organizational theory

Leave the country or stay? There was a time period where my friends and I were getting invited to these new exciting community projects in the Central America and Asia and Europe. Crypto millionaires and retired billionaires trying to bootstrap whole new civilizations and villages and large retreat centers.

Yet, all of us felt a certain affinity and even responsibility to stay in the States.

Which is a little strange considering probably all of our families also have immigrated here at some point.

How does one assess whether to establish a new home abroad and call it quits on the homeland? Or stick it out and try to make it work?

It reminds me of the dilemma that's often posed around do you try to reform an institute as a player within or do you go off and establish a brand new thing? Does staying in the current system doomed to be corrupted and compromised? Or is going off naive and doomed to failure as a retreat from life?

As I'm writing this, I could see the same dilemma in deciding whether to stay working for a corp or start your own business. Or stay in a currently challenging relationship or call it quits to find a new partner. Or even try to be a lay person in the world or go off to be a monk in the mountains.

I suppose the answer is ultimately context is what matters most.

And I've yet to see a really compelling abroad experiment that seemed actually integrated or likely to deliver on the promises.

I, myself, have been increasingly interested in building out more of the physical and social infrastructure locally to create the new type of village community in AVL. But, those billionaire communities or even rural Portugal tiny communities do tempt me at times.

Deliberately Development Orgs are bullshit? I expect others here read and were influenced by An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization by Kegan and Lahey?

I remember first being introduced to it in a circling retreat probably 8 years ago or so. One of the example orgs they use is Bridgewater Associates with Ray Dalio at the head.

I loved their believability-weighted decision making algorithm (nod to Uptrust's setup here) that would score people's expertise in different fields. I loved their radical transparency and recording of meetings. I loved their "baseball card" feature for all employees showing where they're strong and weak.

But then I read The Fund: Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Associates and The Unraveling of a Wall Street Legend. The author peels back the surface and basically shows Dalio ran essentially a narcissistic cult in his hedge fund. The algorithm was hard coded so that Dalio was ranked highest in every category. The recordings were highly edited to make him look good and his targets bad.

I haven't spent time looking at the other examples in the DDO book yet but I question maybe a for-profit huge corporation is going to be fighting really uphill to be a virtuous company in today's systems.

Deliberately Development Orgs are bullshit? I expect others here read and were influenced by An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization by Kegan and Lahey?

I remember first being introduced to it in a circling retreat probably 8 years ago or so. One of the example orgs they use is Bridgewater Associates with Ray Dalio at the head.

I loved their believability-weighted decision making algorithm (nod to Uptrust's setup here) that would score people's expertise in different fields. I loved their radical transparency and recording of meetings. I loved their "baseball card" feature for all employees showing where they're strong and weak.

But then I read The Fund: Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Associates and The Unraveling of a Wall Street Legend. The author peels back the surface and basically shows Dalio ran essentially a narcissistic cult in his hedge fund. The algorithm was hard coded so that Dalio was ranked highest in every category. The recordings were highly edited to make him look good and his targets bad.

I haven't spent time looking at the other examples in the DDO book yet but I question maybe a for-profit huge corporation is going to be fighting really uphill to be a virtuous company in today's systems.

Deliberately Development Orgs are bullshit? I expect others here read and were influenced by An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization by Kegan and Lahey?

I remember first being introduced to it in a circling retreat probably 8 years ago or so. One of the example orgs they use is Bridgewater Associates with Ray Dalio at the head.

I loved their believability-weighted decision making algorithm (nod to Uptrust's setup here) that would score people's expertise in different fields. I loved their radical transparency and recording of meetings. I loved their "baseball card" feature for all employees showing where they're strong and weak.

But then I read The Fund: Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Associates and The Unraveling of a Wall Street Legend. The author peels back the surface and basically shows Dalio ran essentially a narcissistic cult in his hedge fund. The algorithm was hard coded so that Dalio was ranked highest in every category. The recordings were highly edited to make him look good and his targets bad.

I haven't spent time looking at the other examples in the DDO book yet but I question maybe a for-profit huge corporation is going to be fighting really uphill to be a virtuous company in today's systems.

Teal Version of US Democracy. I asked ChatGpt what changes could be made to US democracy to make it teal. I really dig these concepts. I hadn’t ever heard of Liquid Voting before, and it sounds cool as heck.

1. Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) on a National Scale
   Description: Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than voting for just one candidate. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on voters’ next preferences. This process continues until a candidate wins a majority.
   Teal Impact: RCV encourages more nuanced, cooperative, and less divisive campaigns, as candidates are incentivized to appeal to a broader range of voters, not just their base. It reduces the polarization inherent in two-party systems and promotes coalition-building, which aligns with teal values of inclusivity, complexity thinking, and the integration of diverse perspectives.

2. Deliberative Voting Structures
   Description: Deliberative democracy involves structured, informed, and inclusive discussions among citizens prior to voting. Participants engage in dialogue to explore different viewpoints and potential solutions before casting their vote.
   Teal Impact: This would encourage citizens to move beyond partisan talking points and engage in deep, meaningful discussions about policy and candidates. It fosters greater empathy, collaboration, and systems thinking—key elements of teal governance—by helping voters understand the interconnectedness of issues and the long-term consequences of their choices.

3. Proportional Representation
   Description: In a proportional representation system, legislative seats are allocated based on the percentage of votes each party receives. For example, if a party receives 30% of the vote, they would hold 30% of the seats in the legislature.
   Teal Impact: Proportional representation encourages a more inclusive and diverse political landscape by allowing multiple parties and viewpoints to be represented. This system discourages binary winner-take-all thinking and creates space for collaboration and compromise. In a teal system, this would better reflect the complex spectrum of human development and values, leading to a more integrated and balanced government.

4. Liquid Democracy
   Description: Liquid democracy allows voters to either cast their own vote on issues or delegate their vote to a trusted representative or expert. Unlike traditional representative systems, delegations can be revoked or reassigned at any time, allowing for a dynamic and responsive voting structure.
   Teal Impact: Liquid democracy would enable a more fluid and flexible form of representation, where citizens could actively participate in areas where they feel knowledgeable and delegate in areas where they do not. This approach mirrors teal values by empowering individuals to engage in governance based on their unique strengths and knowledge, while also fostering collective intelligence by delegating decisions to trusted experts when needed.

5. Holacratic Voting
   Description: Holacratic governance is a decentralized system where power is distributed among roles or circles rather than individuals. In a holacratic voting structure, small, autonomous groups (circles) would vote on issues related to their specific roles and areas of expertise.
   Teal Impact: A holacratic system of voting would distribute decision-making power more evenly across the population, reflecting the teal emphasis on self-organization and decentralization. Citizens would have more direct influence on issues relevant to their communities and professions, creating a more organic and adaptable system of governance that empowers people at all levels.

6. Consensus-Based Voting for Key Decisions
   Description: Instead of simple majority rule, consensus-based voting requires that decisions achieve broad agreement among participants, often with mechanisms to ensure minority voices are heard. Modifications to proposals can be made to accommodate different viewpoints.
   Teal Impact: Consensus-based voting aligns with teal’s focus on inclusivity, cooperation, and holistic solutions. It prevents majoritarian dominance and encourages decision-making processes that take into account the needs and concerns of all stakeholders. This approach fosters a deeper sense of community and shared responsibility, which is essential in a teal democracy.

7. Policy Feedback Loops and Systems Thinking in Voting
   Description: In a teal democracy, voting structures could be designed to include mechanisms for ongoing policy feedback loops. Citizens would have the ability to vote on policies or amendments, but also provide real-time feedback on how policies are working through ongoing participatory platforms.
   Teal Impact: This system would help voters think in complex, systems-based terms, encouraging them to consider the long-term and interconnected effects of policies. By integrating feedback loops into the voting structure, it would create a more adaptive and responsive governance system that evolves based on the changing needs and conditions of society, aligning with teal’s focus on evolutionary development.

8. Blockchain-Based Voting for Transparency and Trust
   Description: Blockchain technology can be used to create a secure, transparent voting system that allows for tamper-proof voting records. Voters can cast their votes digitally, and the system ensures that each vote is counted accurately while preserving voter anonymity.
   Teal Impact: Blockchain voting would enhance trust in the electoral process by providing complete transparency and accountability. This technology could reduce concerns about fraud or manipulation and make elections more accessible, particularly for marginalized communities. Teal democracy values transparency, trust, and fairness, and blockchain would support these principles.

9. Participatory Budgeting at National and Local Levels
   Description: Participatory budgeting allows citizens to directly decide how to allocate a portion of the public budget. It has been used successfully in cities around the world to give citizens a direct say in how funds are spent on community projects.
   Teal Impact: By scaling participatory budgeting to both local and national levels, a teal voting structure would empower citizens to engage in collaborative decision-making about public resources. This process would deepen civic engagement, promote collective responsibility, and ensure that public spending aligns more closely with the needs and priorities of the people.

10. Multi-Level and Issue-Specific Voting
    Description: In a teal democracy, voters could have the opportunity to vote on different levels of governance (local, state, national) and on specific issues, such as environmental policy, healthcare, or education, through issue-based elections. This could allow citizens to participate more actively in areas they are passionate or knowledgeable about.
    Teal Impact: Issue-specific voting reflects teal values by encouraging deeper engagement in governance. Citizens can focus their energy on specific issues where they have expertise or passion, allowing for more nuanced and informed decisions. It would also decentralize power and ensure that specific areas of governance are shaped by those most interested and knowledgeable about them.

We Need World One Goverment. Argument: Currently, there are a host of problems, challenges, and opportunities that cannot be adequately addressed within national borders (COVID, pollution, global warming, piracy, tax havens, AI, etc). And this creates arms races and problem of the commons issues.

In order to resolve these problems or take full advantage of the opportunities, we need one world government that can make consistent policy across the globe.

It could be like the US with States or EU with nations, but there needs to be a stronger world government, UN doesn’t cut it.

Argue for/against/synthesis