Team cohesion: what anthropology teaches us about holding organizations together

What is team cohesion, really?

Open any management article on team cohesion and you'll get the same definition. It's the interpersonal bond that keeps a team united toward shared goals. Trust, communication, belonging, all of that.

Fine. But that's a description of what cohesion looks like from the outside. It doesn't tell you what produces it.

Most explanations stop at trust and communication. Those are symptoms. The real question is what mechanism creates them in the first place. What is the glue underneath the glue?

Years ago I wrote an academic article with Nicolas Chevrollier, a professor at Nyenrode. Somewhere in the middle of our work he asked me a question I've never quite been able to shake.

"What is the glue that holds a decentralized organization together? I'm not talking about the org charts or the fancy management models with their fancy terms. I'm looking for the real glue. The thing that actually keeps them from flying apart once you take the middle managers away."

I didn't have a good answer for him then. I mumbled something about autonomy, purpose, and culture, and moved on.

You'll often see articles asking, "What are the five traits of a cohesive team?" It's the wrong question. Traits are outputs. What we want to know is the input. What people are doing, every single day, that produces those traits.

The two challenges every organization must solve

Strip any organization down to its essentials and you find two fundamental challenges.

1. The first is how to divide work into smaller pieces. Academics call this the division of labor. For radically decentralized organizations, this challenge is by now well understood. A network of small autonomous teams. Frederic Laloux, Gary Hamel, and many others have described it in detail. This is the visible part. The structure. The flat org chart.
2. The second challenge is much harder. Once you've broken a company into dozens or hundreds of autonomous units, and there are no middle managers left to coordinate them, how do you synchronize all that work so the whole becomes bigger than the sum of its parts?

Academics call this the integration of effort. And it is far less understood.

Because this challenge isn't about structures you can draw on a whiteboard. It's about what people do and feel, every day, in a thousand small moments. It's about relationships.

So the two challenges get solved in very different places.

1. Division of labor is solved through organizational design: the teams, the units, the roles, the structure.
2. Integration of effort is solved somewhere else entirely. Through what I've started to think of as relational design. A concept that's much less familiar.

Management science has shelves of books on how to structure a company and almost nothing on how relationships actually hold it together. But there's another field that has studied this for a century, in villages and tribes and families all over the world. Anthropology. And nobody has mapped relationships more precisely than Fiske.

You'll also see articles asking, "What are the four pillars of team cohesion?" Same problem. It assumes one universal model. In reality, cohesion comes in fundamentally different flavors, and the pillars for one flavor look nothing like the pillars for another.

Conformations: the invisible mechanism behind team cohesion

Fiske's new book introduces a concept he calls conformations. The academic definition is dense, so here it is in plain words.

A conformation is any act that makes a relationship real. Not a description of the relationship. The relationship itself, in action.

A relationship between two people isn't a thing you can point at. It only exists as long as both people carry the same picture of it in their heads and keep confirming that picture through what they do.

When colleagues share lunch from the same table, when teammates draw straws for an unpopular task, when a customer pays the price on the tag, they aren't just doing practical stuff. They are declaring, to each other and to everyone watching: this is the kind of relationship we have, and I'm committed to it.

Or to put it another way: a relationship only exists insofar as people's conformations are aligned. These small acts are the mechanism by which mental models get synchronized into common knowledge and common feeling.

Fiske's ideas weren't born in a laboratory or a business school. They were seeded in the field, when he lived for two years in a village in Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) in the early 1980s, watching how people greeted each other, shared their food, and settled who owed what to whom.

Decades later, on the same continent, I'm reading the summation of that life's work and using it to make sense of organizations like SINA, and progressive companies in Amsterdam, the Basque Country, and Tokyo.

So the question isn't, "How do you improve team cohesion?" with a checklist of tips and tricks. The question is, "What conformations does your organization run on, and are you doing them consistently?"

Three types of team cohesion (with real company examples)

Fiske identified several relational logics. Three of them show up again and again in the flat organizations we've visited. Each creates cohesion through completely different conformations.

Some organizations are built on equality. Some on community. Some on market dynamics.

The flavor tells you which logic the organization runs on. The conformations tell you what people actually do, every single day, to keep that logic alive and shared.

1. Equality-driven cohesion: matching acts at NER group

Take the NER Group companies in the Basque Country, all running on an equality-oriented management logic called NER style. Their glue is what Fiske calls equality matching: concrete acts that make people demonstrably even.

Everyone gets one vote on important decisions. Teams elect representatives who rotate. Profits are shared in equal parts. Unpopular decisions, like who works the summer shift, are settled by turn-taking.

None of these are just administrative acts. Every vote cast, every representative chosen, every turn taken is a small public declaration: here, we are equals.

That shared feeling of equality is what lets thousands of autonomous colleagues trust each other without a single middle manager.

2. Market-driven cohesion: pricing acts at disco corp

Now look at Disco Corp in Japan, one of the most fascinating companies I'm researching for my new book. Their glue is what Fiske calls market pricing: numbers, rates, and prices that everyone accepts as binding.

Inside Disco, almost everything has a price, expressed in the company's internal currency called Will. Tasks are auctioned. Meeting rooms cost money. Colleagues pay each other for work delivered.

To an outsider this can look cold. But watch closely and you see the same mechanism at work as at NER Group. Not with matching acts, but with pricing acts.

Every price paid is an agreement made visible. When I accept your bid, we both know exactly what we owe each other, and so does everyone else. Thousands of autonomous colleagues stay synchronized through numbers they all trust.

3. Community-driven cohesion: sharing acts at Buurtzorg

Finally, consider Buurtzorg, the Dutch nursing organization with more than 10,000 nurses in 850 self-managed teams, 50 back-office staff, 21 coaches, and 2 directors. Their glue is what Fiske calls communal sharing: acts that make people feel like one body.

Nurses in a team share everything. The same clients, the same responsibility, the same pot of results. They drink coffee together, train together, celebrate together, and step in for each other without keeping score.

Nobody tracks who did more. The point is precisely that nobody tracks it.

Each shared coffee and each unreturned favor sends the same signal: we are one. That feeling of unity is what allows a thousand teams to move in the same direction with only a handful of coaches.

You'll see articles asking, "What are the four stages of team cohesion?" as if cohesion is a linear process every team goes through. A more useful lens is which type of cohesion fits your organization. Because forcing communal sharing onto a company that runs on market pricing, or the other way around, is how you get corporate theater instead of real cohesion.

How to design for team cohesion without managers

Here is my takeaway from the SINA village in Uganda.

We've spent years explaining how radical decentralized companies divide their work. Networks of teams, micro-enterprises, self-managing units. But that's only the visible part, and it's the easy part.

The real magic sits in the invisible part. The daily stream of votes, prices, shared meals, turns, and promises through which people constantly re-align their picture of how they relate to each other.

Team cohesion is not built through team-building exercises or communication workshops. It is built through this daily stream of small acts that keep everyone's mental model of the relationship aligned.

Organizational design handles the division of labor. Relational design handles cohesion. Most organizations focus almost exclusively on the first and neglect the second.

Remove the middle managers and these small acts are all you have left. They are not the nice-to-haves. They are the organization.

Fiske just gave this invisible glue a name: conformations. I suspect I'll be using that word a lot around here.

So, Nicolas, if you're reading this: that question you asked me all those years ago, about the real glue holding these companies together? Here's my answer, finally.

The glue is the acts themselves. The votes, the prices, the shared coffee.

Want to know everything we learned after 10+ years of studying progressive organisations? Check out the Masterclass.

Learn directly from pioneering companies Buurtzorg, Haier, and Viisi's own leaders. Walk away certified, with a lifetime network of 1,200+ pioneers in 38+ countries.