Enabling Team Autonomy: What HR Needs to Know About Modern Organizational Models
Team autonomy is becoming a defining feature of modern organizations. Not as a trend, but as a response to growing complexity, cross-functional work, and the need for faster decisions.
Today’s workplaces are marked by constant change, demanding that businesses and HR rethink how they organize work and adapt to market needs. One key shift is the growing emphasis on team autonomy—giving teams greater ownership, decision-making power, and flexibility to respond quickly.
To support this, organizations have been adopting new ways of working that enable faster decisions and improved speed-to-market for their products and services. These modern organizational design models center around creating autonomous teams that promote transparency, accountability, and ownership. Yet, while many companies aspire to adopt these approaches, few implement them effectively.
In this article, we explore three modern organizational models that enable team autonomy as a way of working and highlight the role of HR in guiding organizations through this transition.
Contents
Why is there a growing need for team autonomy?
Understanding different levels of team autonomy
3 modern organizational models designed to enable autonomy as a way of work
Common pitfalls and challenges of autonomy-driven organization models
The role of HR in preparing the organization for the transition to increased team autonomy
Why is there a growing need for team autonomy?
Market disruptions, technological innovation, and shifting customer expectations have created a business environment where stability is no longer the norm. Organizations are under pressure to adapt more quickly, deliver value faster, and stay competitive in industries where change happens in months, not years. In response, many have explored new ways of working designed to support faster decision-making, greater flexibility, and more substantial alignment with client needs.
Yet despite significant investment and effort, many organizations struggle to move away from traditional and hierarchical operating models. McKinsey highlights that only 30% of organizational transformation programs achieve the expected outcomes, with failure often rooted in misaligned and outdated operating models.
These legacy organizational models are characterized by rigid hierarchies, functional silos, and slow decision-making that often inhibit autonomy with teams having to follow strict protocols to make decisions and get work done.
If organizations want to work more autonomously as part of their design, a new way of working is required, demanding a change in how leaders operate and how teams are structured. As the pressure to deliver business value intensifies, leaders must reexamine what and how they transform to organizational designs that promote team autonomy. Success will depend on adopting operating models that are adaptable, integrated, and purposefully aligned with the intent of fostering an autonomous way of work and culture.
Redesigning your organization to enable team autonomy starts with enabling the HR team to champion that transformation.
With AIHR for Teams, you can develop your department’s strategic capabilities in organizational development and design, talent management, and people analytics, empowering them to shape the future of work and deliver measurable impact.
Understanding different levels of team autonomy
With businesses shifting toward more autonomous ways of working, it’s essential to understand the different team structures that support varying levels of autonomy.
The following comparison outlines four common team models—ranging from traditionally managed teams to leaderless teams—highlighting how leadership roles, decision-making, and team dynamics evolve as autonomy increases.
 | Traditionally managed teams | A designated manager or supervisor directs the team’s work, makes key decisions, assigns tasks, and holds accountability for outcomes. |
 | Self-managed teams | Self-managed teams have a degree of autonomy but operate within parameters set by the organization. They manage day-to-day operations, assign tasks among themselves, and are responsible for meeting goals, but they still have a team leader or report to management for strategic decisions. |
 | Self-directed teams | Self-directed teams organize around a set goal or objective and have a high level of autonomy to make decisions regarding work, roles and leadership. |
 | Leaderless teams | A group in which no single individual is designated as the formal leader. Instead, leadership responsibilities are shared among team members or emerge organically based on expertise, context, or need. |
Note: The Blue dot depicts the positioning of the leader in the team. A form of leadership exists across all four of these team models. However, leaders’ roles differ significantly, as do the decision-making rights assigned to these individuals, whether formally or informally.
We discussed self-managed teams with Bex Hewett, Associate Professor in Human Resource Management at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. Watch the full interview here:
3 modern organizational models designed to enable autonomy as a way of work
Giving teams more freedom isn’t enough to build real team autonomy. Organizations need to set up the right structures that make autonomy sustainable. Recently, several organizational models have emerged that rethink how work gets done, who makes decisions, and how teams are supported.
Below, we explore three organizational designs that use autonomous work as a core principle. Each model supports autonomy in different ways, and the degree of self-management or self-direction varies depending on how the model is applied in practice.
Operating as a networked organization
Networked structures replace rigid hierarchies with fluid, interconnected teams emphasizing lateral collaboration. Practically, teams are organized into teams based on criteria such as specialization or location. However, multidisciplinary teams from across these various areas can deliver the work and fully leverage the organization’s resources when work needs to happen.
This model thrives in environments where cross-functional work is critical, such as design firms, consultancies, or global HR functions. Expertise moves dynamically across teams, often supported by communities of practice.
For example, DEI, talent, or learning specialists might work across business units rather than be tied to a single function. While networked models boost agility and innovation, they also require clear decision rights and shared accountability to avoid ambiguity, coordination overload, and slow execution.
In networked organizations, teams are usually self-managed and sometimes self-directed, depending on how much autonomy individual nodes or groups are given.
| Key benefits | Key limitations |
| • High flexibility in shifting market conditions • Stronger collaboration and knowledge-sharing • More mobility for resources to be utilized according to their strengths and specializations | • Quality control across various role players can be difficult • Communication is more difficult and requires more active intention to create clarity continuously • Numerous interdependencies between various parts of the network are required for work to happen |
Example: Networked organizations at Haier Group
Chinese multinational Haier Group transformed its traditional hierarchy into a fully networked organizational structure through its Rendanheyi model. This model breaks down the company into hundreds of micro-enterprises, each operating as an autonomous unit responsible for its profit and loss, customer relationships, and innovation.
Employees are empowered to form cross-functional teams collaborating across internal and external networks, including suppliers, customers, and startups.
This structure allows Haier to rapidly adapt to market changes, foster entrepreneurship at scale, and maintain a deep customer-centric focus. The networked design has driven agility and accountability, positioning Haier as a global leader in decentralized management.
Working in agile and tribe-based structures
Popularized by technology companies like Spotify, this model organizes work into small, autonomous teams (squads) grouped under broader goals (tribes) and supported by shared capabilities (chapters) and learning communities (guilds). It’s designed for rapid iteration, tight feedback loops, and customer-centricity.
In HR, an agile ‘People Tribe’ might include squads focused on onboarding, mobility, or performance. These squads test new ideas in sprints and iterate based on feedback. While agile boosts speed and employee engagement, scaling requires strong governance and team alignment to maintain cohesion.
Teams are generally self-managed in agile organizations. Some squads or tribes may operate as self-directed teams in more mature setups.
| Key benefits | Key limitations |
| • Increased adaptability and responsiveness • Full utilization of skills • Faster time to value with a more customer-centric mindset | • It can be resource-intensive if not well-managed • Not suitable for all types of work • This can lead to short-term focus if strong leadership is not in place |
Example: Agile as a way of working at Lego
LEGO Group initiated an agile transformation within its Digital Solutions department to enhance responsiveness and innovation. Adopting the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), they restructured into cross-functional teams, implemented synchronized sprint cadences, and conducted regular Program Increment (PI) planning events.
This change empowered teams, improved collaboration, and accelerated product delivery. Notably, a finance product initially estimated to require 8,000 hours under traditional methods was delivered in under 800 hours using agile practices.
Organizing through holacracy
Holacracy is a decentralized organizational model that distributes authority across self-managing teams known as circles. Each circle functions as a mini-organization with defined roles rather than job titles and is responsible for its governance and operations. Roles within circles have clear purposes and accountabilities, allowing individuals to hold multiple roles across different circles.
Through structured governance and tactical meetings, circles can dynamically adapt their roles and processes, enabling the organization to respond quickly, reduce hierarchy, and foster agility and transparency.
Teams in holacracy are typically self-managed and often self-directed, with clear roles but distributed authority for decision-making and governance.
| Key benefits | Key limitations |
| • Accelerated, edge-based decision-making • Higher employee autonomy and engagement • Greater autonomy and accountability of circles | • Steep learning curve for organizations to adopt • Leaders often struggle to shift from decision-makers to facilitators. • While some large organizations have adopted elements, fully implementing Holacracy at scale remains rare. |
Example: Buurtzorg working as a holacracy
Buurtzorg, a Dutch home-care organization, operates with a radically decentralized, holacratic structure. Founded in 2006, it eliminated traditional layers of management and empowered small, autonomous teams of nurses to deliver holistic, patient-centered care. These teams handle all aspects of their operations—from scheduling to hiring—supported by minimal central staff and a digital platform.
The comparison below shows the different features of the three organizational models side by side to help you understand which model could help you build team autonomy.
Common pitfalls and challenges of autonomy-driven organization models
While models such as networked organizations, agile tribes, and holacracy offer clear advantages in speed, flexibility, and ownership, they are not without challenges. There are several recurring pitfalls that can hinder success:
Autonomy without clarity
Empowering teams without clearly defined roles, responsibilities, or decision-making boundaries can lead to confusion, duplicated efforts, and gaps in accountability. Clarity is critical to prevent chaos in networked or holacratic systems, where roles are fluid and authority is distributed.
Hidden hierarchies and informal power structures
Even without a formal hierarchy, informal influence and legacy power dynamics often persist. These can undermine transparency and trust, particularly in holacratic environments where decision-making is meant to be decentralized. Leaders must actively address these invisible dynamics to enable distributed authority truly.
One-size-fits-all application
Not every team or task is suited to self-management. Highly regulated functions, crisis response teams, or roles requiring hierarchical oversight may need different structures. Misapplying models like agile or sociocracy across all teams without considering context can lead to friction or inefficiency.
Inconsistent implementation at scale
Modern organizational models often show early success in certain parts of the business but struggle when expanded across the entire organization. Agile squads, for example, may perform well in product or tech teams but face challenges when applied to functions like HR or Finance, where the nature of work and decision-making processes differ.
Organizations face fragmentation and misalignment without thoughtful coordination and a shared operating rhythm.
Leadership misalignment and resistance
Shifting to self-directed teams demands a fundamental rethinking of leadership. Leaders must transition from controllers to coaches, enablers, and system stewards. Many struggle with this mindset shift, which can lead to micromanagement, unclear direction, or undermining team autonomy.
The role of HR in preparing the organization for the transition to increased team autonomy
HR is critical in enabling organizations to transition toward more autonomous work. One key priority is reimagining organizational design and helping the organization choose a model that fits its purpose and context. HR must help organizations understand the benefits and limitations of these models and the implications of adopting these ways of work.
Equally important is equipping leaders and teams with autonomy. HR should champion a mindset shift from control to enablement, thereby helping leaders adopt a coaching approach and empowering teams with the tools, rituals, and skills needed for self-management.
To make these new ways of working stick, HR needs to evolve alongside the organization. Core practices like performance management, rewards, and talent development must be redesigned to shift ownership, accountability, and growth closer to the teams themselves.
For example, performance management needs to focus more on team outcomes and continuous feedback; rewards should recognize team contributions rather than individual successes; and talent development should support flexible, self-driven learning paths.
Practices like transparent governance, real-time feedback loops, and adaptive policies are critical in reinforcing these shifts, helping teams make decisions faster and adapt more easily while preventing the organization from slipping back into traditional, top-down ways of operating.
A final word
As organizations adapt to the new challenges of the hyper-turbulent world of work, the ability to build true team autonomy is becoming a defining advantage. HR is responsible for this shift, designing systems, structures, and leadership practices that support flexibility, faster delivery, and greater responsiveness.
To sum up, building true team autonomy isn’t a one-time effort; it’s an ongoing commitment to rethinking how work gets done at every level of the organization.
Learn more
Related articles
Are you ready for the future of HR?
Learn modern and relevant HR skills, online
