3 ms·

Wow. the level of mistrust and fear shown by reactions here is ... at least I am not alone :-) We (most of us) live in democracies with clear rules of law and

Wow. the level of mistrust and fear shown by reactions here is ... at least I am not alone :-) We (most of us) live in democracies with clear rules of law and strong defence of individual rights. But we work in feudal hierarchies with arbitrary rules and love by whim of the powerful. I think that's the first thing to chnage rather than hoping the training middle management to be "better communicators" will improve things. Would Britain still have a colony in the US if we had handled that Tea situation better? Some experiments to try: - executive management (C-suite) to be elected annually by all FT employees voting anonymously. - annual project plans (do we build a new CRM or do we fix the existing one) again voted for by employees (one is referendum one is representative elections?) - stop remote working. I am fairly convinced the best most effective e means to build software is to put the right developers in the same room as the right business owners and let them fix it. Every step away from that, each time the business owner has to go to a different project, the time zones mean that a daily stand up is communication, every step back is a cut in efficiency. just stop it

vxNsr 4y ago
Voting on EM isn’t a bad idea, but one year is too much potential turnover and if it never turns over then you’ve just built a Potemkin democracy and we’re back we’re we started. You would also end up with even more politics as all the narcissists would campaign to be elected and would use every little trick in book just as they do in public elections today. You could also potentially end up in a situation where no one takes any ownership bec they think, “it’ll be the next person’s problem” (again something you see today).
lucaspfeifer 4y ago
Rather than everyone voting for a few people at the top, what if each level voted for the one above and the one below? That way, people would be voting for the positions and people that they know the most about. Like the other response said, when people with only a surface-level understanding get involved, democracy devolves into a surface-level popularity contest.

vxNsr 4y ago

Voting on EM isn’t a bad idea, but one year is too much potential turnover and if it never turns over then you’ve just built a Potemkin democracy and we’re back we’re we started. You would also end up with even more politics as all the narcissists would campaign to be elected and would use every little trick in book just as they do in public elections today. You could also potentially end up in a situation where no one takes any ownership bec they think, “it’ll be the next person’s problem” (again something you see today).

lucaspfeifer 4y ago

Rather than everyone voting for a few people at the top, what if each level voted for the one above and the one below? That way, people would be voting for the positions and people that they know the most about. Like the other response said, when people with only a surface-level understanding get involved, democracy devolves into a surface-level popularity contest.