If you are a formal boss looking at a possible project, you might have some risk from the decisions that I as a colleague could make.

Some of these risks you might want to avoid altogether, or minimize by drawing a line to separate them on beforehand. These may be called “givens” or “non-negotiables”.

Any of these risks meaningful to you, I would like to know about and hear how you feel about them, in order to make good calls.

I do respect the formal responsibility of the one with the formal authority. Simultaneously, practising assuming responsibility helps us share it, enlargen trust and coherence.

If you understand Swedish, this podcast episode is one of the best interviews on self-managed workplaces I’ve heard. Personal, lighthearted, down-to-earth, and honest:

At least the way we have worked, it’s about driving the culture shift, and it takes such a long time – I mean you gotta have such patience.

(Original in Swedish: “Som vi har jobbat i alla fall så handlar det om att driva kulturförändringen, och det tar ju jättelång tid, alltså man måste ha sånt tålamod.”)

The interviewee is Anna Elg, managing director at Svenska Retursystem AB, with some 160 employees. Since some years, she’s let the people in the teams decide whether or not they want to have a boss in their team. The episode from the podcast “Tealpodden” is here.

This is partly inspired by the school’s visiting architect, Peter Lippman, who has a great philosophy about the two most important questions we should ask in life:

1) Why?, and 2) Why not?

Children ask them all the time!

— why couldn’t they have snowball fights?

Because they’re dangerous.

So what if measures could be taken to make them safe?

Then there’s no reason why not.

And the same applies to children who like to learn lying on the floor, for example, instead of at a desk.

‘Try it and if it works, it works!’

– from the article “Glömstaskolan: the school with just one rule” by Lisa Gill

… and it originated in myself – in the circumstances I would like if I were a coworker

— Mats Birgersson on his approach for decision making closer to the “doer” at Fresh

… from interview with Karin Tenelius (in Swedish) https://youtu.be/GWsXOjMrUVY

Here’s a favourite tool for the workplace or elsewhere. Say you’re working on something and you’d like feedback – this tool helps you get feedback and suggestions on improvement in a way that’s almost pleasurable. I know, sounds improbable.

It goes like this …

First, requester asks “perfector” to play “the perfection game” on something requester is working on.

Assuming they agree …

  1. Requester shows perfector the “thing”

  2. The perfector rates the thing on a scale 1–10 according to how much additional value s/he thinks s/he can add (if perfector cannot say how to make the object better, s/he must give it a 10!)

  3. Perfector says “What I liked about the thing was …” and proceeds to list the qualities of the thing s/he enjoyed

  4. Perfector says ”For it to be a 10 for me, it would …” and describes what s/he sees

Commitments

  • Requester accepts perfecting reflections without argument

  • Perfector gives only positive comments: what s/he likes and what it would take to “be a 10”

  • If perfector cannot specifically say how to make the object better, she/he must give it a 10

“Perfection Game” is created by Jim and Michelle McCarthy, one of their many great “apps”.

“Paradoxically, our [principle] that there is no single way to manage corporate issues well presents corporate personnel with the challenge of taking risks – even as they are aware that they cannot know the best course to take.

This means acting on their best educated guesses. And because every action is based on a guess, leaders cannot be blamed for guesses that prove to be wrong.

Gathering the courage to act, they let others know of the limited knowledge upon which a decision is made, and then move forward. In a sense, every action is a “draft”. RHD is an organization in the process of continually and consciously creating drafts.”

The excerpt is from the book “The Common Good Corporation” (2006) by Robert and Barbara Fishman. The book tells the story about RHD, (Resources for Human Development Inc.).

The company founded in 1970 provides mental health services, community living for special groups and more.

In RHD much of decision-making is with the working individuals and teams, guided by values and assumptions, as the one exemplified above.

In 2006 when the book was written, RHD’s turnover was $162 million.

“In pursuing these values, our staff has generated a surging revenue stream, with a growth averaging 28% per year during our 37 years of existence.”

I heard this story in a podcast last summer and was moved. It’s a 3-minute sound clip and needs some context …

Here, Dee Hock (91 years old this year) speaks about a moment in 1970, Dee was a 41-year-old bank manager at The National Bank of Commerce and had experimented with self-organisation and was now trying to form a new form of collaborative organisation between banks for a credit card – one that would become VISA, the largest commercial enterprise on earth at some point.

When the story begins, Dee has just asked his boss, the bank’s President Max Carlson, to be allowed to work for the experimental project on the bank’s expense, as it had no legal entity or budget of its own – to which Carlson agreed. Dee needed, however, additional aid …

———
The whole story is found in a fascinating 7-part interview on the podcast “The Innovation Show” with Aidan McCullen: – “Dee Hock, VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organisation”