4 ms·

Absolutely agree that it's wise to reward and give special attention to the most skilled people. I agree with with your perception of the problem. It makes goo

Absolutely agree that it's wise to reward and give special attention to the most skilled people. I agree with with your perception of the problem. It makes good sense, and this framing could be used to guide reforms you might compare to antitrust law. Do you have anything in mind that could be done from a policy perspective? Because I don't think that asking people to turn inward for validation is going to work. Let's say we find some policy that works and we can enact. I'm not sure that's enough to fix the problem. Just as policy encouraging a competitive market hasn't fixed the problem there, either. It will keep pooping up and finding new ways to subvert the policy. I think that just as capital creates capital, hierarchy creates hierarchy. Whether it's human nature or the structure of our societies, the outcome appears always to be consolidation. If the efficiency gains of consolidation cannot counter the social/civil instability, and I don't think they can at a certain level of development, then we should tackle the root cause. But I'm repeating myself. I appreciate your perspective, thank you for letting me see it.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
It's a difficult question, and I wish I had a better answer than 'read laloux'[1]. But I can try to summarise the perspective I gained from that exercise. On a policy level, anything that reduces the amount of power concentrated in any single hierarchy would probably help. But I agree policy is probably not the best place to make any lasting changes. Culture seems far more promising to me, if the cultural assumptions are more around becoming the best at a new field over competing in a crowded one, or about helping your junior colleagues make good decisions over making good decisions for them, then I think we'd be getting somewhere. Obviously, that is a slower thing to change than anything that could be done at a policy level, but I think it gets us towards the right metrics. On an optimistic note, I do think that organisations which make more use of all members' judgement have advantages over those who concentrate decision making - here's a general making that same point in a military context [2]. As for where the points of maximum leverage might be to achieve that kind of change... I'd certainly be interested in any suggestions! [1] https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/ https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7B5pFSq7XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7B5pFSq7XA

SuoDuanDao 5y ago

It's a difficult question, and I wish I had a better answer than 'read laloux'[1]. But I can try to summarise the perspective I gained from that exercise. On a policy level, anything that reduces the amount of power concentrated in any single hierarchy would probably help. But I agree policy is probably not the best place to make any lasting changes. Culture seems far more promising to me, if the cultural assumptions are more around becoming the best at a new field over competing in a crowded one, or about helping your junior colleagues make good decisions over making good decisions for them, then I think we'd be getting somewhere. Obviously, that is a slower thing to change than anything that could be done at a policy level, but I think it gets us towards the right metrics. On an optimistic note, I do think that organisations which make more use of all members' judgement have advantages over those who concentrate decision making - here's a general making that same point in a military context [2]. As for where the points of maximum leverage might be to achieve that kind of change... I'd certainly be interested in any suggestions! [1] https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/ https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7B5pFSq7XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7B5pFSq7XA