Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/middle-mgmt
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
res ipsa ☺︎
@resipsa
i have been thinking about a common issue that plagues organizations (communities, companies, governments). in a vacuum, everyone believes a shared vision is important. in practice, the tolerance for pressure over speedy decisions is lower than that for the time (cost) required to reach consensus— this is a limit to growth. the benefits of a shared vision is delayed, whereas its costs show up very quickly. managing this limit to growth is a matter of time/delay management mitigation hypothesis: - shift mental model: neutralize preference for speed by setting expectations for time required for benefits to emerge - buffer costs: refine consensus process to reduce resources required - celebrate early signals: highlight small wins that are logical milestones towards ultimate goal before this goal fully materializes
1 reply
1 recast
12 reactions
Zenigame
@zeni.eth
I think the assumption that the mechanism for shared vision is consensus isn’t necessarily true. Elite military unit is an easy counter example as is “disagree but commit”
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
links 🏴
@links
It’s a good point. Consensus tends to get overused especially in this space. The trick is knowing when to use consensus versus consent. Consensus is necessarily slower than consent-based decision making. Only use it when you really need everyone’s buy in.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
res ipsa ☺︎
@resipsa
thanks for pointing out the counter example! having consensus as the growth action in the reinforcing loop was meant to assume an organization that seeks consensus to build trust and shared vision, but you are absolutely correct in distinguishing organizations that use alternative measures to reinforce shared vision as being outside of the purview of this dynamic
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
