Decentralizing Organizations to Deal with Complexity

Organizations are a broccoli, too. There is central en distributed stuff. Aligned autonomy is the key. Autonomy is the decentralized part. Alignment is the central part that bounds our behavior. You need both to steer a swarm. Find the serious game rules that educe swarming behavior with a purpose. It is chaordic, as Dee Hock puts it. Read the US Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication on Tactics and Warfare. Battlefield-tested agile.

Hi Martien,

thanks for posting here - it´s good to know that the article is being read and that it has resonated with you.
I am a big fan of metaphors, so I enjoy your suggestion that organizations might be peaches AND broccolis at the same time... ;-)

I also believe that language and the words we use matter. You are using the terms "alginment", "steering" and "rules" in context with decentralization of decision-making (a.k.a. autonomy): But these three words are all quite realted to command-and-control, I believe. So I would recommend not to use them in the context we are talking about, independent if we call it "Beta", "Chaordic", "Agile" or whatever.
- Instead of "alignment", I would use vocabulary like "social density" or "peer pressure".
- Instead of "steering" (which in Beta only markets can do effectively) I would use terms like "clarifying principles", "market pull/decentralization", etc. There are many aspects to this.
- And instead of "rules" (to be followed), we should of course talk about "principles" ("to be interpreted collectively").

I hope this makes sense to you!

Hi Niels,

Thanks for your reply and all your work on distributed organizations.

For me, words like “alignment”, “steering” and “rules” do not associate with command and control at all. Please get me right, I dislike command and control probably as much as you do.

To quote US MCDP 1 Warfighting:

Philosophy Of Command

It is essential that our philosophy of command support the way we fight. First and foremost, in order to generate the tempo of operations we desire and to best cope with the uncertainty, disorder, and fluidity of combat, command and control must be decentralized.

Confused. I replied to Niels’ reply but it does not show. I reply again, and it's there twice. Baffled. InfoQ engine troubles?

Hi Martien,
I am happy about your response.

However: We are somewhat stuck. Because as long as you don´t accept certain decisions, not much dialog will be possible:
You say principles equal rules. What I can tell you is that they are as much the same as tables and chairs are the same. Let me detail:

- Rules: follow a "what... if" logic, thus the problem must be known, are to be followed, come from superior authority. Example: 10 commandments
- Principles: the problem does not have to be known; to be interpreted by a social group; come from the group itself. Example: Articles of the US constitution.

I can go on and on and on about this: These are difference that make a difference!
The same goes for concepts such as steering and alignment. If you want to understand the distinctions that matter to any organization in complexity (also the US military), take a look at my free Organize for Complexity white paper or the Organize for Complexity book!

I think you will like it.

Hi Niels,

Interesting. You say that as long as someone (I, in this case) does not accept certain decisions, not much dialogue is possible. That almost sounds like these things which have been decided (by whom, anyway?) are definitive and any other view is taboo. This blocks its evolution, which I perceive as anti-agile. I cherish the lean “question everything” principle. I love “ritual dissent” and “trashing sessions”.

Seems like the rule “Thou shalt obey and not question the existing decisions” is being imposed on me. This immediately prompts me to act like the Wise Fool, since I live by the principle “Educe rather than compel behavior to the maximum possible degree.“

However, we are still in dialogue, given this conversation. Let’s keep it up.

…

…on rules
Also, I don’t feel understood. You say, “You say principles equal rules.” Can you please point me to where exactly I said this? I have done my utmost best to explicitly avoid “principles are rules”, and use “serious game rules” and principles = rules + ‘why’. Yet you continue to claim that I equal rules to principles, which I do not! Can you please reread what I’ve written and try and see it from another perspective?

A nice example of the difference on Common Craft » Why This Bathroom Sign Is a Great Explanation.

Talking about rules. From your work, I get the impression that rules always come from the top and are pushed down on the lower layers. In my world, values, principles, and rules come from anywhere. They emerge and evolve. Management should facilitate this and lead by example.

Talking about rules some more. We thrive by good (elegant) rules. For instance, we need traffic rules to make getting from A to B more predictable and safe. These traffic rules evolve over time. Their public manifestation is just the rules: the signs, icons, symbols. However, the reasoning behind it—the why—is also documented and has emerged by having a number of wise people proposing and questioning and honing the various contexts, goals, and resulting steps to reach those goals.

When the rules get detached or unhinged from the values and principles, we’re lost. They just become dumb rules. So, I live by “values > principles“ and “principles > rules”.

I use the term ‘rules’ rather relaxed, as serious game rules. Rules for me are a form of working agreements that emerge and evolve as we work together. So rules are in flux, as we discover better ways to work together.

It sounds like you are very preoccupied with the term ‘rules’, even allergic to it. An allergy is a hypersensitivity disorder, says Wikipedia. I kindly request you to reconsider and reevaluate the term ‘rules’, and put it in another perspective.

You mention the “10 commandments” as an example of rules of the “what if” form. You fail to include its foundational principles: foster an exalted, open, and fair community. You also fail to include the principles’ underlying value: love (the verb, not the romantic version). This is what almost always happens: the values and principles are left out, and the only thing you’ve got are the rules—the question “why does this make sense?” remains unanswered. People don’t understand why the rules are what they are, and they start bending and breaking them, and disobeying them. Lawyers prosper by this.

…

…on align
You are very much into the field of self-organization and emergence. Well, take a look at how magnets are created. Magnets are made of magnetizable material. Every molecule has a magnetic field, however small. By striking the material repeatedly with a magnet, you align the individual molecules and the individual magnetic fields add up and reinforce each other, creating a stronger magnet, aligning yet more molecules.

So, I do not have negative associations with the term align in general. Align, to me, means that the majority of forces have a similar direction, are directed. It’s a bit like the ‘rectifier’ in electronic circuits. The process of facilitating the creation of this shared direction is the responsibility of the leadership in an organization, at any and all levels, not just top down. Its very cocreation should be facilitated and allowed, based on a couple of principles.

If I understand you correctly, you want principles to come from the people themselves. I fully agree. Management and leadership should catalyze and facilitate this. If a team evolves from stroming through norming to performing, they make principles, working agreements, explicit policies, classes of service. They evolve their own set of serious game rules, given their values, principles, and vision, yet within those of the next level up.

Wish you a prosperous 2015.

Succes en plezier,

Martien.

Let me correct a mistake I made above: In the third line, I wrote "decisions" - but I actually meant "distinctions". Sorry for that. InfoQ is cruel in that it doesn´t let me correct this error anymore... it will be there forever! ;-)
What I wanted to say is that as long as we don´t agree on certain DISTINCTIONS, not much dialog will be possible.


Regards, Niels

Hi Martien,
I understand your reaction to my post. but it is based on a misunderstanding. I wrote "decisions", but what I meant was "distinctions", of course. This tiny word gave the whole conversation an unfortunate twist. Sorry for that. As we see here, lifre totally IS a broccoli! :-)
Regards, Niels

Wauw, the impact of a small word. Thanks for clearing it up.

Yet, I'm still curious about your perspective on mine.