3 ms·

Did you read beyond the headline? Pulled from the article he talks about this and pin points two ideas behind making decisions: 1. "Make everything explicit —

Did you read beyond the headline? Pulled from the article he talks about this and pin points two ideas behind making decisions: 1. "Make everything explicit — from vacation policies to decision makers in each area." 2. "Distribute decision-making power and discourage consensus seeking."

mc32 12y ago
Could you refine point two more? I don't understand how you distribute decision making without consensus? In that scenario "leader" types would make the decisions for the group, right? And then it's not "distributed". I guess I don't understand that point.
- sanderjd 12y ago
  I don't really get it either. Or rather, I get it, and it seems like a great idea, but it seems fundamentally at odds with the full autonomy and lack-of-management ideas. The point, as I understand it, is to have single decision-makers, but have nobody be the decision maker for too many things. That seems an awful lot like it is just good management, but any time someone executes on a decision they didn't make, they aren't being autonomous. Is the point perhaps instead that everybody makes all their own decisions and if there isn't consensus on how things are done, then they are just done differently by each person? If so, how do you pick technology and deployment stacks and keep a consistent design story?
- pc2g4d 12y ago
  My take was that "distribute" means everybody has some sort of decision making power, and the power to make all the decisions is not concentrated in hierarchical fashion. Those who wield the power to make a particular decision are then encouraged to make the decision themselves without garnering a consensus first.
  - mc32 12y ago
    Ah, that makes sense. I have not worked under such a power structure, so I can't speak from experience. What I would wonder is how does one know where the power lies? It can more or less become invisible. I gather it could become somewhat tribal --where while perhaps there are no titles power does reside somewhere. So here bad things are one's fault rather than say a boss's fault. How can you even vent? At least in set hierarchies you know who to blame. you know who the bad decision makers are you know who the asses are. But in this kind of structure it all more or less hidden but decisions are devolved and distributed. I'm not sure I like the shadowy aspect of this structure. Then again, I haven't formally experienced it --except for informal groups and there you get cliques.

mc32 12y ago

Could you refine point two more? I don't understand how you distribute decision making without consensus? In that scenario "leader" types would make the decisions for the group, right? And then it's not "distributed". I guess I don't understand that point.

sanderjd 12y ago
I don't really get it either. Or rather, I get it, and it seems like a great idea, but it seems fundamentally at odds with the full autonomy and lack-of-management ideas. The point, as I understand it, is to have single decision-makers, but have nobody be the decision maker for too many things. That seems an awful lot like it is just good management, but any time someone executes on a decision they didn't make, they aren't being autonomous. Is the point perhaps instead that everybody makes all their own decisions and if there isn't consensus on how things are done, then they are just done differently by each person? If so, how do you pick technology and deployment stacks and keep a consistent design story?
pc2g4d 12y ago
My take was that "distribute" means everybody has some sort of decision making power, and the power to make all the decisions is not concentrated in hierarchical fashion. Those who wield the power to make a particular decision are then encouraged to make the decision themselves without garnering a consensus first.
- mc32 12y ago
  Ah, that makes sense. I have not worked under such a power structure, so I can't speak from experience. What I would wonder is how does one know where the power lies? It can more or less become invisible. I gather it could become somewhat tribal --where while perhaps there are no titles power does reside somewhere. So here bad things are one's fault rather than say a boss's fault. How can you even vent? At least in set hierarchies you know who to blame. you know who the bad decision makers are you know who the asses are. But in this kind of structure it all more or less hidden but decisions are devolved and distributed. I'm not sure I like the shadowy aspect of this structure. Then again, I haven't formally experienced it --except for informal groups and there you get cliques.