How can delegated group decision-making affect and democratize the decision making process in complex organizations? How can the key elements of liquid democracy, structured discourse* and delegated voting**, help organizations solve their problems?
Here some initial thoughts on in which organizational areas could be positively impacted by its implementation in real life:
Product planning and resource investment:
"The itinerant product manager position"
Old model, product managers are the ultimate responsible person of the success of the product. In the new model, the whole team is responsible for the success of the product. No place to hide. Everybody is committed. Some might disagree with the final decision but if they want to support the system they will go along with the group's decision. The group succeeds and fails together.
Product managers can use this method to decide what is the next list of features to develop. While it would be counterproductive to have two product managers campaigning for their backlog, we could easily see a product manager campaigning for a proposed backlog. Discussion and suggested changes would be suggested by team members and after enough time for debate has been given and enough amendments have been introduced by the product manager, the whole team would vote. If the backlog is rejected, someone else could stand up and propose his own backlog and garner enough support to win a vote.
With this model, everybody could be a product manager at any given time provided he gets enough support for his proposal. Suddenly decision making power is not something someone holds indefinitely. Decision making power can rotate and is given based on an ad-hoc idea meritocracy: whoever proposes the idea that gets more support in a given moment gets the opportunity to lead the team for the next release. That could be called 'itinerant product leadership'.
If egos and personalities are managed properly this could be a really healthy process: people get to change roles constantly (sometimes you are a manager, sometimes you are a direct report), people are motivated because at any time they have the chance become leaders thanks to a transparent system that allows the best ideas to get the attention they deserve (with no politics involved)
Leadership election:
"True majority-backed leaders"
The old model, while fair sometimes, lacks transparency: leadership is given by appointment, not always by merit or peer recognition. Proteges of executives usually get advantageous positions when a position opens. High performing employees with bad managers not always get the visibility they deserve. Top talent employees are not always the best, but just the ones who are close to their manager.
With the new model, people leadership is not appointed. It surfaces from the unique support from individuals. True leaders are the ones with more quantifiable backings: more people vote for their proposal and more people are willing to delegate their decision making to them.
Organizational model:
"liquid ever-flowing structure"
The moment leaders emerge, not elected, organizational models and structures lose meaning. Given the ever changing conditions that organizations constantly face, why would the organization have to be static? Why can't the organization change at the same pace its environment changes? Why stick to a rigid hierarchy when a new model can outcompete the leadership by being more efficient and transparent?
Leaders are note created over night so it is not likely that there is going to be a constant change of leadership. Leaders don't get their qualities by accident which means that they won't become leaders by accident. Most likely they will stay in leadership positions as long as there is nothing better. The moment something better comes up, there will be debate and potentially a change, but if this happens it will happen because it is demanded and won't be delayed by anyone in leadership position trying to retain power and maintain the status quo. Organizational change will happen on demand, when it is necessary (as felt by the members of the organization), and its replacement will happen swiftly.
Webography
Liquid Democracy: http://globalfree.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/liquiddemocracy/
Footnotes
* The ability for members of an organization to collaboratively create texts, debate individual paragraphs, and vote on the final draft.
** The ability for members to at any time delegate their vote to another member or use it themselves
Photo
Ruth Thorne-Thomson
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment