The New Organizational Model That Is Needed For The 21st Century

I recently enjoyed participating in the World Management Agility Forum in Lisbon, Portugal where I shared the stage with Hunter Hastings for a compelling and dynamic debate regarding the world’s most valuable firms -- whether they have the right DNA to sustain their innovation and growth in an era of rapid technological change. While Hunter and I did not agree on many points, what we did agree on was the fact that we should meet again to discuss areas of common interest, particularly the need to create a new organizational model for the 21st Century.

With great earnest we launched into a successive series of debates, we re-visited discussions with our colleagues from the World Management Agility Forum, analyzed traditional organizational models, further explored SV companies, and conducted deep dives into the literature. Hunter and I also leveraged our respective and practical experiences in working within Fortune 50 companies, small-medium enterprises and start-ups -- all data points from which we felt we could expand and build upon. We were keenly interested in creating an organizational model that would free teams to make decisions, innovate, and respond to market changes with agility, and to allow organizations to continuously remove obstacles, promote knowledge flow, and create value for customers. We felt that with the right model organizations could not only survive but would thrive and flourish, setting new standards for excellence in the 21st-century business landscape.

The New Organizational Model That Is Needed For The 21st Century

The 21st-century business environment is defined by rapid technological advancements, globalization, and shifting customer expectations. These are exogenous changes, not brought on by the activities of any individual firm but a change in the environment surrounding firms. Firms are tasked with responding to and adapting to these changes. It is discomfiting that our traditional organizational structures—characterized by rigid hierarchies, siloed departments, and slow decision-making—are proving inadequate in addressing these challenges.

For CEOs, boards, and senior executives, the solution lies in adopting a new organizational model that is dynamic, agile, and centered on knowledge flow: the Kinetic Flow State Organization (KFSO).

KFSOs are designed as vibrant, responsive environments where knowledge flows freely across the organization, empowering teams to innovate, make decisions, and adapt to change quickly. By integrating the principles of flow theory, constructal theory, and tensegrity, KFSOs enable the continuous removal of obstacles to knowledge flow so as to maintain unobstructed focus on customer value creation.

The Four Principles Of KSFOs

1. Kinetics: The Core of Organizational Adaptability 

In the context of Kinetic Flow State Organizations (KFSOs), kinetics represents an organization’s ability to remain in continuous motion, constantly adapting and evolving in response to internal and external stimuli. Kinetics ensures that organizations do not remain static or rigid but instead can pivot, evolve, and grow as market dynamics, customer needs, and technologies shift. The concept of kinetics is essential to maintaining the dynamism needed for long-term success in the 21st century (Bejan & Lorente, 2008; Griep & Zacher, 2021). 

Kinetics is about sustained movement within an organization. It is not merely about the physical movement of resources or capital but the flow of energy, ideas, and innovation that propels the organization forward. A kinetic organization continuously evolves, rapidly adjusting to market conditions, technological disruptions, and feedback from customers. This allows organizations to remain agile and capable of adapting to external forces while maintaining internal cohesion (Nascimento et al., 2020). Focusing on continuous movement positions kinetic organizations to thrive in environments of uncertainty and disruption.

Kinetics addresses an organization's capacity for change — it is about maintaining momentum by continuously evolving beyond reactive change. Kinetic organizations are not just equipped to respond to change but are designed to anticipate it, avoiding the stagnation that can paralyze more rigid structures (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014). Kinetics empowers an organization to maintain its trajectory even in challenging times. 

A key element of kinetics is the ability to adapt. Just as a biological system evolves to survive in fluctuating conditions, a kinetic organization constantly adjusts to new realities. This may involve innovating new products or services, reshaping internal processes, or adopting cutting-edge technologies. Kinetics encourages proactive evolution, emphasizing foresight and continuous development rather than simply reacting to shifts in the marketplace (Freire & Andrade, 2018).

Moreover, kinetic organizations rely on real-time data, feedback loops, and decentralized decision-making to make rapid adjustments. This responsiveness ensures that the organization remains aligned with its environment, customers, and market trends (Duncan & West, 2018). It also prevents the organization from becoming overly dependent on outdated methods or siloed structures. As a result, kinetics enables an organization to continuously evolve and sustain its competitive advantage.

Kinetics ensures that the organization stays agile, adaptable, and forward-moving. By embracing the principles of continuous movement and flexibility, kinetic organizations create an environment where innovation, creativity, and resilience are not only possible but expected. This approach enables organizations to stay competitive, consistently evolving, and maintaining long-term success despite external challenges and disruptions (Alade & Windapo, 2020).

2. Removing Barriers to Flow: Adrian Bejan’s Constructal Theory 

How do organizations implement the first principle? In other words, how is flow to be achieved? There’s a simple mental model that every member of the organization can understand, adopt and act upon: look for barriers to flow and remove them, one by one. 

This approach comes from Professor Adrian Bejan’s constructal theory, which offers a compelling framework for understanding how systems evolve to improve the flow of currents that drive them—whether these currents are water in a river, heat in an engine, or knowledge in an organization (Bejan & Lorente, 2008). For businesses, the principle is clear: to succeed, they must continuously remove obstacles that block the flow of knowledge and action.

In KFSOs, this translates into removing hierarchical bottlenecks, outdated processes, bureaucratic positions and rules, and other organizational barriers that slow down innovation and adaptability. Much like a river that dynamically adjusts its path to flow around or over obstacles, KFSOs are designed to evolve continuously to ensure that knowledge can flow freely, empowering teams to innovate and make decisions autonomously (Bejan & Merkx, 2007).

3. Flow in Individuals and Teams: A Mental State of  Constant Movement and Adaptation

The concept of flow as individual experience, developed by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Jiro Nakamura, is central to KFSOs. Flow describes a state of deep focus and immersion in an activity, where team members perform at their peak and are fully aligned with their goals. In a KFSO, flow isn’t just an individual experience; it is an organizational phenomenon. Teams achieve flow when they are aligned with the organization’s mission, working together seamlessly in harmony to overcome challenges and create value for the customer.

Flow is synonymous with a sense of purpose and meaning, and is a catalyst for the levels of engagement and commitment that are required of every member of the firm in the dynamic, and sometimes turbulent, navigation of the surging waves of exogenous environmental change. 

4. Tensegrity: The Structural Foundation of KFSOs 

How can an organization retain sufficient structure to be internally cohesive combined with the flexibility required to adapt rapidly to external change? At the core of a KFSO’s structural design lies the concept of tensegrity, developed by Buckminster Fuller and Kenneth Snelson. Tensegrity refers to a structure in which components are held together by a balance of tensile (stretching) and compressive (pushing) forces. These systems are simultaneously stable and flexible, able to withstand external pressures while adapting to changing conditions (Al Azem, 2022). The principles of tensegrity apply to organizational design in profound ways. 

In a KFSO, teams function like the interconnected components of a tensegrity structure. Each team operates with autonomy, free to innovate and make decisions, but all are connected by shared goals and a unified purpose—delivering value to the customer. This design allows KFSOs to remain flexible, agile, and capable of adapting to market shifts, technological disruptions, and evolving customer needs. The tension between autonomy and interdependence creates a dynamic balance, ensuring that while teams innovate, they remain aligned with the organization’s overall mission, moving forward in harmony. (Connelly, 2013). 

In traditional organizations, departments are often defined by their boundaries more than by their connections, leading to bottlenecks in decision-making and a lack of cohesion. In a KFSO, however, these boundaries dissolve. Just as tensegrity structures rely on balanced forces to maintain stability, KFSOs rely on cross-functional collaboration and shared purpose to create a unified organization where knowledge flows freely and teams operate in harmony (Zheng et al., 2008).

Christopher Alexander’s concept of wholeness in architecture serves as a guiding principle for KFSOs when it comes to organizational design and structure. Just as a well-designed building enhances the lives of its occupants by promoting a harmonious flow between spaces, a thoughtfully constructed organization facilitates innovation and collaboration by removing barriers that impede the flow of knowledge. In architecture, wholeness is achieved when each component of a building works together to create a cohesive and functional space. 

Similarly, in KFSOs, organizational elements are designed to work in harmony, ensuring that knowledge flows freely and teams can operate efficiently and adapt dynamically. This balance between structure and flexibility mirrors the architectural principles of tensegrity, where the integrity of a building is maintained through a combination of tension and compression, allowing for strength and flexibility (Motro, 2011). This approach to organizational design fosters a system that is both stable and adaptable, enabling teams to innovate and thrive. 

By anchoring this concept in architecture, KFSOs build an environment where organizational "spaces"—teams, departments, and workflows—are interconnected, creating a seamless flow of knowledge and ideas across the entire structure. 

The Benefits Of KFSOs 

For business firms that implement the principles of KFSOs there is a generous and expanding set of benefits. 

1. Knowledge Flow

What Flows in a KFSO? The most strategically important resource of all: knowledge. 

At the heart of a KFSO is the flow of knowledge—both tacit and explicit—which is essential for decision-making, innovation, and customer satisfaction. Recent studies confirm the strategic importance of knowledge flow within dynamic organizations, particularly in the context of knowledge management and the ability to respond to external market forces (Nascimento et al., 2020).

Knowledge flow is the foundation of innovation, problem-solving, and organizational adaptability, with firms increasingly recognizing the importance of their absorptive capacity (the ability of a firm to identify, assimilate and use external knowledge) and the role of emerging technologies in supporting knowledge dissemination (Oo & Rakthin, 2022).

In KFSOs, the focus is on removing structural barriers that impede the flow of knowledge. As Junior et al. (2023) emphasize, for organizations to stay competitive, they must evolve to ensure that knowledge processing mechanisms are optimized to handle large-scale and real-time data, thus empowering teams to make faster, more informed decisions. This aligns with Adrian Bejan's constructal theory, which posits that systems must continuously evolve to enhance the flow of currents, whether they be knowledge or energy, for long-term sustainability (Bejan & Lorente, 2008; Freire, 2018). 

Bartley J. Madden states that a firm’s knowledge-building proficiency is of first importance in determining a firm's survival and prosperity. When knowledge flows freely, there is a rapid feedback loop from the consequences of actions taken in the market, resulting in fast learning and dynamic knowledge building. 

A strong example of knowledge flow in action can be found at Google, where the company's culture is built around the free and seamless exchange of information. Google encourages both tacit and explicit knowledge sharing through open collaboration platforms, frequent cross-departmental discussions, and a focus on innovation. This flow of knowledge is supported by their data-driven decision-making processes, which rely on large-scale, real-time information. Google's "20% time" policy, which allows team members to spend a portion of their time on innovative projects, helps remove structural barriers to knowledge flow by encouraging the exploration of new ideas and solutions without departmental silos. 

This case study reflects the KFSO principle of knowledge flow by showcasing how Google creates an environment where knowledge is constantly shared and leveraged to drive innovation. By optimizing knowledge flow and removing barriers, Google empowers its teams to make faster, more informed decisions, aligning with Adrian Bejan’s constructal theory of continuous evolution. This approach results in rapid learning and problem-solving, contributing to Google’s long-term sustainability and success. 

2. Alignment

In KFSOs, alignment is crucial for ensuring that all team members and departments move in the same direction—toward the shared goal of creating value for the customer. Alignment in a KFSO occurs when every individual is fully aware of and committed to the organization’s mission and purpose. This shared intent dissolves traditional barriers like silos, allowing for seamless collaboration and communication. 

Knowledge, in this context of full alignment, becomes the lifeblood of the organization. It drives innovation, problem-solving, and customer satisfaction, as team members work cohesively to meet common objectives. For this flow of knowledge to be effective, KFSOs must actively remove any obstacles, whether they are cultural, structural, or technological. By doing so, the organization creates an environment where individuals can efficiently share ideas and knowledge, helping the entire team move forward in harmony. 

In a KFSO, alignment does not mean uniformity in thought, but rather a shared direction. Teams are encouraged to explore different ideas and pathways, but they remain unified in their overall purpose. This alignment ensures that while there is diversity in approach, everyone is ultimately contributing to the same goals—delivering value to the customer. 

A fitting example of alignment in a KFSO is Pixar Animation Studios. Pixar fosters a culture of alignment through collaboration, creativity, and transparency, which are hallmarks of KFSO principles. One of Pixar’s key practices is its "Braintrust" meetings, where teams come together to provide honest, constructive feedback, ensuring alignment across departments while promoting creativity and innovation. Pixar also dissolves traditional silos by maintaining an open work environment, encouraging spontaneous interactions between different teams and cross-disciplinary collaboration. 

This approach reflects the core of KFSO alignment, where team members are free to explore new ideas but remain focused on a shared goal. Pixar’s alignment is evident in the way teams operate autonomously yet contribute cohesively to the company’s overarching mission of producing groundbreaking films. By fostering a unified purpose through transparent communication and removing structural barriers, Pixar enables its teams to innovate while creating long-term value for the organization and its customers. This case study exemplifies how a KFSO model of alignment drives both creativity and sustained success.  

3. Engagement 

Engagement in KFSOs stems from the mental state of flow, where individuals are deeply immersed in their tasks and feel a strong connection to the organization’s purpose. The concept of team member engagement can be further supported by Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel (Bakker, 2014) and Duncan & West (Duncan, 2018). When team members are engaged, they are more likely to take ownership of their roles, make decisions autonomously, and collaborate effectively across departments (Tadic et al., 2015). 

A key driver of engagement in KFSOs is the organization’s commitment to continuous learning and error correction. In these environments, team members are encouraged to critique, refine, and question their understanding of tasks and objectives, which fosters ongoing learning and adaptability. Engagement is heightened when individuals feel free to make meaningful contributions and know that their input is valued. 

Moreover, KFSOs prioritize adaptability and anticipation. Engaged team members are not merely reacting to external challenges; they are proactively anticipating future opportunities and evolving to meet them. This proactive mindset distinguishes KFSOs from traditional organizations, where engagement is often reactive and driven by external pressures. 

To sustain engagement, KFSOs focus on creating conditions for flow—through autonomy, alignment, and continuous feedback. While traditional metrics may still play a role in tracking progress, the emphasis in KFSOs shifts to cultivating an environment where team members can thrive, innovate, and perform at their best. This results in not only higher levels of engagement but also long-term value creation for both the organization and its customers. 

In recent years, under the leadership of Satya Nadella, Microsoft has transformed its organizational culture by focusing on continuous learning, open feedback, and fostering a growth mindset. A critical part of this shift involved empowering team members to take ownership of their work through feedback loops and promoting a learning culture, where failure was seen as an opportunity for growth. This led to a significant improvement in team member engagement, collaboration across teams, and overall innovation.

Microsoft’s transition to a cloud-first company was fueled by this engagement, with team members becoming more deeply connected to the company's mission and values, driving both performance and innovation. The emphasis on feedback and learning aligns with KFSO principles by ensuring team members are engaged and fully immersed in the company’s purpose, contributing to sustained long-term success. 

4. Dynamic Leadership 

In many traditional organizations, leadership has often relied on top-down authority, which can stifle innovation and create friction. However, in a Kinetic Flow State Organization (KFSO), leadership is redefined. Instead of commanding and controlling, leaders act as facilitators of knowledge flow, focusing on creating environments where autonomy, collaboration, and innovation thrive and flourish. This dynamic form of leadership ensures that the organization remains agile and adaptive to external challenges while maintaining a clear focus on its goals. Alade and Windapo (Alade, 2020) provide insights into leadership frameworks that are particularly relevant to constructing leadership models in dynamic environments like KFSOs. 

Leaders in KFSOs are not the sole decision-makers; they liberate teams and individuals to lead within their areas of expertise. This decentralized, situational leadership allows expert groups or individuals with specialized knowledge to take the lead when necessary, ensuring that decisions are made by those closest to the relevant information. At other times, the same individuals may step back and act as collaborators or supporters, contributing to a collective decision-making process. The role of the leader in this context is to facilitate this dynamic, ensuring that the flow of knowledge remains unobstructed (Griep, 2021; Zacher, 2020). 

Leaders in KFSOs focus on enabling autonomy and removing barriers to knowledge flow. A prime example can be found at Tesla, where Elon Musk empowers teams to make decisions autonomously using machine learning and artificial intelligence within the broader framework of the company's mission. This leadership style supports rapid learning and innovation, as teams can adapt and experiment freely while remaining aligned with the company’s goals. Leaders at Tesla act as enablers, ensuring that the tools, resources, and autonomy needed for innovation are available, while still maintaining strategic oversight.

Similarly, Spotify’s "Squad Model" showcases how decentralized decision-making can foster dynamic leadership. Each squad operates like a mini-startup, with the freedom to innovate and make independent decisions. This model ensures that leadership is distributed across teams, allowing for faster responses to customer needs. Leaders at Spotify focus on aligning the squads with the organization’s overall mission while encouraging experimentation and flexibility in how they achieve that mission. This combination of alignment and autonomy is a hallmark of dynamic leadership in KFSOs. 

In a KFSO, leaders also face the challenge of achieving wholeness—ensuring that all teams are aligned with a shared purpose while still allowing for autonomy. Christopher Alexander’s concept of wholeness is applied more broadly to the role of leadership in shaping organizational culture and behavior (Alexander C. 2002). Here, wholeness is about ensuring that all parts of the organization are aligned with its overarching mission while still allowing for individual autonomy. 

Just as a well-designed building nurtures a sense of coherence and purpose among its occupants, dynamic leaders in KFSOs are responsible for designing environments that support alignment, creativity, and the continuous flow of knowledge. Leaders focus on removing not just structural barriers but also cultural and procedural ones, fostering an environment where teams operate in harmony and can thrive and collaborate effectively while driving sustained innovation. 

By removing rigid hierarchies and bureaucratic barriers, dynamic leaders in KFSOs allow teams to thrive in their autonomy, focus on collaboration, and deliver consistent value to customers. They ensure that every part of the organization is working toward the same goal—creating value for the customer—while maintaining the flexibility to adapt and innovate as circumstances evolve. 

KFSOs Are the Future Of Organizational Design 

Kinetic Flow State Organizations (KFSOs) represent the future of organizational design. For all businesses, adopting the KFSO model is a strategic imperative in an era of constant disruption, technological change, and global competition. By embracing the principles of kinetics, tensegrity, constructal theory, and flow theory, KFSOs enable organizations to become adaptive, resilient, and customer-focused. 

The KFSO model frees teams to make decisions, innovate, and respond to market changes with agility. It allows organizations to continuously remove obstacles, promote knowledge flow, and create value for customers. Those organizations that adopt this model will not only survive but will thrive and flourish, setting new standards for excellence in the 21st-century business landscape. 

Mark Béliczky and Hunter Hastings

References 

Al Azem, R., Elleithy, W., Lau, T. L., & Anwar, M. P. (2022). Parametric study of tensegrity structures under seismic loading. E3S Web of Conferences. 

Alade, K., & Windapo, A. (2020). Developing effective 4IR leadership framework for construction organisations. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 

Alexander, C. (2002). The nature of order: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe (Vol. 1, The phenomenon of life). The Center for Environmental Structure. 

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 389-411. 

Bejan, A., & Lorente, S. (2008). Design with constructal theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science. 

Bejan, A., & Merkx, G. (2007). Constructal theory of social dynamics. Springer.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row. 

Connelly, R. (2013). Tensegrities and global rigidity. Springer. 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. 

Duncan, J., & West, R. (2018). Conceptualizing group flow: A framework. Educational Research Review, 13, 1-11. 

Fuller, R. B. (1975). Synergetics: Explorations in the geometry of thinking. Macmillan. 

Freire, L. O., & Andrade, D. (2018). Constructal law of institutions within social organizations. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(3), 103-125.

Griep, Y., & Zacher, H. (2021). Temporal dynamics in organizational psychology. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. 

Junior, J. M., Potrich, L. N., Todesco, J. L., & Selig, P. M. (2023). Mapping scientific production on organizational knowledge flow. European Conference on Knowledge Management.

Madden, B. J. (2020). Value creation principles. Wiley 

Motro, R. (2011). Tensegrity: Structural systems for the future. Kogan Page Science. 

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 195-206). Oxford University Press. 

Nascimento, L., Reichert, F., Janissek-Muniz, R., & Zawislak, P. (2020). Dynamic interactions among knowledge management, strategic foresight and emerging technologies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(2), 275-297. 

Oo, N. C. K. K., & Rakthin, S. (2022). Integrative review of absorptive capacity’s role in fostering organizational resilience and research agenda. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(5), 1022-1044 

Scipioni, S. (2021). A novel taxonomy of organizational learning contextual factors: Review of 2004–2020 top-ranked journals. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management. 

Snelson, K. (1965). Continuous tension, discontinuous compression structures. Archive of Applied Mechanics, Springer. 

Tadic, M., Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. (2015). Challenge versus hindrance job demands and well-being: A diary study on the moderating role of job resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(4), 702-725. 

Zacher, H., & Rudolph, C. (2020). How a dynamic way of thinking can challenge existing knowledge in organizational behavior. In Handbook on theTemporal Dynamics of Organizational Behavior. Edward Elgar Publishing. 

Zheng, C., Doll, J., Gu, E., Hager-Barnard, E. A., Huang, Z., Kia, A., Ortiz, M. E., Petzold, B., Usui, T., Kwon, R., Jacobs, C., & Kuhl, E. (2008). Exploring cellular tensegrity: Physical modeling and computational simulation. Proceedings of the ASME SBC Conference, 283-284.