Appreciating Systems

Appreciating Systems for Genuine Efficiency

Création d’emploi fondée sur les forces #solutionfocus

Un article très intéressant sur des initiatives différentes en matière de création d’emploi !

On cherche les compétences et les envies des gens, et on les aide à construire un projet, presque auto-financé (en tout cas, en utilisant les aides normalement disponibles pour les chômeurs pour plutôt les aider à construire un avenir). Bravo !

À lire ici : http://www.bastamag.net/Territoires-zero-chomeurs-l-initiative-qui-veut-prendre-les-choses-a-l-envers

 

 

Do Elinor Olström’s principles to manage #Commons apply to Social Systems as well?

While reading this article here: http://evonomics.com/tragedy-of-the-commons-elinor-ostrom/ I wondered if, just like I (and others) did with Permaculture principles, her 8 core principles could be used in social systems as well (if we consider that, today, mental energy in organizations might be considered as a commons and is in danger of disappearing because of “overgrazzing”):

  1. Clearly defined boundaries;
  2. Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs;
  3. Collective choice arrangements;
  4. Monitoring;
  5. Graduated sanctions;
  6. Fast and fair conflict resolution;
  7. Local autonomy;
  8. Appropriate relations with other tiers of rule-making authority (polycentric governance)

Well, it doesn’t seem as clear cut as with permaculture. We could make the following parallels (sorry for the  crude images in what follows. Union representatives, please stay away from this unsafe zone 😉

  • workers’ mental energy is the field
  • managers are the villagers
  • work is the cows who graze in the field

There’s a first difference in that managers are both members of the group of cows and the field being grazed.

I can see how it could work to manage that (I mean, in an artificial, rigid, way with committees to monitor metrics, assemblies of managers studying the work and the health of the workforce), but nothing plausible seems to emerge.

And yet, with governance approaches (eg Sociocracy 3.0 or Holacracy or Reinvented Organizations), the problem seems to be addressed. But the distinction between cows and field has vanished (something not possible in the example of Olstrom of course). Which might have all to do with the difference between real, physical world (Olstrom) and virtual, services, mental world.

Du #SWOT au #SOAR : pour une mise en mouvement de l’entreprise vers sa #stratégie

Voici un excellent article qui présente, de manière simple et pratique, le SOAR comme alternative plus complète et plus efficace au SWOT. Une lecture rapide qui pourrait bien permettre aux responsables d’entreprise de lancer, enfin, leur entreprise sur le chemin du changement :

http://turningpoint-leadership.com/user/media/Medium/531/press_file/531-soar_bernard-tollec-turningpoint-2016_en.pdf

Merci Bernard !

 

Reblog: #Holacracy : et l’humain dans tout ça ? | IN EXCELSIS via @RomainBisseret

Voici un excellent article sur l’Holacracy vue de l’intérieur. À lire en ce début d’année !

La plupart des commentaires à charge contre l’holacratie mentionne un caractère “non humain”. Or, les rapports humains n’ont rien à voir avec la façon de travailler ensemble. Voyons pourquoi.

Source: Holacratie : et l’humain dans tout ça ? | IN EXCELSIS

The other as key to exponential expression of #strengths #labso

December 12th, 2016 Posted in Change, Strengths Tags: , , , , ,

Quick thoughts: if I focus on my own strengths, I will tend to see others as a distinction from my owns and thus risk amplifying their weaknesses when compared to me (with all the Pygmallion effect possibly entering the scene)

On the contrary, if I intently focus on the other’ strengths, I’ll tend to find in them those that resonate with mine or which can connect to mine. In thus doing, I’ll build a network of connected strengths, stronger than my own only, because of the diversity of the sources involved (not just mine but those of others as well which will be able to compensate for my own weaknesses).

With an intent focused on the other, s/he becomes a mirror through which I can see my own strengths. Should s/he be doing the same, an exponential amplification happens between ourselves (a “mise en abyme” as we say in french): we help ourselves grow our own strengths!

Reblog: 10 Ways to Accelerate the Peer-to-Peer and Commons Economy (via @Shareable)

Excellent blog post by Michel Bauwens co-founder of the P2P Foundation.

Every day, a P2P society makes itself more desirable.

Capitalism might be seen as the evil here, but, if we take a perspective of ecological successions, we can see it like a (somehow) deliberate burning of a place: everything disappears in the end, but this releases fertilizers in the ashes for something new to grow.

Do it too often and you spoil the soil.

Do it properly, and you can intervene on the pioneer plants to build something better and more sustainable.

If we see capitalism as a burning of what could have been precious resources, then we might as well consider what could grow on the ashes of the leftovers. We are already seeing these pioneering sprouts in P2P, collaboration, sharing economy. Of course some of the pioneers are just seeds of the previous world (Uber, AirBnb, etc.), but they’re just preparing the soil for the next round of more robust plants/initiatives that will truly change the landscape.

I’m eager to garden in the future!

The 30 elements of customer value via @harvardbiz @alexis8nicolas: what about employee assessment?

Here’s an excellent (as usual) article from Harvard Business Value: https://hbr.org/2016/09/the-elements-of-value. It reveals results from a study about customers not being interested just by Quality, Delays and Costs (as simplified in #Lean), but also by much more different criteria (30 in total):

The question raised by Alexis Nicolas is: Why about using these 30 elements to evaluate the perception of a collaborator about his job and the company he works for during periodic assessments?

The hierarchy is reproduced below, but to make a long story short, we could synthesize the levels with the following reading grid:

  • at the functional level: this corresponds to the traditional employee assessment where his/her contribution is evaluated. Only with much more details;
  • at the emotional level we could assess how the employee feels in his/her job and what are the factors inciting to contributing more than the job description;
  • at a life changing level we can start to identify how the job or the organization is helping the employee grow and whether (or not) it gives reasons for him or her to fight for doing the job;
  • and at the social impact level we can assess whether the employee feels the job as a way to contribute to something bigger than his life, toward the world: that’s what’s is the more motivating for someone and which has the power to turn a job into a life mission.

Thanks Alexis for the mind-blowing question!

R1609C_ALMQUIST_VALUEPYRAMID

Reblog: #Holacracy, une règle du jeu pour jouer la partie, différemment. par @ppinault

July 11th, 2016 Posted in Change Tags: , , , ,

Parlons Sport, c’est d’actualité 🙂

Source: Holacracy, une règle du jeu pour jouer la partie, différemment — Medium

Rien d’autre à ajouter à cette comparaison Holacracy / Foot. Je ne pratique pas le foot, mais la comparaison fait incroyablement mouche. À lire !

 

Fork #ethereum for a #TheDAO contract bug… seriously?! #P2P undermining…

June 20th, 2016 Posted in P2P Tags: , , , , , ,

This is my contribution to the currently online debate on Reddit/r/ethereum (for instance).

It seems to me that any organization (be it “physical” or virtual or blockchain-based) is founded on trust with the help of some underlying, shared meaning legal stuff.

When you get your contracts wrong in the physical world, you run the risk of clients, contractors or employees, if not bandits to abuse you. That’s the risk any organization face. Only if the law is broken, you act toward changing that law. And because contracts are so difficult to write properly, we resort to lawyers.

Ethereum‘s the law here. A contract has been badly written, TheDAO should bear with the consequences. That is has been audited before (proofed by special blockchain-law firm slock.it as it seems) just prove that the digital world is prone to errors just like the real world.

The blockchain just increase the risk of making these errors unsolvable because it wants to make code immutable.

Yet we’re not supposed change the law just because some contract has been badly written. Or have the state intervene in one contractual problem.

Do people seriously consider having a central authority (Ethereum) intervene in what’s supposed to be the best of breed of P2P technology (blockchain)?! C’mmon!

If trust (even if cryptography and blockchain-based) should continue to be the foundation of contracts, TheDAO has to solve that itself, or, as stated elsewhere, the non-digital part of the blockchain will be seriously undermined.

Hint for later (or maybe just now): make Ethereum a DAO itself where people can take share (hopefully without contractual flaws), and let the crowd run the infrastructure. It would then seems to be a hell lot of issues will appear like “can we trust shareholders to know how to vote/run such a company as Ethereum?”

Mail List

Join the mailing list

Check your email and confirm the subscription