Rhineland organising

We regularly get the desire to get a team more involved in change. But how do you do that? How can you increase ownership and use the creativity and experiences of the professional to make changes successful? One organisational option is Rhineland organising. An originally Dutch approach, with ancient roots and surprising possibilities. What are its advantages and disadvantages?

A task and a team

Rhineland organising has to do with 'from the bottom up'. Successful change requires a clear task and a motivated team. Is it enough 'together' and is there enough direction to get to 'work', i.e. the task. Thus, it becomes working together. So, in addition to the task, the team is also seen.

Our programmes focus on the team. Strengthen trust in each other, connection, people learn to address each other positively, bringing problems to the table with a view to opportunities; 'to learn from'.

Resulting in a close-knit team. Reconnecting to changing circumstances can quickly lead to the desired result. It remains a continuous process, so investing in it makes a difference.

Where do we stand

Team4Teams works both with organisations organised in an Anglo-Saxon way and with organisations in which Rhineland organising is visible. In both organisational models, successes can be found and things can also go wrong. In both organisational types, we meet people of good will.

Collaborative improvement timeline

Rhineland organising

A Rhineland way of working we regularly see in family businesses, in shops, small enterprises. But even a large healthcare institution like Buurtzorg is organised in a Rhineland way. Not everyone is equal in it, but everyone has access to everyone. Equality is honoured in it. We do it together. The primary task remains central, the professional gets a voice, the team is focused on that, the 'office' supports. Anything can derail in this too. Self-management' and 'self-organisation' based on equality, concepts derived from Rhineland thinking, also have their limits.

Anglo-Saxon leadership thinking

Rhineland organising stands alongside Anglo-Saxon leadership thinking. The Anglo-Saxon model works in layers, structures and with a matrix: There is a Supervisory Board, management board, a management layer, there are managers for communication, for the production department and for sales, among others.

There is a risk that decision-makers no longer see the primary process in concrete terms. There may then be 'glass ceilings'. And therefore a risk that decisions are made over the heads of the implementers. With in a derailing situation that management is busy with itself and that pressure in the management layer contributes to there being no more room for input from the bottom up. This causes changes to stagnate and get bogged down, so that change only 'has to' be implemented under negative pressure. Resulting in more absenteeism and downtime. Not that anyone has the cause and effect of this in focus anymore.

The Anglo-Saxon model is under pressure, but it is also a kind of prison, from which it is not easy to escape. Examples of dysfunctional organisations we unfortunately see in our governments, in hard profit-driven business, resulting in exploitation and, unfortunately, plenty in healthcare, where organisations merge and economies of scale create more distance. 

For us too, to what extent do we speak out against 'the organisational system', or do we stay neatly within the lines given by the client? What is actually central? And what works?

The human scale

We see its effect daily in our team-building exercises: create two teams and there is competition. The contact between the teams stops. It is still about 'who wins'. So it is also a general human reaction. Effectiveness and efficiency focus on cost cutting and profitability, with chances of poverty in any form arising somewhere unseen.

It is human, but where is the human touch? In Team4Teams, we put working together at the centre. This can work well both Anglo-Saxon and Rhineland-wide, and there are limits.

The Anglo-Saxon leadership model

Pro

  • focused on shareholders, profits and productivity
  • scalable to unprecedented size
  • easier to finance by targeting shareholders (listed).
  • Able to buy up creative start-ups.
  • Makes extensive use of consultancy and all kinds of training.

Contra

  • Works from 'solidified time' through, for example, a time clock.
  • Driven from leadership and management layers.
  • A danger on 'intensive human husbandry'
  • A rake structure incurs additional management and advisory costs once it becomes more self-absorbed.
  • lots of consultancy and training costs.
  • A remote approach with planning & control, working from budgets, risks losing contact with the implementer and the customer/citizen out of suspicion.
  • Reports and reports calling for detailed and repeated accountability.

The government in particular suffers from this. Without knowing quite what to do about it. The benefits scandal is an example where the central government plays a role, from the Senate and House of Representatives to local officials. Counselling citizens in debt is another example with (counted by the NRC on 13 May 2025) 100 counsellors per citizen in debt as a result. We are making things very easy for Trumpian thinkers this way. Anyone can see that here, an individual civil servant, with knowledge, leeway and trust from their superiors, could have done more here according to the human scale (and with the ability to act differently) at much lower cost.

Rhineland organising

Pro

  • customer and human-centred
  • with long-term focus and care for each other (small-scale)
  • family-run, unlisted companies
  • creative and flexible from within.
  • Organisational advice, rather than consultancy
  • works from 'liquid time' sometimes asking for a little more time (slow down) in order to gain time later (to speed up).
  • Flat organisational form. Self-organisation offers each team member what suits him or her. Each team member is thus approached and supported in a way that suits the team member. Allowing for difference makes the team stronger.

Contra

  • It takes time and overall commitment to switch from Anglo-Saxon to Rhineland, because it requires a different mindset from everyone. 
  • Self-organisation is not beatific and does require direction, managerial involvement and boundaries.
  • Using self-direction as a cutback (from Anglo-Saxon management thinking) is counter-productive. Dominant team members get the chance to take control and because the organisation 'takes', employees cannot do much else but 'take' what is good for themselves. New team members are not equally included in the team and have to do the jobs no one wants to do.

Team4Teams coaches Anglo-Saxon and Rhineland teams 

And sees what works as soon as changes are needed. In the Netherlands, a Rhineland approach was popular until the 1980s. Anglo-Saxon management thinking then prevailed in a liberal landscape. With leadership as a key theme, the EU currently faces a crossroads with President Trump's exemplary leadership in mind. Those who are big and strong get everything. This might well lead to new thinking about what it takes to achieve high levels of cooperation, in Europe, in organisations and companies, in teams. Where organisations, companies and teams are concerned, we like to think along with you.

Contact