The Four Tensions of Sociotechnical Systems
From Political Compass to Viable System Model: Autonomy, Control, Adaptation, and Purpose
Every team faces the same fundamental question: How do you balance freedom with coordination, spontaneity with discipline, performance with agility, and self-actualization with shared purpose?
Is your team burning sprints on coordination theater while the actual work is not getting done? Is management swinging between micromanagement fascism and leadership anarchy? Is your organization building a surveillance architecture or flying blind through market changes? And do your company’s shared values feel like a warm group hug or more like a corporate straightjacket?
Welcome to the eternal balancing acts that determine whether your sociotechnical system thrives or dies.
Note: I’m writing this from poolside at my hotel in Arequipa, Peru, day six of what should be a blissful vacation. Any rational person would ignore work completely and focus on their pisco sours. But when you stumble onto a mental model that cuts through decades of political and organizational nonsense, rationality takes a backseat to intellectual excitement. I just need to share this while sipping my chicha morada.
The Simplest Tension: Left vs. Right
Relax. This is not a political commentary disguised as management theory.
But to understand why most organizations are trapped in simplistic thinking about systemic tensions, we need to acknowledge how badly we’ve been indoctrinated by political discourse. My country, the Netherlands, just survived another election cycle (with results that made international headlines—more on that another time). And the stories in the media were as simplistic as ever.
The media loves its binary narratives:
Left = collective welfare, equality, coordination. When it goes wrong: anarchist chaos or communist delusions.
Right = individual freedom, self-reliance, autonomy. When it derails: authoritarian nightmares or fascist fantasies.
Peru offers an interesting example. Over the last twenty years, the country has ping-ponged through governments, mostly center-right to right-wing, with brief leftist experiments like Pedro Castillo’s spectacular 2021-2022 flameout. Alan García and Ollanta Humala started left but governed center. The pattern is that traditional institutions stay conservative, the left can’t hold power, and the political landscape fragments into right-leaning chaos. At least, this is what the AIs have told me. They know more than I do.
The traditional left-right framework is the stone axe of political analysis. It’s a one-dimensional tug-of-war that might have worked when societies were simpler, but applying it to modern sociotechnical systems is like measuring the finish times of Olympic athletes with a sundial.
The Political Compass
American activist David Nolan ripped the traditional model apart in 1969. His alternative chart revolutionized political mapping by adding a second dimension—separating economic freedom from personal freedom. Later, this spawned models like the Political Compass, which plots ideologies across economic and social axes, capturing the nuances of authoritarianism and libertarianism that linear scales completely miss.
The two axes changed everything:
Economic (Left–Right): market freedom versus state intervention
Social (Authoritarian–Libertarian): personal freedom versus social control
Suddenly, the world gained depth. You could be economically conservative but socially liberal. Or economically progressive but socially authoritarian. The binary became a matrix—four quadrants instead of two camps.
But for organization designers like me, there’s a problem.
These frameworks are soaked in political baggage. Drop terms like “liberal,” “socialist,” “libertarian,” or “conservative” into any conversation and watch people’s brains shut down as tribal reflexes take over and the excrement hits the ventilator. Decades of ideological warfare have weaponized these words beyond any analytical usefulness.
Since I’m not writing political propaganda, I needed something cleaner.
The Sociotechnical Compass
Working with ChatGPT, I stripped away the political theater and reframed the axes for sociotechnical systems—teams, businesses, organizations, and other technology-enabled human networks that actually get stuff done. Following the POSIWID principle (the Purpose Of a System Is What It Does), my “Sociotechnical Compass” describes not ideology (what people believe) but systemic behaviors (what people actually do).
X-axis: Individualist ↔️ Collectivist
The eternal struggle between autonomy (local adaptation, individual agency) and coordination (shared standards, collective action). How much can group members freelance versus how much must they conform to group expectations around communication, coordination, and collaboration?
Y-axis: Experimental ↔️ Controlled
The balance between experimentation and stability, between spontaneity and discipline. How much can group members improvise versus how much will they be constrained by rules, policies, standard operating procedures, and “knowing their place in the system”?
This de-politicized compass describes how teams and organizations actually behave, using language that won’t trigger anyone’s ideological immune system. Nobody wants to be labeled a socialist or authoritarian just because they think a bit of coordination or governance might help their organization survive in a chaotic world.
Do you like this post? Please consider supporting me by becoming a paid subscriber. It’s just one coffee per month. That will keep me going while you can keep reading! PLUS, you get my latest book Human Robot Agent FOR FREE! Subscribe now.
The Viable System Model (VSM)
While discussing my Sociotechnical Compass with ChatGPT, I had one of those moments that almost made me drop my cup of queso helado.
Without realizing it, I had recreated the foundational structure of Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model (VSM)—the cybernetic blueprint of any living, self-regulating system.
The VSM describes five levels that all teams and organizations must implement to remain viable:
Operations - Do the actual work. (The part of the organization that creating actual value.)
Coordination - Prevent conflicts between units. (Manages interdependencies and shared resources.)
Optimization & Control - Allocate resources & enforce rules. (Ensures coherence, efficiency, and accountability.)
Intelligence & Adaptation - Scan the environment & adapt. (Anticipates change, learns, and innovates.)
Identity & Culture - Define purpose & identity. (Provides long-term direction, meaning, and belonging.)
(For a larger discussion of the VSM, check out: “Let’s Start from Scratch: Organizational Design in the Age of AI.“)
In essence:
Level 1 is pure operational anarchy—work getting done without interference.
Levels 2-5 are the constraints that keep the system viable through collaboration, governance, adaptation, and purpose.
Four Kinds of Delegation
Let’s talk about viable teams without the management consulting mysticism.
In a perfect world, teams would spend 100% of their time creating value for stakeholders. Pure operations, zero waste, maximum output and impact. But teams learned long ago that pure operational focus is a fast track to extinction. They won’t remain viable systems for long.
First, teams figure out quickly they need coordination. Someone has to agree on what work gets done, why, who does it, and when. This shifts capacity from VSM Level 1 (operations) to Level 2 (coordination).
For example, I’m traveling Peru with my extended family. Most of the time, we do whatever we want—reading, writing, shopping. But periodically, we coordinate: which tours to take, where to eat, time of breakfast, and who gets to walk around with the credit cards. That’s classic Level 2 coordination work.
Second, larger teams realize that not everyone behaves optimally all the time. Humans are fallible and need occasional nudging to follow the rules. And thus, social systems tend to allocate capacity to VSM Level 3: optimization & control. Someone manages resources, provides servant leadership, or enforces command-and-control.
For example, Lima traffic is an adrenaline rush that demonstrates what happens when a sociotechnical system allocates almost zero resources to Level 3 optimization & control. It’s rather exhilarating and very educational.
Third, smart teams understand that environmental blindness kills systems. They need awareness of trends, changes, and whatever else might impact customer needs tomorrow. They delegate time to VSM Level 4: intelligence & adaptation, continuously inspecting and adapting to the environment. (Agile, anyone?)
Fourth, successful teams recognize the power of cohesion—shared purpose, values, identity. Systems with strong collective identity outlast fragmented ones. They invest in VSM Level 5: identity & culture.
For the record, the exact delegation mechanism doesn’t matter. Everyone might spend 5-10% of their time on coordination, or one person gets dedicated control responsibilities to do this kind of work. Implementation varies. Nobody cares. What matters is that the system allocates capacity across all VSM levels in the way it sees fit.
Four Tensions Between Chaos and Order
After realizing I’d accidentally recreated the VSM’s foundational structure (or at least the first three levels of it), I understood what this model actually describes: the multiple balancing acts necessary in every sociotechnical system.
Each level above the operational level adds a different type of constraint—necessary tension that keeps the system alive. No constraints equals anarchy. And anarchy, despite libertarian fantasies, rarely works. Even the most ardent freedom advocates grudgingly admit that some rules need to exist.
My extended Sociotechnical Compass now identifies four distinct balancing acts between System 1 (operations) and its regulating levels:
Autonomy vs. Coordination (Individualist ↔️ Collectivist)
Balancing part freedom with whole needs: Level 1 vs. Level 2Spontaneity vs. Discipline (Experimental ↔️ Controlled)
Balancing improvisation with governance: Level 1 vs. Level 3Performance vs. Agility (Optimized ↔️ Adapted)
Balancing excellence with adaptation: Level 1 vs. Level 4Self-actualization vs. Resilience (Flexible ↔️ Coherent)
Balancing individual growth with shared purpose: Level 1 vs. Level 5
(Sorry, I have no time to draw a pretty picture of this model. I’m trying to enjoy Peru.)
Each dimension represents a different conversation between operations and its meta-levels:
Level 1 says: “You create value.”
Level 2 says: “You work together.”
Level 3 says: “You play by the rules.”
Level 4 says: “You adapt and evolve.”
Level 5 says: “You share one purpose.”
These same four balancing acts play out in every society: How much do we allow collectivism to override individualism? How much authoritarianism should constrain spontaneity? To what extent can surveillance trump privacy? And how much collective purpose may supersede individual self-actualization? Sadly, media commentators reduce this rich, multidimensional reality to the braindead narrative of “left versus right” because complex narratives don’t attract eyeballs nor do they sell advertisements.
Do you like this post? Please consider supporting me by becoming a paid subscriber. It’s just one coffee per month. That will keep me going while you can keep reading! PLUS, you get my latest book Human Robot Agent FOR FREE! Subscribe now.
The Moral of This Framework
Sociotechnical system viability—whether teams, organizations, or societies—isn’t a destination. It’s a perpetual dance between anarchy and control, between chaos and order.
Economists claim that a “healthy” percentage for government expenditure as a share of GDP commonly falls in the range of 30–40% in developed nations, with many economic studies suggesting that the optimum for supporting sustainable economic growth is often below 40% and ideally closer to 25–35%. Likewise, healthy teams should probably dedicate 25-40% of their total capacity to coordination, control, intelligence/adaptation and identity/culture work (VSM levels 2-5). Everything else should be pure operations and value creation (VSM level 1). The specific allocation is context-dependent and subject to ongoing social, political, and even philosophical negotiation.
Over coffee yesterday, our tourist guide in Arequipa shared stories about daily life challenges for most Peruvians. While my family enjoys incredible sights, foods, and experiences, we’re acutely aware of our privilege. Most Peruvians can’t afford these luxuries. Peru’s Sociotechnical Compass has unresolved tensions across all four dimensions, and we hope the people find their path through these inevitable balancing acts.
There is no simple left or right in politics and there is definitely no left or right in organizational design. There are only systems that must balance four essential tensions to remain viable. The organizations and societies that master this dance survive. The ones that don’t become historical lessons for business professionals and inspiring stories for spoiled tourists. The face of the Earth is littered with countless examples.
We’ll arrive at Machu Picchu tomorrow.
Jurgen
P.S. You can follow my trips on Polarsteps.
Let's Start from Scratch: Organizational Design in the Age of AI
With the community-driven Harmony Pattern Language, we can offer a new path for designing viable hybrid teams that can thrive in our AI-driven future.
My 18-Month Battle With Expert Hallucinations
After 18 months of failed treatments and contradictory advice, I discovered something shocking: expert hallucination isn’t limited to artificial intelligence. Sometimes, human experts are even worse at seeing what isn’t there.
You Cannot Please Everyone
The only good reason for writing posts complaining about other people’s usage of AI is when your audience consists of snobbish, patronizing fools.
Fascinating work. As one in the operations industry, I'm always trying to get people to see the value of documenting standards, continuous improvement through structure rather than experimental reckless abandon.
I don't know where that puts me on your compass, but I'm going to use this article as a reference for several conversations.
Tim Urban proposed a different second axis - low rung to high rung.
Low rung circles around conspiracy theory, grunting, fire. It's the more primitive minds that latch on to these politics. Ready to wield the wooden club on non-believers they're motivated by being part of their tribe of superfans. High-rung thinking is the true liberal voice, not the slanderous "liberal" but those who are eager to enter into debate about their ideas and to be wrong. It's cerebreal not primal. It's thinkers in a room solving problems together like "how can we make a budget that works?"
We've not only moved further out on the spectrum of Left-Right, but down some rungs as well. Most of this directionality being driven (in the US anyway) by pandering to primitive parts via simple language and populist rhetoric—playing on fears mostly. For example, radio personalities have been hammering the nail for decades. Phrases like "[they're] going to take away everything you've worked so hard to gain." "They're" of course being the other political party. But in reality, we've got more dimensions than populist rhetoric in the media will admit. There are at least the two you've mentioned and the two Tim Urban observed.
This means we can add a third dimension to the map Mr. Mapmaker! A spectrum of low rung to high rung politics within those camps. On the Right, individual freedoms (high) to Authoritarianism (low) for example.
Of course most of the political rivalry lives in the armchair fans. Most of these can no more influence the policymakers than sports fans can influence a game by yelling "PASS IT!!!" to the colorful lights they're looking at on the screen. Only at scale can observers truly influence the game.