Appropriate Governance Design: A Framework
Choose a method which matches your team’s context
Deciding how to decide is an important subject for any team, especially those working in increasingly decentralized organisations.
As we navigate the future of work in the present day, old assumptions and tools cease to be effective.
Better choices may exist, but evaluating the merits of these options is difficult without a way to make sense of our context and the likely efficacy of any particular governance model in that context.
Over the last 5 years I have spent time researching various “alternative” models for allocating power, influence, and accountability in social systems.
Inspired by my last few years working in remote, distributed purpose-driven organisations, I have articulated this simple tool to accompany a conversation-based process.
It’s time that teams made better-fitting choices about their internal and contextual governance — at various scales of “we”.
The complexity of working in highly decentralized or network-based environments produces a significant challenge for teams seeking to coordinate their own affairs in a collaborative spirit.
- Do we adopt the default system of governance that the wider network uses, even if we don’t understand or agree with it?
- Do we try something new, even though other teams might not understand how we work?
- How much learning will it take, and will that get in the way of the work?
- How strictly do we adopt the procedures, and will they get in the way of the work?
- How do we know which approach will work best for us?
- Can we change a model if certain elements don’t work well for us?
I hear questions like these from many groups — they are very good questions.
As a response, I developed this tool to help teams and alliances navigate through such questions. Consider it v0.1, as it hasn’t yet been tested.
If you’re interested in trying it out, please let me know how it works for you!
The set of parameters are explained in further detail in my published assessment for the Permaculture CoLab.
Overview
This particular tool offers itself as a language to interface between models and teams, and I’m curious about the potential to crowd-source ranked suitability of various organising approaches to common work scenarios. For now, it simply stimulates a conversation, to help you identify the selection criteria when evaluating different models.
Realms and Factors
The model focuses on discussing how 6 critical factors affect the group, in 2–4 of the dimensions, or ‘realms’, associated with our teamwork.
The process can be repeated for each realm we want to measure. This is how to identify your design considerations and constraints.
The difference between realms is vital: the level of trust our team members have for each other is different from the trust present (or absent) between our team and our organisation, or the wider network.
It’s up to you how many realms you want to assess in making a choice that works well for you, but I suggest 2 is the minimum — no team exists independently of their social environment.
We can consider measuring the trust between the organisation and the network (the purple ring), as for instance, this may affect how much risk our team can take on behalf of the organisation. Or we might interpret ‘network’ as the second of two dimensions (the green ring), if our work isn’t part of a formal organisation (e.g. a start-up, or a group of network weavers).
Discuss your influences
These six design considerations influence each other, and each has multiple interpretations. That is a strength, once we frame the information coherently.
Each pair is placed deliberately opposite each other, indicating a dualistic tension. This dynamic is worth considering alongside the general assumption that all factors interact with each other.
About the Process
I assume that your team is already considering a new governance strategy, and might have some ideas about what you would like to work with. If not, take some time to look through some of these resources.
This tool is only as helpful as the conversation it provokes.
A consideration such as “proximity” can speak to quite different issues.
The generic question about proximity is: How close are we to each other?
The process invites us to reflect in further detail:
- How does proximity interact with time?
Perhaps geographic proximity calls us to factor in our timezone spread and available synchronous windows for discussion, and for building trust. - How are we positioned in relation to the network in which we intend to have impact?
Are we on the frontlines of an issue, are we doing core infrastructural work in our organisation? Does that reduce or increase the risk involved in our decisions, does it influence where we listen for cues? - Is this team temporary, such as a collaborative effort to serve a small part of the collaborators respective missions; or is it a major project which speaks to our life purpose? Does everyone in the team have the same relationship of proximity to the project? Does this affect the leadership?
The process which I encourage groups to use alongside this model is a format for harvesting warm data. What the group chooses to presence in their explanation about their response is crucial.
I suggest that if you facilitate a process with this model, to leave the scope broad for interpretation. During the explanations stage, you might like to prompt further exploration about the participant’s interpretation (and the differences between participants), with curiosity.
Working with the process
I imagine a group sitting in a circle (or on a conference call), however, it is possible to facilitate this as a warm data lab by setting up a space with 6 areas dedicated to each factor and letting participants wander freely between these areas.
If you choose to try the latter, remind everyone to hold the various realms (those 2–4 rings of scale) in the background— either with verbal cues, or visual cues around the space.
Imagine a wheel with six spokes.
The tyre is very stretchy and responsive: you can fix it near the center to rotate faster, or stretch it to the edge to get higher off the ground.
If the tyre is fastened at different levels on each spoke, you will have quite a bumpy ride. The wheel is also responsive to the terrain: sometimes it will jump up or down a level if it’s not appropriately fixed.
The team needs to pay attention to the terrain and choose a setting which will match the journey. Each person knows different things; they might also have luggage on board which affects how the vehicle interacts. We need to aggregate our information to choose a good setting, and work out which spokes might need strengthening.
In this template, the design considerations are mapped onto these six spokes, which are paired against each other, as their particular tension is important to monitor.
Start by instructing each team member to rate the level of influence they feel a spoke has on their journey as a team and again in the surrounding organisational environment (you can use separate colours on the same paper).
Each person, in turn, speaks to each spoke (suggested process: one spoke per round). They reflect on why they ended up where they did for their internal and environmental contexts. After each round is complete, individuals can make changes to the score they give.
After each factor has been discussed, the scores can be added together and divided by the number of people in the group, resulting in an average perspective. Generate one average for each realm.
Use the information to approach a decision
Note any governance models or techniques that you are considering.
Give everyone a chance to ask clarifying questions, then to indicate concerns they might have. Here are some examples:
- Are we able to work with source if the source has not (yet) earned the trust of the network we want to serve? How might we structure our leadership to accommodate this present situation?
- Is turtleocracy appropriate for high-risk work by a group of people experiencing first-hand the unpredicted negative consequences of interacting systems? Is lack of trust a deal-breaker?
- Can we implement a DisCO without much shared synchronous time? Is it appropriate in an organisation which has no experience with decentralized organising? Do people have time to learn the approach; if not, does this decrease our ideological/organisational proximity?
If the preferred framework doesn’t fit the group situation, either find another framework which fits better, or invest some time into developing the areas which don’t yet meet the aspirations.
A both/and approach is possible: choose something in the meantime, while committing to a change of circumstances, so the aspirational framework can be implemented when the team is ready.
Lastly, set a time to decide when to review your team’s spokes. At least two team members should set themselves a reminder in their calendars, to make sure the review isn’t forgotten about.
In Conclusion
The more complex the factors in our social environment, the more valuable it is to deliberate questions of power, influence and accountability.
A do-ocracy will flourish in some situations but can cause misunderstanding and loss of trust in others, resulting in even slower progress than if a slow & steady strategy had been adopted from the beginning.
A whole-system approach might have developed a lot of good solutions, but can feel oppressive if the reasons behind the methods aren’t clear, and the team doesn’t choose it for themselves.
Give this deliberation process the time and attention that it needs, and be prepared to change as the social organism matures. We have a better chance of manifesting our goals if we acknowledge the space between where we are and where our aspirations are; so even if you don’t have the privilege of using the fastest wheels, celebrate that at least, you are on the journey.
Let how we do it be as important as what we do!
By Naomi Joy Smith (qi/kin)
Steward, research, training coordination & engagement design at Permaculture CoLab
