# Positional vs. Relational Strategy, flow and distributed cognition in teams.

By [Adrian Ho](https://paragraph.com/@adrianho) · 2023-10-19

---

There’s an incredibly fascinating debate taking place within football (soccer) between two very different strategic approaches. On the one side - the reigning and dominant style for the last 20 years is **Positional** **Strategy** which places team structure, space and shape above individual creativity. Sequences are practiced over and over again until they are memorized, simply to be executed at the appropriate times. This is a top-down, orchestrated and highly planned strategic method that is designed to remove decision-making from players and create spaces that can’t be covered or defended against, leading to predictable outcomes when executed well.

An emerging approach is **Relational Strategy** which places freedom of movement, the creation of relationships and creativity above all else. There are still structures, but these are emergent rather than planned and it is up to players to identify and take advantage of them. It is heavily reliant upon a shared understanding between teammates and their ability to form relationships. This style favors creativity and improvisation and is IMO more exciting and interesting to watch.

It’s a heated, wonky and philosophical debate but I think this video from [The Purist Football](https://www.youtube.com/@thepurist_) does the best job of breaking down what its actually about:

[![]({{DOMAIN}}/editor/youtube/play.png)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IevycgbLct0)

Another way to think about this is that Positional Strategy is about reliability and predictability, whereas Relational Strategy is about achieving Flow.

Flow has been well-researched at an individual level, but there has been less studied around group flow. However, a [literature review of group flow studies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312318/) also highlights the important role of relationships:

> **_Group flow is a shared state of balance within a group as represented by (a) fluent_, _positive interactions within the group_, _(b) a high collective competence of the group and (c) a collective state of mind of the group by means of positive relationships between group members_, _often resulting in optimal collective performance and creativity_, _and making group flow a positive collective experience_.**

A lot of ink and anguish has been devoted towards the break down of relationships as a result of our distributed, hybrid and virtual working environments. But it turns out that relationships haven’t become less important - in fact [they matter more](https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/relational-power-is-the-new-currency-of-hybrid-work/):

> We found that relational needs play a key role in sustaining manager-employee relationships in virtual environments. The term _relational needs_ refers to the drivers of social exchange between managers and employees. … Our research revealed that to be successful in the new world of work, managers cannot depend only on hierarchical position as the basis for providing leadership. They must also recognize the role of relational power in hybrid work.

### So what’s actually been lost in the shift to hybrid work is structure and control. And that’s why the people who had control are the ones most eager to return to the office.

But, if relationships matter more and they are at the heart of achieving flow within teams, how can these be strengthened and developed?

Again, the research is new and scarce but a small number of studies have [analyzed team performance](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/EFC53D8AC35562172F2B6D792ECB66E5/S2732527X21001310a.pdf/distributed-cognition-transformation-in-complete-online-system-engineering-design-teaching.pdf) through the lens of distributed cognition. Broadly speaking, distributed cognition suggests that the [interplay between the three principles](https://www.ahrq.gov/patient-safety/reports/issue-briefs/distributed-cognition-er-nurses2.html#:~:text=Principles%20of%20distributed%20cognition%20cross,%2C%20information%20flow%2C%20and%20artifacts.) of: physical organization of work, information flow and artifacts can result in distributed cognition that is spread across time, space and people.

The results, while specific to an engineering/design team, show a surprising rejection of structure, orchestration and planning:

> … **the information flow architecture within the team is more complex than that in the same ordinary or co-located teams in different directions. Our engineering team relied on some digital complex artefacts with sophisticated structures at the same time, used simply designed artefacts but in a complex way.** Third, Sharing information required to be explicitly performed, and all information needed to be available and transformed almost immediately. Fourth, **the way information was shared, including what, when and how, is an individual decision made by the team members**. These points are relevant for defining strategies for remote work. Fifth, **we did not observe any usage of previously common models of communication such as email, telephone calls or SMS, this shows a significant change in the information flow architecture**… Sixth, **while different complex social networks were created within the team, they are mostly trackable and well documented** because using platforms, especially text-based and voice messages, are easily available for later reference. This point indicates a distributed computer-based memory as a part of team cognition

I am still thinking though what all this means and while writing helps, this is still more of a notepad of ideas. But it is clear that relationships trump control and that building relationships within this environment requires more complexity not less.

Most importantly, a shift towards strategic approaches that require more individual creativity and improvisation (and a shift away from hierarchical structures that impose rigidity and predictability) is not in conflict with a shift to distributed, hybrid and remote working environments but could be the only ways we thrive and perform within them.

---

*Originally published on [Adrian Ho](https://paragraph.com/@adrianho/positional-vs-relational-strategy-flow-and-distributed-cognition-in-teams)*