Optimizing an organization for competent beginners isn't about designing for the lowest common denominator.

It's about designing for the greatest collective accelerator.

The broader set of effective contributors, the better product/market fit.

Elitism leads to over-optimization of momentary-performance over perpetual performance.

Perpetual performance answers the question of "how do we make sustainable improvements to the operating model for this product or service far into the future?"

To design a socioeconomic system for the greatest collective accelerator, invest time and attention in creating systemic affordances for self-determination.

In systems with significant power disparities, this requires a deep understanding of enthusiastic consent and mutual benefit

Enthusiastic consent and mutual benefit in socioeconomic contexts can be determined by inquiry into the degree of engagement in the system.

Is the system energized primarily by:

1. Risk-mitigation instincts or obligation?
2. Opportunity-seeking or interest?

Systems where risk-mitigation or obligation are the dominant motivators are unlikely to be enthusiastically consensual or mutually beneficial.

Conversely, systems where people can seek opportunities or follow their interests are likely to generate enthusiasm and consent.

Socioeconomic systems that strive to be broadly:

1. Enthusiastically consensual
2. Mutually beneficial
3. Collectively accelerated

Are, almost by definition, far more sustainable than socioeconomic systems that do not.

| | |

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Wandering Shop

The Wandering Shop is a Mastodon instance initially geared for the science fiction and fantasy community but open to anyone. We want our 'local' timeline to have the feel of a coffee shop at a good convention: tables full of friendly conversation on a wide variety of topics. We welcome everyone who wants to participate, so long as you're willing to abide by our code of conduct.