One of the factors that makes a decentralized network (or swarm) work is the fine balance between autonomy and dependence. Getting this balance right is critical but difficult, since no two organizations are alike. There is really no right answer to how much autonomy or how much structure is required: it is more a sliding scale of efficiency and effectiveness.
Most swarms are basically decentralized networks of nodes, each of which is, to some degree, autonomous. They all be part of the same organization, or not. Individual members may collect a paycheck, or may be volunteers. One of the factors which determines the degree of autonomy of individual nodes, then, is the nature of their relationship. If money is involved, autonomy will obviously be less and accountability rather more.
What does it mean for an individual node–a person or a team–to be autonomous? At it’s most basic, it means that no one can tell them what to do. In such a swarm, a vision is held up, and people suggest actions to others, but no one can force anyone to do anything. Nearly all volunteer associations are like this. Churches are very swarmish: no one can force someone to be a Sunday school teacher, for example, or to go to the men’s retreat.
Autonomy works well in some cases and less well in others. Generally, in situations where life and death are on the line (like surgeries or airports) one doesn’t want workers to be autonomous to this degree. We want to know that what needs to be done, will be done, regardless of whether people woke up feeling like doing it or not. Some business settings, too, may give a certain degree of autonomy, yet not give complete independence.
Dependence, on other hand, means that the node is dependent on a central structure for direction and the resources required to implement the direction. You are trained to make a widget, you show up each day and make the widget, and at the end of two weeks you get a paycheck for the work you did. This kind of dependence insures a certain amount of stability of work, which can be good for the worker and the employee. But it only works if you have money to pay the employee.
So dependence is good for ensuring the ongoing stability of something, but only if you have money. For a lot of people, however, there is a passionate vision–but no money, for whatever reason. It’s not a flashy cause, or the person just does not have very good people skills, or they are in a very poor part of the world, or … In those kinds of cases, a volunteer kind of organization can be ideal. But it has to allow for a certain degree of autonomy.
So how does one create an organization that gets something done without having a centralized command structure? The trick with a swarm is to give a certain amount of independence, to build interdependence that gives value, and to build an organizational brand which requires certain standards.
To accomplish the first, many swarms give concentric levels of authority. In our agency, Mission to Unreached Peoples, for example, we have a document that describes what each level of our agency can do. At the individual family level, you are free to do certain things on your own. But there are some decisions that must be made either in consultation with your team or by the team in consensus. And there are some decisions made at the level of the people group cluster, and some by the international headquarters. We try to shove as many decisions as possible down to the team level, but there are certain things–like expense reporting standards, for example–which are established and enforced for the whole organization. This approach gives the individual team as much autonomy as possible, allowing them maximum flexibility.
Second, you can build a swarm that delivers value for interdependent links. For example, our organization is divided according to affinity blocks and people group clusters. We might have multiple teams focused on a people group cluster. By sharing information, resource, ideas, and working in concert with each other, all of the teams within a cluster are stronger. It is a slight limitation on autonomy but the value will outweigh the limit. If a team should happen to refuse to act in concert with others, it would break its interdependence. It would no longer give value–but it would no longer receive value either.
Finally, you can hopefully create an organization or brand that will be useful to people. The ultimate enforcer in this case is: you can be part of our group and gain credibility by being so. In order to be part you must adhere to some minimal policies. If you do, you will gain many connections and resources. If you refuse, then you will no longer be part.
Balancing these things is not easy, but I suggest you start by listing out all the categories of decisions that an individual person or team must make, and the actions that must be done to fulfill the promise of the swarm. Who does the action? Who determines what the action is? Who makes sure the action gets done? How is accountability ensured? Push as many of these down to the team level, but don’t hesitate to keep them to a higher level where necessary.
{ 0 comments… add one now }