There's something about the way you write that means I can't skim read - I have to slow down and take it in. And that's a good thing!
Something about the choice between hierarchy of authority Vs hierarchy of competence creates a tension in me. I think Tom Nixon, through a Source lens, might suggest a hierarchy of creativity, where the people with the most authority are those with a vision. But again, there is no dominion because this is transparent and people freely contribute their gifts to help realise that vision, and are encouraged to create initiatives of their own. (In other words, a good Source is one who enables others to tap into their own Sourcing power, and at the same time can be in their own creative power and say what's in and what's out.)
Thanks for commenting Lisa! I've noticed it brings me tons of energy when people engage with the ideas, even a little bit. Really surprising how much. And that's a good sign that you find you need to read slowly : )
I am curious about the tension you mentioned. Can you say more about it? My guess it's the one that I anticipated in the post, but I don't want to put words in your mouth!
The fact that you call it a "choice between hierarchy of authority Vs hierarchy of competence" is interesting. I don't think that's the choice we have. There is always a competence hierarchy, whether we use organise around it or not.
The ideas I'm proposing are highly compatible with (and of course inspired by) Source thinking, and the system you describe is very much along the lines of what I'm proposing. In fact you've tuned in to a big topic for the next post--creative freedom--which I've just drafted : ) I do have issues with the idea of sub-source, which I think might be inescapably dominion based. I remember Peter Koenig took a very strong anti-self-organisation stance on your podcast, and I felt the way he described source and sub-source autonomy was contradictory. So there are some differences in thinking.
Ah maybe I misunderstood then - I interpreted as a choice when I read this sentence: "The way out, and I’m convinced it’s the only way out, starts by recognising that toxic-or-weak is a false choice because there is not one kind of power hierarchy but two: the authority hierarchy and the competence hierarchy."
Interesting that you think Peter took an anti-self-organisation stance on my podcast. I see his ideas as compatible with self-organisation - if I'm a sub-source (which is a role I have ended up in many times), I'm freely and willingly giving my gifts to helping the Source get clear and realise their vision. I enjoy that role. It helps me to have clarity of who is the Source and what is in and out. I am much more able to be creative and in my own power when that is clear. I see many self-managing teams or organisations suffer because it's not clear who is holding the Source energy and either there is outright conflict or just creative entropy because there isn't sufficient clarity and it fizzles out. There's definitely a paradox and I'm not saying it's THE truth, but I find it a helpful lens and very compatible with self-organisation.
Looking forward to the next post about creative freedom!
"Bring enough matter and energy together to create a very big bang, wait about 14 billion years, get flying squirrels. Some see God in this, some don’t. Everyone sees the squirrels."
Beautiful!
I love the idea that your pieces force me to consider the possibility that the might be an alternative out there.
It also forces me to think about two things:
1. Bias
2. Agency
1. We are born of and submerged in a culture of our time. With all the assumptions, conditionings and biases that come with it. Maybe that culture is the cage which prevents progress?
For example. We exist in an incredible complex society. Many would say unnecessarily complex. Maybe simplicity removes the need for any system at all? Or at least changes the equation between potency and dominion?
In an indigenous community, how does the interplay of power flow, where the needs are basic survival, and there is no hereditary structure place?
2. Agency. Our intellect automatically assumes that agency between individuals is equal, or at least stable. But is it?
We know from the Pareto rule that 80% tend to sit back and allow for a minority to make their decisions. And of course as the system becomes more complex, that time becomes more entrenched. Even at the cost of personal benevolence.
Doesn't this then mean that an essential part of any future change has to somehow factor in the function of agency? Having the com-potency does not necessarily mean that the community will reap the optimum benevolence?
To me, thinking off the top of my very flawed head, it is this delta between agency, urgency and outcomes which is at the root of many of our problems.
Even with a greater reliance on tendency and less on dominion, we're eventually going to reach another point where the necessary human action starts to chaff the system in some way?
On bias, I absolutely agree that it’s a big part of the cage. For me the big blindness is that we conflate the two kinds of power.
About simple vs over-complex societies, the important point for me is we have to play the game we’re in. That means transforming this over complex society, and that means out-competing it, which is a tall order. Hence the focus on power.
Agency - I’m even more on board. This is absolutely critical. The current machine/dominion paradigm is all about suppressing agency. The new one has to be about activating it, on both the personal and social levels. I don’t think the fact that people have very different degrees of agency is a problem. In fact the cultural principles are intended to work well with this.
There's something about the way you write that means I can't skim read - I have to slow down and take it in. And that's a good thing!
Something about the choice between hierarchy of authority Vs hierarchy of competence creates a tension in me. I think Tom Nixon, through a Source lens, might suggest a hierarchy of creativity, where the people with the most authority are those with a vision. But again, there is no dominion because this is transparent and people freely contribute their gifts to help realise that vision, and are encouraged to create initiatives of their own. (In other words, a good Source is one who enables others to tap into their own Sourcing power, and at the same time can be in their own creative power and say what's in and what's out.)
Curious to read the next post!
Thanks for commenting Lisa! I've noticed it brings me tons of energy when people engage with the ideas, even a little bit. Really surprising how much. And that's a good sign that you find you need to read slowly : )
I am curious about the tension you mentioned. Can you say more about it? My guess it's the one that I anticipated in the post, but I don't want to put words in your mouth!
The fact that you call it a "choice between hierarchy of authority Vs hierarchy of competence" is interesting. I don't think that's the choice we have. There is always a competence hierarchy, whether we use organise around it or not.
The ideas I'm proposing are highly compatible with (and of course inspired by) Source thinking, and the system you describe is very much along the lines of what I'm proposing. In fact you've tuned in to a big topic for the next post--creative freedom--which I've just drafted : ) I do have issues with the idea of sub-source, which I think might be inescapably dominion based. I remember Peter Koenig took a very strong anti-self-organisation stance on your podcast, and I felt the way he described source and sub-source autonomy was contradictory. So there are some differences in thinking.
Ah maybe I misunderstood then - I interpreted as a choice when I read this sentence: "The way out, and I’m convinced it’s the only way out, starts by recognising that toxic-or-weak is a false choice because there is not one kind of power hierarchy but two: the authority hierarchy and the competence hierarchy."
Interesting that you think Peter took an anti-self-organisation stance on my podcast. I see his ideas as compatible with self-organisation - if I'm a sub-source (which is a role I have ended up in many times), I'm freely and willingly giving my gifts to helping the Source get clear and realise their vision. I enjoy that role. It helps me to have clarity of who is the Source and what is in and out. I am much more able to be creative and in my own power when that is clear. I see many self-managing teams or organisations suffer because it's not clear who is holding the Source energy and either there is outright conflict or just creative entropy because there isn't sufficient clarity and it fizzles out. There's definitely a paradox and I'm not saying it's THE truth, but I find it a helpful lens and very compatible with self-organisation.
Looking forward to the next post about creative freedom!
I second that squirrel part is beautiful!
Your post makes me think of the concept of the Spontaneous Order, and I love it. Check it out if it fits the direction you are heading.
100%! Spontaneous order is the older term for what is now more commonly called self-organisation. It’s exactly the same thing : )
"Bring enough matter and energy together to create a very big bang, wait about 14 billion years, get flying squirrels. Some see God in this, some don’t. Everyone sees the squirrels."
Beautiful!
I love the idea that your pieces force me to consider the possibility that the might be an alternative out there.
It also forces me to think about two things:
1. Bias
2. Agency
1. We are born of and submerged in a culture of our time. With all the assumptions, conditionings and biases that come with it. Maybe that culture is the cage which prevents progress?
For example. We exist in an incredible complex society. Many would say unnecessarily complex. Maybe simplicity removes the need for any system at all? Or at least changes the equation between potency and dominion?
In an indigenous community, how does the interplay of power flow, where the needs are basic survival, and there is no hereditary structure place?
2. Agency. Our intellect automatically assumes that agency between individuals is equal, or at least stable. But is it?
We know from the Pareto rule that 80% tend to sit back and allow for a minority to make their decisions. And of course as the system becomes more complex, that time becomes more entrenched. Even at the cost of personal benevolence.
Doesn't this then mean that an essential part of any future change has to somehow factor in the function of agency? Having the com-potency does not necessarily mean that the community will reap the optimum benevolence?
To me, thinking off the top of my very flawed head, it is this delta between agency, urgency and outcomes which is at the root of many of our problems.
Even with a greater reliance on tendency and less on dominion, we're eventually going to reach another point where the necessary human action starts to chaff the system in some way?
On bias, I absolutely agree that it’s a big part of the cage. For me the big blindness is that we conflate the two kinds of power.
About simple vs over-complex societies, the important point for me is we have to play the game we’re in. That means transforming this over complex society, and that means out-competing it, which is a tall order. Hence the focus on power.
Agency - I’m even more on board. This is absolutely critical. The current machine/dominion paradigm is all about suppressing agency. The new one has to be about activating it, on both the personal and social levels. I don’t think the fact that people have very different degrees of agency is a problem. In fact the cultural principles are intended to work well with this.
>> the important point for me is we have to play the game we’re in.
Or maybe a part of the transition is we change the game? :)