Strategies, policies, systems, procedures, and manuals are formal examples, but we could also speak of the organisational culture itself as an informal, high-impact example. Ultimately, the action framework we have given ourselves validates one decision and invalidates another.
We must modify those structures to access realities that were not considered possible until then. It is the essence of change management and of identifying alternatives to achieve different outcomes.
Catalysts
A client hired me on one occasion to recover the spirit of achievement they had lost after going public. He explained that throughout the period when the company prepared for the public share offering, the team remained focused and cohesive. However, once the objective was reached, the incentive seemed to disappear. And indeed, it did. The common project had been a catalyst, aligning all the energy in the same direction.
Projects do not become reality directly from PowerPoint; they need a catalyst that has a structural impact and generates reinforcing behaviours.
And what catalyst can generate those behaviours of autonomy and commitment? A well-designed delegation plan.The Delegation Plan
An agreed and formalised delegation plan constitutes a powerful catalyst for achieving the previous objectives.
Delegation is often understood as a static concept, viewed only from the supervisor's perspective (the boss delegates). From the Cooplexity model's perspective, delegation is a bidirectional dynamic in which the supervisor and the supervisee perceive and construct reality differently.
The process to create a delegation plan will include:
- The analysis of the situation by the supervisor.
- The same analysis from the supervisee's perspective.
- A defined plan for the progression of delegation.
- A meeting to discuss and agree on the plan.
- The identification of the actions or tools to use.
- The establishment of objective performance measures.
Delegation as a Bidirectional Phenomenon
Why do the supervisor and the supervisee construct different realities? Let's see how each one views the same situation, from their own perspective.
Supervisor's Perspective
The supervisor evaluates delegation along two dimensions: relational maturity (commitment) and technical competence (ability to perform the task). Together, these determine the type of intervention required and generate four realities, ranging from dependence to independence. These are the supervisor's four scenarios.
Dependence
For the supervisor, the supervisee demonstrates a low level of commitment and task knowledge. In these circumstances, there is no point in delegating; the fundamental step is to train the supervisee, so they acquire experience.
Because the supervisor does not believe they are yet capable, they provide precise, closed-ended instructions. The supervisee does not deviate from them.
This is a quadrant from which one must exit as soon as possible, because a prolonged stay will frustrate both and could entrench attitudes.
The most common situations in which someone finds themselves in this quadrant are a new incorporation or a promotion. In these cases, the usual tool in organisations is "onboarding" programmes, which, far from being a mere course for acquiring knowledge, aim to create personal ties between the usual interlocutors and to build knowledge of the people in the organisation with whom interaction will take place.
Motivation
For the supervisor, the supervisee shows a high level of commitment but lacks the necessary knowledge to perform the task. They deliver, show interest, and appear determined and motivated, but require supervision to avoid errors due to their limited judgment and insufficient knowledge.
The supervisor usually resolves this with structured tutoring, which still requires a high level of intervention. In the best-case scenario, the supervisee investigates a problem and reports it to the supervisor for a decision.
This is one of those occasions when the leader must recognise that their function is not only oriented towards the task but, fundamentally, towards the relationship. Distributed leadership focuses on the team, its capacity to generate initiatives, and its cohesion, motivation, and commitment. None of that is achieved without the necessary investment of interest, time, and dedication to the supervisee.
Disconnection
For the supervisor, the supervisee has a high level of knowledge about the task but a low level of responsibility. They do not appear to deliver; they seem disconnected. They could delegate, but they do not trust.
The supervisor delegates, but because they do not fully trust, they supervise closely and control, thereby clearly conveying distrust and reducing the supervisee's interest in change.
The perception of risk is key because, once perceived, it drives decision-making to mitigate it and renders cooperation non-cooperative. It is unlikely that someone will take a generous step if they lack confidence that they will receive the support and backing they may need.
At this point, there may be a difference of interest between supervisor and supervisee that will not be resolved until it is addressed with sufficient sincerity and empathy, while recognising the legitimacy of those differences.
Independence
This is the highest level of autonomy, in which delegation is total, conferring on the supervisee independence of action and the capacity to make decisions based on their extensive knowledge and strong commitment. Their sense of ownership (as understood) makes them feel fully responsible.
These four quadrants show the supervisor's perspective. But how does the supervisee perceive it?Supervisee's Perspective
From the supervisee's perspective, delegation results from two factors: the trust they receive from the supervisor and the autonomy of action this trust confers. Here, the dimensions change because the supervisee evaluates what they receive (or even what they perceive as received), rather than what they have.
Dependence
The supervisee perceives low levels of trust and limited autonomy in action.
The supervisee feels insecure and lacks confidence in their ability to make decisions autonomously. They wait for instructions and do not question them. On occasions, they do not even understand them, in which case the learning capacity is nullified. It is in the learning capacity that the greatest efforts must be made, facilitating experimentation and allowing limited-impact errors.
Micromanagement
The supervisee perceives that trust is placed in them, but this does not fully translate into autonomy of action. They perceive the level of supervision as excessive and may become frustrated, as they do not understand why the supervisor does not delegate to them.
In many cases, micromanagement is justified by the stress of a crisis situation. The circumstances may not help if the organisation is under pressure to deliver results. Nor does it help if the supervisor has a high level of knowledge or a results-oriented character (something common in the executive field). In these circumstances, the temptation to act quickly to resolve the situation is high, thereby delaying the supervisee's maturation; if this occurs frequently, it can degenerate into stagnation.
Exposure
The supervisee perceives low trust in them but has high autonomy of action. They feel exposed and believe that any mistake will be penalised. They perceive risk, and that sensation holds them back. The objective in the exposure situation is to reduce perceived risk.
Independence
Again, it is the level at which delegation is total. The supervisee perceives that they have full trust to make decisions autonomously. They feel "owner" of the situation and assume all responsibility for the results.Development Levels of Delegation
From Bidimensional Matrices to Tridimensional Levels
The previous matrices show how the supervisor and the supervisee perceive delegation from their respective perspectives. Both matrices are constructed with two dimensions for each perspective. This simplification is useful for understanding and classifying, but insufficient for development.
The supervisor focuses on knowledge and commitment. The supervisee focuses on the autonomy and trust granted to them. However, we sometimes find knowledgeable, motivated individuals who are trusted by the supervisor yet do not make decisions. Therefore, there is a difference we must consider, which obliges us to contemplate three levels to build full autonomy: competence, motivation, and authority.
To achieve full autonomy, we must develop the three levels in a cumulative manner and understand the drivers that propel them. It is important to note that each level contains the previous one and is built upon it. The levels are built on two axes: dimensions and drivers.
Horizontal axis "Drivers": the keys to advance:
- Interest: the motivation towards knowledge
- Will: the expression of wanting to do
- Intention: the manifestation of the will to action
Vertical axis "Dimensions": the degree of involvement:
- Knowledge: the degree of cognitive understanding
- Commitment: the expression of affective alignment
- Responsibility: the manifestation of maximum personal involvement
Both axes give rise to the levels of competence (I understand it), motivation (I want to do it), and authority (I am doing it).
The three levels of delegation (Competence, Motivation, Authority) show us what must be built. We now examine how it is built progressively through four stages that the supervisor and the supervisee must traverse together.
Why Delegation Requires the Previous Five Steps
A distributed organisation implies decentralisation, and this necessarily passes through delegation. The steps of the trust-generation model provide clues about what is necessary to reach level three of authority.
- Without Step 1 (Uncertainty): The supervisor does not tolerate learning errors
- Without Step 2 (Relationships): There is no base trust to delegate
- Without Step 3 (Interests): The supervisee does not commit
- Without Step 4 (Values): There is no shared criterion to decide
- Without Step 5 (Change): The organisation does not allow autonomy
Practical Tools: Building the Delegation Plan
The catalyst tool par excellence for achieving full autonomy is the delegation plan. To implement it, we must define the development stages, identify the relational competencies the supervisor must possess to successfully involve the supervisee, determine the tools needed to develop the delegation plan, and outline how to approach a meeting between the parties to agree on the plan.
The Delegation Plan
Delegation is not a switch but a maturational process that we can summarise in four stages. The delegation plan does not align with the descriptors of the bidimensional matrices; instead, it uses three development levels, separating commitment (motivation and willingness) from responsibility (perceived authority to decide). There are multiple reasons why highly committed individuals hesitate to decide. These may include an organisational culture that avoids granting explicit authority, fear of making mistakes, receiving instructions without clear signals that they can decide, or being conditioned by narrow supervision in the past.
The Development Stages
The four stages are not fixed states but positions on a continuum. The same person can be in Autonomy for one task and in Assistance for another. Hence, the importance of elaborating the plan by task or scope of responsibility, not by person.
1. Assistance: the starting point
Low knowledge, low commitment, low responsibility.
Assistance is the natural starting point for a new person or someone in a new role who needs comprehensive guidance during the initial steps. It would be problematic if there were no evolution, resulting in permanent dependence.
2. Tutoring: building knowledge
Low knowledge, high commitment, low responsibility.
In tutoring, the learning process is structured, with decisions about what knowledge to transmit and when, as well as an agenda (even if flexible). It is a proactive and structured intervention.
3. Support: the critical transition zone
High knowledge, high commitment, low responsibility.
At the support level, the supervisee maintains initiative and decides when they need help and of what type. The supervisor is in available/reactive mode, and the intervention is on demand. The supervisee controls the timing and intensity.
This is where the process most frequently gets blocked: the supervisee has everything necessary to act autonomously, but the relational system has not yet transferred responsibility. It is the stage where the supervisor's recognition has the greatest impact.
4. Autonomy: the goal of distributed leadership
High knowledge, high commitment, high responsibility.
It is the ultimate goal of distributed leadership, in which the supervisee knows, wants, and feels authorised to decide. Moreover, they decide first and inform afterwards.
Relational Competencies
One of the critical aspects of a delegation plan is the transition from one stage to the next. It is important to understand that, while each stage is defined by the degree of intervention the supervisor has, the passage from one to another is entirely relational. This transforms the stages into specific relational competencies rather than merely behavioural descriptions.
- Empathy
Empathy, which we already addressed as a fundamental relational competence in step 2, is essential in the transition from assistance to tutoring. Empathy is the awareness and ability to interpret and understand others' emotions and feelings from their perspective. It allows us to connect emotionally with others and respond appropriately to their needs and emotions. During the transition from the assistance stage to tutoring, the supervisor must understand that they are training, not demanding immediate results. The level of insecurity perceived by the supervisee in these initial stages makes them especially sensitive to uncertainty and can generate natural anxiety that the supervisor may not detect.
- Assertiveness
Assertiveness, a key component of change management in step 5, enables the supervisee to propose in the Support stage. Assertiveness is a personal skill that enables us to express feelings, opinions, and thoughts at appropriate times and in appropriate ways, without denying or ignoring others' opinions or emotions. It allows us to express disagreements clearly and respectfully, without aggressing against the other or submitting to them. At the Support stage, the supervisee must dare to propose without fear. This will require, as we saw, the supervisor's capacity and an adequate psychological safety environment.
- Recognition
Recognition is the authentic secret weapon that enables progression to the autonomy stage. It refers to the supervisor's appreciation of the supervisee's efforts, achievements, and contributions. It is a key step in the delegation process that fosters motivation, trust, and commitment by celebrating successes, whether publicly or privately.
Recognition simply means valuing what the other person does, says, thinks, and feels. It is active listening at its most active. It is a simple yet effective tool. One only needs to become aware and do it.
Tools to Build the Delegation Plan
Creating a delegation plan not only involves defining the stages but also provides concrete tools for successful implementation.
Shared Diagnosis
We refer to diagnosis when we share the analysis context. Allow me a metaphor to illustrate what I mean. A speleologist advances through a cave, seeing only what the light from their helmet illuminates. Another expert knowledgeable about the cave describes the cavities, dimensions, passages, and rooms that are not visible to the naked eye. The expert has just expanded the new speleologist's capacity to understand the true dimensions of the cave they are exploring.
Similarly, a supervisor must broaden the supervisee's focus to enable them to see the problem in its entirety. Sharing the context does not guarantee a complete perspective, but it does ensure alignment.
Agreed Instruments
We understand by "instruments" the identification of the actions or tools to be used.
Within the delegation plan, the supervisor and supervisee agree on the resources to be activated to achieve the objectives, including criteria, tools, adjustments, actions, and decisions. This establishes, at each stage of delegation, the limits of action within which the supervisee may move freely.
It is the supervisee who identifies the options, anticipates the results, and establishes selection criteria to inform the decision. The supervisor and supervisee reach a consensus on the diagnosis and objective, but the supervisee decides which tools or actions to implement.
Objective Measures
The establishment of objective performance measures implies a system for estimating and valuing results. The supervisee can learn by measuring the impact of decisions, and the leader reduces risk by fixing action parameters in advance.Meeting to Agree on the Delegation Plan
Each supervisor must predefine the empowerment stages in accordance with their criteria. The delegation plan, including its stages and progression, must be agreed upon in a meeting between the supervisor and the supervisee. This will confer official status on the plan and formalise it.
For the supervisor, the meeting has diagnostic value: it allows them to understand the supervisee's perspective, set clear expectations, and assess the actual level of commitment. For the supervisee, the value is fundamentally motivational: knowing where they are, where they can reach, and what steps they must take provides a sense of direction that daily work rarely offers.
In this meeting, it is important not only to be assertive and create a psychologically safe space, as mentioned before, but also to pay attention to silences, when they occur and why. Silences convey a great deal if you know how to listen.Conclusion
In companies, collaborators are often asked to increase their commitment and sense of ownership, as if it were a switch. It is true that this is strategic and, in most cases, the key to an organisation that innovates, learns, and adapts to change.
However, it is necessary to see it as something dynamic, an evolution. One must consider long-term behaviour and maintain a fluid vision. The supervisor must accompany the supervisee on a journey and dedicate time and attention to them. The supervisor must recognise that management is not only functional but also relational. A substantial portion of their responsibilities and time must be devoted to leadership. But the distributed leadership approach invites us to dedicate ourselves to empowering the team and to include relational, evolutionary, and formative variables as critical elements of the function.
Recognition is a key competence for strengthening the sense of ownership. The more the supervisee recognises that the outcome depends on them, the more responsible they feel. This is achieved through a detailed, formalised, and objective delegation plan that provides security and serves as the action agreement and development plan.
Returning to the Faurecia case with which we opened this article, the worker who devised the buoy system was not in Assistance mode or Tutoring mode. They were clearly in full Autonomy: they had the technical knowledge (level 1), the commitment to the organisational objective (level 2), and the perceived authority to propose and implement their idea (level 3). This is only possible when the six steps of the Cooplexity model are consolidated. It is the final result of the journey we have described.References
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization (Revised and Updated). Doubleday/Currency. (Original work published 1990).
Penguin Random House
Zamora, R. (2020). Cooperation in complexity: Cooplexity, a model for collaboration in complexity in times of uncertainty and change. Ricardo Zamora.
ResearchGate
