Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wpietri 1054 days ago
> it is fundamentally human in nature. The egos are invested in the existing thing

That is one thing that can happen, because it is part of human nature. But it is not the whole of human nature. if you have a culture of experimentation and two-way doors, people learn to invest not in one particular experiment, but the process of experimentation. They invest their egos not in one particular outcome, but in the team and their long-term success.

I get that the dominant culture in American business is managerialism [1], where we all have to pretend that people currently holding power are brilliant, while they have pissing contests over their place in the corporate dominance hierarchy. But that's not the only way things can possibly work. I've lived different approaches, as has the author of the piece.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Confronting-Managerialism-Business-Ec...

1 comments

Sociocracy (from the Quakers) provides an interesting framework: consent-based decision-making instead of consensus or authority-based hierarchies.

To call hierarchical authority "human nature" is to ignore not only theoretical viability, but also demonstrated present-day viability as well as modern anthropological and archaeological understandings of realities explored in our pasts.

Sadly most of us have bosses or subject others to it, and we bind ourselves to these structures by legal contract and risk being identified as insubordinate if we try to do better.

How is consent-based decision making different from consensus?
The Wikipedia page on it looks pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy

Sociocratisch Centrum co-founder Reijmer has summarized the difference as follows: "By consensus, I must convince you that I'm right; by consent, you ask whether you can live with the decision".