Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Below are commonly asked questions about
the new system I'm proposing.
1. Won't it lead to anarchy?
A 'free system' – in which freedom is
an emergent property - does not equal anarchy. For example take a system
with - and let-s take a really wild number here - about 300 million people.
The leaders regularly get thrown out by their people; there are lots of
sub-level leaders (who also get regularly thrown out); the leaders are
forever squabbling with each other in public; their people are forever
criticizing them in public; things happen by consensus; the top job is
seemingly won by a popularity contest, and so on. But consider the name of
this system – the United States - which also happens to be the world's most
powerful system.
We know that the apparent chaos of
freedom disguises very real, tangible and formidable strengths. In
comparison, dictatorship 'fear systems' are usually weak, uncompetitive and
stale.
2. All this talk of freedom sounds
very nice. But how do we implement this practically?
Remember that fundamentally, the vote
is really an expression of power. In organisations, the boss's power is
typically expressed through the appraisal. This determines the subordinate's
pay, promotion prospects, standing in the organisation and, indeed, the very
existence of the subordinate in that organisation (not to mention the
ability to pay the mortgage, image in the community, self-confidence, and so
on).
Through the appraisal, your boss
already ‘votes’ for you – a satisfactory rating or higher is a vote for you
to continue, and a rating of not-satisfactory means you're voted out -
dismissed.
Similarly, a boss should have
management objectives (such as clearly communicating goals) in relation to
the subordinate, and be appraised (with similar consequences) by the
subordinate. Depending on the rating, the boss is either voted in or out,
though ideally, this vote would be expressed as a real vote. This goes way
beyond 360-degree feedback. For more approaches, you could read Ricardo
Semler's book, Maverick. It's important to understand that whatever
the approach, the aim is to counterbalance the boss's power, such that
freedom is an emergent property of the system.
3. Don't we sometimes need a
dictator?
First, when someone says, "a dictator
is sometimes needed," what's left unsaid is, "and that dictator should be
me, or a dictator I approve of".
Second, we often say a dictator is
sometimes required because a 'firm hand' is needed. But who will get to decide, and at what point,
that a dictator is required? The dictator, of course. This can go terribly
wrong. In 1986, space shuttle Challenger disintegrated soon after lift-off,
killing everyone on board. It turned out that because of freezing weather,
the engineers had recommended against launching. But their bosses took an
autocratic decision and over-ruled them.
4. Won't it turn into a popularity
contest?
This is not really a question but a
statement of arrogance that says, "I will vote for the right person, but I
don't trust others to do so". It also means you think others are not
intelligent enough to make the right choice. Consider that someone could
think the same of you. Also remember that before women won the right to
vote, they were denied this right partly because they were considered to be
too emotional and irrational.
5. Won't it be time-consuming and
cumbersome to put every decision to vote?
This confuses consensual
decision-making with the definition of leader. It's not decisions that are
being put to a vote. It's the boss himself/herself.
6. Our people are already
empowered. Why do they need the vote?
In this context, empowerment is
different from freedom. Subordinates may be empowered to make decisions or
do certain things. But why then, are they still afraid of the boss? Because
the boss can throw them out anytime, and they don't have that power over
their boss.
7. Isn't 360-degree feedback good
enough?
How much does fear of the boss reduce
because of 360-degree feedback? When you give feedback to a person whose
position you cannot threaten, and on whom your position depends, it's not a
recipe for freedom. It's a recipe for lying or, at best, sugarcoating the
truth.
8. I already know my boss behaves
badly. Why do I need a fancy theory?
Before the theory of gravity came
along, people already knew that if you jumped off a roof, you were going to
fall down and get hurt. But now that we have a theory of gravity, it helps
us in achieving stupendous things – satellite TV, sending human beings to
the moon, and so on. As the saying goes: "There's nothing as practical as a
good theory."
9. I'm truly a nice boss, so
obviously the system hasn't influenced me. Doesn't that disprove what you're
saying?
The difference in power between boss
and subordinate results in a difference in perception. You may be a really
nice boss, but to a subordinate, even a request for a simple favour can come
across as an order. The system's influence means that subordinates become
subservient so that even if you're nice, subordinates may not always see it
that way. Subservience breeds resentment, and there's no telling when and
how this will manifest itself.
10. What about subordinates who
behave badly with bosses?
This happens, but nowhere near as much
as we imagine. In his best-selling book, The No Asshole Rule,
Stanford professor Bob Sutton says, "'upward nastiness' – where underlings
take on their superiors – occurs in less than 1 per cent of cases."
Finally, if we're having such a
difficult time accepting freedom, imagine the problem dictators and subjects
of countries face. Without any exposure to freedom, imagine how insane and
fanciful the idea must appear to them.
(END)
© Chetan Dhruve
|