Post by borges on Aug 24, 2018 13:57:17 GMT
Overview
My post is largely based around an online excerpt from a book entitled “The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: new perspectives on organizational change”. Link here.
The central tenet of the post-bureaucratic organization is that it is possible to make binding decisions without rigid hierarchical offices. Rather than referring to a fixed office or position, it brings together those with knowledge and interest in a problem to work out an agreement on action. The outcome is a decision that is seen as legitimate and characterized by high trust and understanding among those involved in implementation. We are already following this model to a certain extent.
Each meeting necessitates the need for explicit detailing of expected outcomes and builds in a good deal of conscious reflection on process to quickly identify points of blockage or resistance and develop approaches to overcoming them. It is also very easy for decisions that do get made to get lost after the meeting. Those who are pushing this domain, therefore, stress the need to carefully document the decisions that are made and to assign responsibility to specific people for carrying out agreed-on steps. It is important to note that these kinds of discussions only occur at the meta-level. Implementing hierarchical accountability methods for particular purposes is a valid option. Similar to how relativity theory encompasses Newtonian physics, so too does the post-bureaucratic system. Tuesday’s post emphasized discovering the similarities between the set of all organizational structures, and it seems like this might be a promising avenue of further research.
Solving meta-level-decision problems is a three-step process of (I) bringing together stakeholders; (2) creating a dialogue; and (3) achieving consensus on a path forward. Dialogue is defined by the use of influence rather than power. Influence is based primarily on knowledge of the issue, commitment to shared goals, and proven past effectiveness. These three attributes ought to characterize our voting system.
Voting Model
I think a hybrid voting model between Ken’s and Aarvoll’s would work best down the road. Ken’s model accounts for past proven effectiveness, while Aarvoll’s favorably weights the votes of the natural aristocratic element. The natural aristocracy is more likely to recognize knowledge of the issue and commitment to shared goals. In practice, we take Aarvoll’s model and add the results of previous rounds onto the results. Each previous round would be multiplied by .5 rather than being added straight on.
# of Votes = Adjusted current round + (.5 * adjusted previous round) + (.25 * adjusted secondary round) …
One could adjust the discount rate based on how much they value proven past effectiveness vs continued recognized quality contributions. In principle, you could also adjust the meritocracy vs. egalitarian weighting.
However, this model would be needlessly complicated for our current circumstances, so I think we should use Ken’s model for the time being.
A Path Forward
We need to develop a consistent format for these weekly discussions. My proposal for the next round is people should submit their ideas for how posts ought to be structured in these threads. I think we should, at the very least, explicitly state both the changes we are proposing and the goals for the next organization week. The topic for the next discussion is not the only thing you can post about, just something that should be addressed among other things you might want to bring up. These would be my resolutions for the current week:
Resolution #1: Adopt Ken’s voting model.
Resolution #2: Accept the goal of this organization as creating a functioning online academy and other attendant aspects of community.
Agenda Setting #1: What are the best ways we can format these discussions? Should we explicitly state our changes in the form of resolutions? Should resolutions automatically be adopted if the person suggesting them is chosen for that week’s organization thread or should they be subsequently voted upon individually?
Endnote: a quote of particular interest on science as an analogy for the post-bureaucratic system...
“Power is not exercised through offices—that is, decisions about funding are not made by a ‘science czar.’ But that does not mean the decisions don't get made. The key to the apparent paradox is the use of peer review, which places different people in control of different decisions at different times, according to their reputations around the problem under consideration, themselves established through very sophisticated mechanisms as mentioned above. Various corporate efforts to build temporary and flexible task forces are moves in the same direction. At the limit, in some investment banks, people form task forces entirely through peer networking, and their evaluations and rewards are based on reports from large numbers—up to several hundred—of peers who have worked with them on team projects.
Experimentation is encouraged but also controlled—that is, it is highly valued for people to seek better ways of doing or understanding, but ideas that don't pan out are rather quickly discarded. And not just any idea is open: the scientific fields through their journals define the key problems that need solving, thereby substantially concentrating energy even without the stronger mechanism of centralized funding.”
My post is largely based around an online excerpt from a book entitled “The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: new perspectives on organizational change”. Link here.
The central tenet of the post-bureaucratic organization is that it is possible to make binding decisions without rigid hierarchical offices. Rather than referring to a fixed office or position, it brings together those with knowledge and interest in a problem to work out an agreement on action. The outcome is a decision that is seen as legitimate and characterized by high trust and understanding among those involved in implementation. We are already following this model to a certain extent.
Each meeting necessitates the need for explicit detailing of expected outcomes and builds in a good deal of conscious reflection on process to quickly identify points of blockage or resistance and develop approaches to overcoming them. It is also very easy for decisions that do get made to get lost after the meeting. Those who are pushing this domain, therefore, stress the need to carefully document the decisions that are made and to assign responsibility to specific people for carrying out agreed-on steps. It is important to note that these kinds of discussions only occur at the meta-level. Implementing hierarchical accountability methods for particular purposes is a valid option. Similar to how relativity theory encompasses Newtonian physics, so too does the post-bureaucratic system. Tuesday’s post emphasized discovering the similarities between the set of all organizational structures, and it seems like this might be a promising avenue of further research.
Solving meta-level-decision problems is a three-step process of (I) bringing together stakeholders; (2) creating a dialogue; and (3) achieving consensus on a path forward. Dialogue is defined by the use of influence rather than power. Influence is based primarily on knowledge of the issue, commitment to shared goals, and proven past effectiveness. These three attributes ought to characterize our voting system.
Voting Model
I think a hybrid voting model between Ken’s and Aarvoll’s would work best down the road. Ken’s model accounts for past proven effectiveness, while Aarvoll’s favorably weights the votes of the natural aristocratic element. The natural aristocracy is more likely to recognize knowledge of the issue and commitment to shared goals. In practice, we take Aarvoll’s model and add the results of previous rounds onto the results. Each previous round would be multiplied by .5 rather than being added straight on.
# of Votes = Adjusted current round + (.5 * adjusted previous round) + (.25 * adjusted secondary round) …
One could adjust the discount rate based on how much they value proven past effectiveness vs continued recognized quality contributions. In principle, you could also adjust the meritocracy vs. egalitarian weighting.
However, this model would be needlessly complicated for our current circumstances, so I think we should use Ken’s model for the time being.
A Path Forward
We need to develop a consistent format for these weekly discussions. My proposal for the next round is people should submit their ideas for how posts ought to be structured in these threads. I think we should, at the very least, explicitly state both the changes we are proposing and the goals for the next organization week. The topic for the next discussion is not the only thing you can post about, just something that should be addressed among other things you might want to bring up. These would be my resolutions for the current week:
Resolution #1: Adopt Ken’s voting model.
Resolution #2: Accept the goal of this organization as creating a functioning online academy and other attendant aspects of community.
Agenda Setting #1: What are the best ways we can format these discussions? Should we explicitly state our changes in the form of resolutions? Should resolutions automatically be adopted if the person suggesting them is chosen for that week’s organization thread or should they be subsequently voted upon individually?
Endnote: a quote of particular interest on science as an analogy for the post-bureaucratic system...
“Power is not exercised through offices—that is, decisions about funding are not made by a ‘science czar.’ But that does not mean the decisions don't get made. The key to the apparent paradox is the use of peer review, which places different people in control of different decisions at different times, according to their reputations around the problem under consideration, themselves established through very sophisticated mechanisms as mentioned above. Various corporate efforts to build temporary and flexible task forces are moves in the same direction. At the limit, in some investment banks, people form task forces entirely through peer networking, and their evaluations and rewards are based on reports from large numbers—up to several hundred—of peers who have worked with them on team projects.
Experimentation is encouraged but also controlled—that is, it is highly valued for people to seek better ways of doing or understanding, but ideas that don't pan out are rather quickly discarded. And not just any idea is open: the scientific fields through their journals define the key problems that need solving, thereby substantially concentrating energy even without the stronger mechanism of centralized funding.”