Autonomous Interdependence

While preparing a talk on team autonomy, I encountered a puzzle. Solving it required me to both revisit prior knowledge and learn new concepts. Ultimately, this process gave me a clearer understanding of the roles that autonomy and independence play within an interdependent relationship.

From dependence to independence to interdependence

"From dependence to independence to interdependence,” a concept from The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, describes a maturity continuum in personal and organizational effectiveness. Dependent people need others to get what they want. Independent people can get what they want through their own effort. Interdependent people combine their own efforts with the efforts of others to achieve their greatest success.

I have been using this model to illustrate how teams evolve in large-scale product development. Component teams are dependent on others to deliver value. Feature teams are independent and capable of delivering value on their own. Yet, to achieve greater effectiveness with a whole-product focus, feature teams choose to collaborate interdependently with other teams. This progression - from dependence to independence to interdependence - outlines a path toward effective team relationships across the whole product, a core principle advocated by LeSS. Why reference this maturity model? It aids explanation and promotes buy-in, as the continuum feels natural, is widely recognized, and is therefore convincing.

However, this analogy doesn't quite hold. Let's apply the same logic to an individual team. Initially, team members are dependent on others to deliver value. Next, each would need to become an independent contributor and be capable of delivering value alone. Then, they would choose to collaborate with others to achieve greater effectiveness. But that isn’t what we advocate within a team; we don’t require every member to be fully independent, or “full-stack,” before they can work together effectively. I am puzzled: what’s wrong with this reasoning?

Independence vs. Autonomy

So, I returned to The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, especially to learn what “independence” truly means in that model. The dependence is the paradigm of “you”: “You take care of me… I blame you for the results,” while the independence is the paradigm of “I”: “I can do it; I am responsible; I am self-reliant; I can choose.” Here, the independence does not refer to whether one can work completely alone, which we might call functional independence, but rather whether one is self-directed and can take ownership of specific responsibilities and actions, which we might call character independence. In everyday language, we might simply describe someone with character independence as mature.

With this clarification, the model now works at two levels: among members within a team and among teams within a product. For a single team to function well, which is to form an effective interdependent relationship among its members, the members must be mature. Similarly, for multiple teams to collaborate effectively on a product, which is to form an effective interdependent relationship across teams, each team as a unit must be mature. Effective interdependence requires character independence, not functional independence.

Therefore, my illustration was actually a misapplication of the model. Since functional independence is not a prerequisite, the distinction between component teams and feature teams is not the relevant factor. What truly matters is whether teams possess character independence. However, in practice, I have observed that interdependence among feature teams does tend to be more effective than among component teams. How can this be explained? I turned to Deci’s work and found it very illuminating.

Edward Deci is a psychologist who co-founded Self-Determination Theory (SDT). He identified autonomy, competence, and relatedness as three basic psychological needs. Regarding autonomy, he distinguishes it from independence. In his definition, independence means doing things for oneself and not relying on others for personal nourishment or emotional support, whereas autonomy means acting freely, with a sense of volition and choice. The opposite of independence is dependence, while the opposite of autonomy is control. Thus, it is possible for someone to be not only 1) autonomous and independent and 2) controlled and dependent, but also 3) autonomous and dependent and 4) controlled and independent. In practice, scenario 3) is often observed in effective interdependent relationships, while scenario 4) is not uncommon, such as when someone acts independently under external pressure.

Indeed, the notion of independence outlined in The 7 Habits overlaps substantially with autonomy. Autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation, resulting in greater responsibility and higher performance. This description closely resembles what we term “character independence.” By introducing the control–autonomy dimension, the maturity continuum can be reframed as from controlled dependence to autonomous independence to autonomous interdependence. Examining component-team and feature-team interdependence through this lens reveals that both involve interdependence, but the former tends to be controlled, while the latter is largely autonomous. This autonomy is precisely why feature-team interdependence is generally more effective. True autonomy means having the freedom to choose when to depend and when to act independently, as well as to switch freely; feature teams embody this capability.

A few insights

When members work together in a team, or when teams collaborate on a product, they enter a state of interdependence in order to create something greater. However, building an effective interdependence is challenging.

For independent feature teams, one challenge is cultivating their desire for interdependence. Once they choose to collaborate interdependently, they begin with a high degree of autonomy, which gives them a better chance of establishing effective interdependent dynamics.

For dependent component teams, interdependence is often a given. The challenge lies in transforming controlled dependence into autonomous dependence by creating meaningful choices. For example, giving them the option to complete dependent work on their own while requiring an external review can increase their sense of autonomy, which in turn enhances the effectiveness of their interdependence.

While autonomy is a necessary foundation, it alone is insufficient to ensure effective interdependence. This is precisely why the transition from independence to interdependence requires the deliberate practice of Habits 4–6 from The 7 Habits: Think Win-Win, Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood, and Synergize. These habits are essential, irrespective of whether teams are structured as component teams or feature teams.