3 ms·

Adding one thing not addressed directly: sometimes people disagree and there needs to be a decision mechanism. Consensus is obviously preferable. But it scales

Adding one thing not addressed directly: sometimes people disagree and there needs to be a decision mechanism. Consensus is obviously preferable. But it scales very poorly. A simple workaround is to nominate someone as the tie-breaker. To avoid secondary rounds of nonsense, you try to pick someone with the respect of their peers.

hopsoft 11y ago
Conway's Law & micro-services help maintain flatter organizations at least in tech focused companies. When disagreements arise & consensus is hard, the various parties can simply introduce a new service boundary & go their different ways.
- jacques_chester 11y ago
  I'm not sure if this an argument for "true" flatness so much as it's an argument for self-organising teams.
- Scarblac 11y ago
  We have exactly that. Eight microservices that should have been two, all using slightly different technlogy, and still nobody buys our product since everybody disagree on what customers actually need.
tdaltonc 11y ago
> Consensus is obviously preferable. Holocracy actually doesn't use consensus. The mechanism in Holocracy for decision making can be summarized as "do whatever you think is right to fulfill your stated role. No consensus nessesary. If the way your doing thing is actively preventing someone from fulfilling their role, then you two work it out (through a strict mediation process) but other people's opinion of what you should do is irrelevant (i.e. No consensous). Only the roles directly effected have to agree." Consensous seeking usually descends in to hypotheticals, theory, and butt covering. far better, according to Holocracy to just let people animate their assigned roles however they think is best.
- jacques_chester 11y ago
  > Consensous seeking usually descends in to hypotheticals, theory, and butt covering. If reward and punishment are tied to individual judgement, everything descends into hypotheticals, theory, and butt covering. Consensus is nice because it's a relative of shared understanding. When it can't be achieved, trying to achieve it still increases shared understanding. Having a tie-breaker is the only role you need in small groups.

hopsoft 11y ago

Conway's Law & micro-services help maintain flatter organizations at least in tech focused companies. When disagreements arise & consensus is hard, the various parties can simply introduce a new service boundary & go their different ways.

jacques_chester 11y ago
I'm not sure if this an argument for "true" flatness so much as it's an argument for self-organising teams.
Scarblac 11y ago
We have exactly that. Eight microservices that should have been two, all using slightly different technlogy, and still nobody buys our product since everybody disagree on what customers actually need.

tdaltonc 11y ago

> Consensus is obviously preferable. Holocracy actually doesn't use consensus. The mechanism in Holocracy for decision making can be summarized as "do whatever you think is right to fulfill your stated role. No consensus nessesary. If the way your doing thing is actively preventing someone from fulfilling their role, then you two work it out (through a strict mediation process) but other people's opinion of what you should do is irrelevant (i.e. No consensous). Only the roles directly effected have to agree." Consensous seeking usually descends in to hypotheticals, theory, and butt covering. far better, according to Holocracy to just let people animate their assigned roles however they think is best.

jacques_chester 11y ago
> Consensous seeking usually descends in to hypotheticals, theory, and butt covering. If reward and punishment are tied to individual judgement, everything descends into hypotheticals, theory, and butt covering. Consensus is nice because it's a relative of shared understanding. When it can't be achieved, trying to achieve it still increases shared understanding. Having a tie-breaker is the only role you need in small groups.