That is fine, many companies have teams so used to command and control it would be impossible to change that without changing them. I am a dev manager who doesn't use command and control, knowing full well that my teams will self structure themselves around the business needs. To their credit, they are all seasoned at self organization, so come to consensus quickly, and would do so with or without me.
I'm not sure what I would do if everyone on the team was passive and expecting orders, I think that wouldn't be a very good match for our styles.
Personally I am skeptical of self-organizing teams because I have had strictly negative experiences with them as a developer.
It seems that having a self-organizing team of evenly qualified and experienced professionals is probably almost guaranteed to work, but 'working' does not mean 'optimal'.
I am almost certain that when self-organization works, command and control would still work better if you put the right person in charge.
Still, I do not think that command and control is the absolute optimal form of organization. It seems to me that true self-organization requires a number of very special ingredients that maybe the humankind is yet to discover.
Just simply declaring self-organization will lead to more or less disorganization. A disorganized team will not necessarily fail though. It depends on a number of conditions, such as the complexity of the project, the qualifications of the team, time/budget pressure, etc. If the team's proficiency greatly exceeds the project's complexity, then probably any form of organization will do.
A reasonable disorganization is probably what is actually being exploited under the buzzword of so called 'self-organization'.
I'm not sure what I would do if everyone on the team was passive and expecting orders, I think that wouldn't be a very good match for our styles.