Most businesses seem to be organized in a traditional pyramid hierarchy like a football team. In this team model, those at the top of the pyramid (coach/CEO) attempt to drive outcomes by “calling the plays” and expecting that the rest of the team follows a formal playbook. This model has served the business world well by certain organizational measures, however, such organizations also may suffer when management from a distance confounds effective daily operations.
Top-down organizations are by no means the only way to achieve success as demonstrated by companies such as Semco where empowered teams can move forward confidently and independently. Approaches such as Dynamic Governance facilitate the crafting of policy through inclusive decision-making that links team objectives to broad goals of the firm. Teams are then permitted to achieve results through self-organization and management on a day-to-day basis without seeking or requiring further involvement from the executive level while observing policy that they helped formulate.
If a traditional business organization is rightly analogous to a football team, then perhaps the ancient sport of wrestling provides a different viewpoint that can create a business edge. Consider some key differences in perspective that a wrestling team model offers:
The current issue of Clinical Researcher includes an article that discusses how Project Managers influence parallel planning and collaboration between research sites and sponsors.
The article reveals the criticality of a well-run clinical trial, noting that trials that did not have a patient enrolled within the first two months were “significantly less likely to achieve” their their enrollment targets “despite the length of time the trial remained open“.
The authors make several common-sense observations on parallel planning and collaboration between managers who are co-managing a project, including:
While exploring governance in business over the past couple of years I encountered both Sociocracy and Holacracy. Both of these approaches to governance have been associated with self-directed groups, and both have wrongly been identified as forms of anarchy. I’ve read about these approaches, attended introductory workshops, and participated in discussion groups – but I don’t claim expertise (I’m not a trained facilitator in either Sociocracy or Holacracy). I have applied some of what I’ve learned in daily practice, particularly consent decision-making which I feel can lead to better and faster decisions.
What is Consent Decision-Making and Why Use It?
The basic idea behind consent decisions (aka formal consensus) is that the consent process splits-the-difference between autocratic decisions that are quickly mandated, and endless debate as can be encountered in group consensus decision-making: