expand definition of principles with descriptions of open attitudes and behaviors

[semioticrobotic]

Almost since the initial launch of The Open Organization, readers have been asking @jhibbets and me for a particular kind of resource to use alongside it: A "maturity model," something one can use to answer questions like:

• "What does an open organization look like in practice?"

• "How can I help my team better understand how open we are, and how we can become even more open?"

• "How do I actually implement this stuff with my team?"

  Questions like these are versions of a more basic question that sounds something like:

• "How do I do 'open'?"

Recently, columnist Jen Kelchner (founder of open management/leadership consulting firm LDR21) and ambassador Philip Foster approached me to ask after a similar resource: A "model for openness" they could use in their teaching and consulting work. Jen (copied on this) was especially keen to see our open organization definition extended in this fashion. She's building a practice that embraces the values we espouse in that definition, and offered to participate in the collaborative building of an "upstream" tool she and open-minded people like her could use to help organizations understand how they could better implement and leverage those qualities.

And so, inspired by the Red Hat People Team's own maturity model for the Open Decision Framework, Jen, Phil, and I began to brainstorm what a similar model for aspiring open organizations might look like.

We'd like to share with you a draft of some language we've developed—descriptions of "transparency" and "collaboration" practices at various levels of maturity.

We'd very much like your feedback on the work (all open to comment and revision), and, most importantly, your help refining the model and fleshing out similar language that pertains to "inclusivity," "adaptability," and "community." As I said, the broad range of skills, interests, and experiences the ambassadors bring to this kind of work really can flesh it out in exciting ways.

Ambassadors should should have access to it at this link.

If not, please just let me know.

[chadwhitacre]

Love seeing progress on this, @semioticrobotic! Good work, everyone!

[semioticrobotic]

Thanks, @whit537! Looking forward to gathering your expertise.

[LauraHilliger]

This work is meaty enough to deserve some serious discussion :) I wrote one comment in the doc, but what strikes me is that for me the "how" of open is not linear and always context specific. My gut feeling is that this feels a bit rigid.

The nuances also make assessment difficult. Example: "Non-sensitive materials..." but how does one judge sensitivity in this context?

I wonder about a creative implementation of the model. Like instead of thinking about it as a document, what if we thought about it as a giant decision tree? That might be an interesting way to wrap our heads around something so conceptual.

I know, this all feels a bit scattered and bit rabbit holey, but 2 things:

1. You all must have done a helluva first draft because my brain lit up. What's the best way to contribute – commenting in the Doc or making edit suggestions? I feel like this is more of a community call, more long-term development kind of project. Big conceptual problems are big and conceptual.

2. I feel like a tool / resource like this, developed in the open is useful right from the start. But I suggest choosing a deadline to work towards, far enough in the future, that we have time to really wrap our heads around it. (We spent just about a year before launch v1 of the web literacy map). Perhaps we could launch V1 of this model at ATO 2017, make a big to-do about it....

Just thinking out loud. Great start, I'm excited about this!

[semioticrobotic]

I'm pumped that you're pumped, @LauraHilliger. A few responses:

I wrote one comment in the doc, but what strikes me is that for me the "how" of open is not linear and always context specific. My gut feeling is that this feels a bit rigid. The nuances also make assessment difficult. Example: "Non-sensitive materials..." but how does one judge sensitivity in this context?

I agree that we will need to develop a level of comfort with ambiguity and nuance. Such is the challenge of making a model! To me, phrases like "non-sensitive materials" actually aid that effort rather than detract from it, because they're flexible enough to adjust according to context. "Sensitive materials" are different in, say, a non-profit and a health care organization. The model should allow for that kind of flexibility. If the "levels" language is too rigid, then by all means let's reimagine it.

What's the best way to contribute – commenting in the Doc or making edit suggestions? I feel like this is more of a community call, more long-term development kind of project. Big conceptual problems are big and conceptual.

The best way to contribute right this moment is to dive into the Google Doc to begin shaping the language and the conceptual terrain. If the "levels" organization is too constrictive, then just jump on down to the end of the document and sketch an alternative that we can likewise jump into and help flesh out. Contributions beget more contributions, and I think we'll work best when we see something to which we can respond (hence our goal with the first draft: have something there, for review, even if it's inadequate, when the initial "call for help" went out).

I suggest choosing a deadline to work towards, far enough in the future, that we have time to really wrap our heads around it.

I have placed tentative deadlines on the ambassador project agenda, which are speculative and entirely open to group revision. I just needed to get a stake in the ground. We can move that stake, but I do agree that we need one.

[ghost]

I just re-read the document. I had some thoughts about it already, because I have been involved in a maturity assessment at a previous employer. If you read the first paragraph:

Our community can play a significant role in shaping the adoption of openness in the workplace by creating a resource teams can use to assess "how open" they already are and determine what they must do to become more open in the future.

Do we not need levels? For the purpose of assessment? What else would you want to call it? The model, as it is described right now, obviously has the purpose of determining where you are now on a scale of X to Z. And how to get to Y if you want to.

The model I worked with can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model_Integration. This by the way is not just a model. Its a complete toolkit, where model, methods etc are just part of the toolkit.

If you look at that model, the use levels. I could easily see our model as an addition to it. It would add some characteristics that are part of being open, to this model.

Bryan suggested to use the model at the team level. I would actually ask to think about using it one level up, at a department level. Example: teams work in silos (less collaboration, transparency). By assessing your business processes, using such models, it also becomes important to break those silos, as some processes will run cross teams/departments. This is where collaboration and transparency become important. Hence, working more open would help get you to the next level.

The above is basically how my brain wraps around the maturity model. Then again, I might be objective, and stuck in thinking as I have used this before and I would need to think outside these ideas/methods.

[semioticrobotic]

These are all very helpful and insightful comments, @robinmuilwijk. Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm studying that link.

I believe Jen, Phil, and I jumped to a levels-oriented model, too, because we were thinking about the context to which we hope the model will add value. Jen and Phil both have extensive experience in this area, so they confirmed to me that the "level language" and the "matrix-style" chart of progressive skills/competencies is something professionals would look for in a prospective model (it conforms to a format with which they're already familiar and it therefore makes more immediate sense).

Naturally, I do not think we should compromise the integrity of our project by fitting it into a vision for which it simply isn't intended, but I do think your comment is a helpful reminder that we need to think about the context(s) in which we hope the model will find traction and influence concrete practices. Thanks!

[ghost]

something professionals would look for in a prospective model

That is exactly what was on my mind as well. And the context clearly stated in the first paragraph. Looking forward to see comments from others, to see where their compass is pointing to with regards to the model.

[semioticrobotic]

Based on some comments from @samuelknuth, I made a few adjustments in document.

[semioticrobotic]

On the strong recommendation from @maximumchange, I recently purchased a copy of Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Will report back here with anything I learn that's pertinent to this project in particular.

[semioticrobotic]

At our February meeting, many folks helpfully suggested we refine the language describing the five characteristics of open organizations as key competencies in and for open organizations. So work on this has already begun, with the goal is ironing out precisely what a "competency" will look and feel like.

Goals now are:

1. Working together to clarify the language regarding Transparency and Inclusivity, so that everyone involved can help shape the overall vision for the project, and then
2. Dividing into working groups of experts who want to tackle one of the other three characteristics/competencies, and weave that shared vision throughout all of them.

[semioticrobotic]

I'm wondering what others think of this (the product of some joint noodling among a few of the ambassadors in the doc.

---

Transparency

• Materials are available to all stakeholders by default.
• Actors disclose their work and invite participation on projects before those projects are complete and/or “final”
• People affected by decisions can access and review the processes and arguments that lead to those decisions, and they can acknowledge them
• People tell stories about their failures as well as their successes
• People value both success and failures for the lessons they provide

Inclusivity

• The organization is designed and structured to ensure diverse points of view enter into dialog.
• Leaders are sensitive to the voices they don’t hear as much as the voices they do hear.
• People feel as though they have a right (perhaps duty) to voice opinions on integral issues as well as trivial ones.
• Actors can join work in progress easily, and are welcomed to do so.
• Protocols and procedures for participation are clear, widely available, and acknowledged.
• Organization releases materials in formats that do not prevent others from accessing or modifying them.

---

Feedback welcome here or in the doc.

[semioticrobotic]

Great feedback from @samuelknuth, so I am tweaking the language a bit more.

[jenkelchner]

I would welcome a firm definition for "Actors" as it isn't widely used. It would help me in advising on some of our language choices and/or how we continue to define.

[semioticrobotic]

Well said. I think we can just change that to "people," unless @jenkelchner suggests something more industry-specific or appropriate.

[jenkelchner]

Transparency

Materials are available to all stakeholders by default. ---Materials and stakeholders will require a bit of fleshing out to be understood by the general pop...can I call them the gen pop?? :) ---This is a competency that will scare the majority immediately and until understood could cause some to "shut down" to their level of openness.

Transparency in general will be a tough selling point. Good work thus far team!

Inclusivity

People feel as though they have a right (perhaps duty) to voice opinions on integral issues as well as trivial ones. ---Would highly recommend using the word duty over right. Right makes people itching for a fight and drawing sides. While duty leads from a place of integrity and protectiveness of the whole - if that makes any sense.

Organization releases materials in formats that do not prevent others from accessing or modifying them. ---Another one that requires explanation. As is, it may make sense in its full context. Otherwise, we should provide some context to its purpose.

[semioticrobotic]

Very helpful, @jenkelchner! Thanks for your feedback. I am going to incorporate it over in the doc.

Update

Jen's final suggestion—about specifying the language regarding "access" and "modification"—is proving difficult to adapt. But it's a good one, I think, and warrants the effort.

I think the sentiment behind this point in the model is: To promote inclusivity, open organizations prefer tools, systems, and processes that are common. This could mean things like open standards (like open file formats, to use one example, such as .odt or .ePub, because in both cases each is more widely accessible than closed alternatives) and open protocols (like https:// as opposed to some closed or proprietary transmission protocol, or IMAP over some kind of specific or niche messaging platform), so they ensure that as many people who wish to participate can indeed do so (as the rules are explicit, more people have access to the tools, etc.).

I don't want to rely too heavily on overly technical examples, however, so I just used the word "formats" to encompass all this. What I'd like to express here is the idea that open organizations can promote inclusivity by making rules common and explicit, relying on open platforms and protocols, and ensuring that unforeseen contributors can join an effort even if they're not involved in initial discussions about technical preferences, etc.

Anyone have ideas on how to solve this?

[semioticrobotic]

@amatlack just made some excellent suggestions, which I incorporated to the best of my ability. I did leave one "hanging," however, for further discussion, because I think it warrants a few more heads!

[semioticrobotic]

Alright, folks! Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the multiple working groups who skillfully crafted compelling language, we now have a complete draft of the next phrase of this project: working descriptions of the open organizational principles/characteristics "at work" in the behaviors and attitudes of organizational members (or, what openness "looks like" with regard to each of the characteristics in the Open Organization Definition).

It's now time to review them all as a group and gather feedback from far and wide. Please circulate as necessary and appropriate!

Here's the new, proposed language:

Transparency

• Everyone working on a project or initiative has access to all pertinent materials by default.
• People willingly disclose their work, invite participation on projects before those projects are complete and/or “final,” and respond positively to request for additional details.
• People affected by decisions can access and review the processes and arguments that lead to those decisions, and they can comment on and respond to them.
• Leaders encourage others to tell stories about both their failures and their successes without fear of repercussion; associates are forthcoming about both.
• People value both success and failures for the lessons they provide.

  Inclusivity

• Technical channels and social norms for encouraging diverse points of view are well-established and obvious.
• Protocols and procedures for participation are clear, widely available, and acknowledged, allowing for constructive inclusion of diverse perspectives.
• The organization features multiple channels and/or methods for receiving feedback in order to accommodate people's preferences.
• Leaders regularly assess and respond to feedback they receive, and cultivate a culture that encourages frequent dialog regarding this feedback.
• Leaders are conscious of voices not present in dialog and actively seek to include or incorporate them.
• People feel a duty to voice opinions on issues relevant to their work or about which they are passionate.
• People work transparently and share materials via common standards and/or agreed-upon platforms that do not prevent others from accessing or modifying them.

  Adaptability

• Feedback mechanisms are accessible both to members of the organization and to outside members offer suggestions.
• Feedback mechanisms allow and encourage peers to assist one another without managerial oversight, if necessary.
• Leaders work to ensure that feedback loops genuinely and materially impact the ways people in the organization operate.
• Processes for collective problem solving, collaborative decision making, and continuous learning are in place, and the organization rewards both personal and team learning to reinforce a growth mindset.
• People tend to understand the context for the changes they’re making or experiencing.
• People are not afraid to make mistakes, yet projects and teams are comfortable adapting their pre-existing work to project-specific contexts in order to avoid repeated failures.

  Collaboration

• People tend to believe that working together produces better results.
• People tend to begin work collaboratively, rather than "add collaboration" after they've each completed individual components of work.
• People tend to engage partners outside their immediate teams when undertaking new projects.
• Work produced collaboratively is easily available internally for others to build upon.
• Work produced collaboratively is available externally for creators outside the organization to use in potentially unforeseen ways.
• People can discover, provide feedback on, and join work in progress easily—and are welcomed to do so.

  Community

• Shared values and principles that inform decision-making and assessment processes are clear and obvious to members.
• People feel equipped and empowered to make meaningful contributions to collaborative work.
• Leaders mentor others and demonstrate strong accountability to the group by modeling shared values and principles.
• People have a common language and work together to ensure that ideas do not get “lost in translation,” and they are comfortable sharing their knowledge and stories to further the group’s work.

[brookmanville]

I'm still amazed that "meritocracy" is not part of the core model--it is fundamental to the original articulation at Red Hat, and for reasons I have written about, seems vital to making "open" work.

[samuelknuth]

Brook - haven't you also discovered the word "meritocracy" is problematic and defined differently by different people who use the term? I wonder if it's implied i the other characteristics (I'm thinking especially in inclusivity). Do you see any other places that elements of meritocracy could be incorporated?

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:22 AM, brookmanville notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm still amazed that "meritocracy" is not part of the core model--it is fundamental to the original articulation at Red Hat, and for reasons I have written about, seems vital to making "open" work.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291553858, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APK5fk1blAmynYNo71lwkBuoDcHxyOWWks5rsm5CgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785

[maximumchange]

I still like to view Meritocracy as a "flavor" of Open rather than a part of the core model. I say this because I have witnessed organizations that, to a varying extent, embrace or ignore tenants of Meritocracy. I would rather view Meritocracy as a mechanism of the organizations working governance rather than necessarily rudimentary to its DNA.

[semioticrobotic]

Elsewhere, @LappleApple suggests:

"Might add a line to the effect of, "The organization celebrates and rewards personal and team learning, to reinforce a growth mindset."

[maximumchange]

Like

Dr. Philip A Foster

On Apr 4, 2017 2:37 PM, "Bryan Behrenshausen" notifications@github.com wrote:

Elsewhere, @LappleApple https://github.com/LappleApple suggests:

"Might add a line to the effect of, "The organization celebrates and rewards personal and team learning, to reinforce a growth mindset."

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291592991, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD474kd_K3aO9RTnA7534es2jBM6__Bhks5rso3vgaJpZM4LvD-T .

[brookmanville]

Yes, the notion that meritocracy means different things to different people is part of the problem, as I wrote in my recent OpenOrg piece. But I still think it has to be part of open because it's still the best answer, in my opinion, to the question of "what's the performance value proposition of doing open?" Meritocracy drives performance. Without some version of that, open just becomes "feel good community" stuff, in my view--nice but not sufficient for a leader to undertake to change his/her organization towards open.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, samuelknuth notifications@github.com wrote:

Brook - haven't you also discovered the word "meritocracy" is problematic and defined differently by different people who use the term? I wonder if it's implied i the other characteristics (I'm thinking especially in inclusivity). Do you see any other places that elements of meritocracy could be incorporated?

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:22 AM, brookmanville notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm still amazed that "meritocracy" is not part of the core model--it is fundamental to the original articulation at Red Hat, and for reasons I have written about, seems vital to making "open" work.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291553858, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ APK5fk1blAmynYNo71lwkBuoDcHxyOWWks5rsm5CgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785 <(612)%20840-1785>

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291561685, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZqJAxQQoWMhAA4D4_mQ2Vo4G_vSXMoGks5rsnR_gaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Brook Manville Principal, Brook Manville LLC

http://www.brookmanville.com/ http://www.brookmanville.com/ Twitter https://twitter.com/ @brookmanville blogging at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/

[samuelknuth]

That makes sense. Good feedback. I talk about this as "accountability" rather than meritocracy. e.g. everyone has a high degree of accountability and recognizes that the freedoms of the open culture are only possible because of that. Also individuals are accountable for their own career growth - which is one of the biggest areas of discussion for me personally.

Not sure where we put these things, but we probably should create a new category called "Meritocracy" and then list examples?

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:04 PM, brookmanville notifications@github.com wrote:

Yes, the notion that meritocracy means different things to different people is part of the problem, as I wrote in my recent OpenOrg piece. But I still think it has to be part of open because it's still the best answer, in my opinion, to the question of "what's the performance value proposition of doing open?" Meritocracy drives performance. Without some version of that, open just becomes "feel good community" stuff, in my view--nice but not sufficient for a leader to undertake to change his/her organization towards open.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, samuelknuth notifications@github.com wrote:

Brook - haven't you also discovered the word "meritocracy" is problematic and defined differently by different people who use the term? I wonder if it's implied i the other characteristics (I'm thinking especially in inclusivity). Do you see any other places that elements of meritocracy could be incorporated?

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:22 AM, brookmanville <notifications@github.com

wrote:

I'm still amazed that "meritocracy" is not part of the core model--it is fundamental to the original articulation at Red Hat, and for reasons I have written about, seems vital to making "open" work.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291553858, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ APK5fk1blAmynYNo71lwkBuoDcHxyOWWks5rsm5CgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785 <(612)%20840-1785> <(612)%20840-1785>

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291561685, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZqJAxQQoWMhAA4D4_ mQ2Vo4G_vSXMoGks5rsnR_gaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Brook Manville Principal, Brook Manville LLC

http://www.brookmanville.com/ http://www.brookmanville.com/ Twitter https://twitter.com/ @brookmanville blogging at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291616076, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APK5flnePj4YphiPOlF1PbwMDg3m9ddCks5rsqJpgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785

[brookmanville]

Sounds like a good idea, Sam....

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:17 PM, samuelknuth notifications@github.com wrote:

That makes sense. Good feedback. I talk about this as "accountability" rather than meritocracy. e.g. everyone has a high degree of accountability and recognizes that the freedoms of the open culture are only possible because of that. Also individuals are accountable for their own career growth - which is one of the biggest areas of discussion for me personally.

Not sure where we put these things, but we probably should create a new category called "Meritocracy" and then list examples?

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:04 PM, brookmanville notifications@github.com wrote:

Yes, the notion that meritocracy means different things to different people is part of the problem, as I wrote in my recent OpenOrg piece. But I still think it has to be part of open because it's still the best answer, in my opinion, to the question of "what's the performance value proposition of doing open?" Meritocracy drives performance. Without some version of that, open just becomes "feel good community" stuff, in my view--nice but not sufficient for a leader to undertake to change his/her organization towards open.

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, samuelknuth notifications@github.com wrote:

Brook - haven't you also discovered the word "meritocracy" is problematic and defined differently by different people who use the term? I wonder if it's implied i the other characteristics (I'm thinking especially in inclusivity). Do you see any other places that elements of meritocracy could be incorporated?

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:22 AM, brookmanville < notifications@github.com

wrote:

I'm still amazed that "meritocracy" is not part of the core model--it is fundamental to the original articulation at Red Hat, and for reasons I have written about, seems vital to making "open" work.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291553858, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ APK5fk1blAmynYNo71lwkBuoDcHxyOWWks5rsm5CgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785 <(612)%20840-1785> <(612)%20840-1785> <(612)%20840-1785>

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291561685, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZqJAxQQoWMhAA4D4_ mQ2Vo4G_vSXMoGks5rsnR_gaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Brook Manville Principal, Brook Manville LLC

http://www.brookmanville.com/ http://www.brookmanville.com/ Twitter https://twitter.com/ @brookmanville blogging at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291616076, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ APK5flnePj4YphiPOlF1PbwMDg3m9ddCks5rsqJpgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785 <(612)%20840-1785>

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291619227, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZqJA18JtZ1a2UjDaxeknIlWapFOnXxIks5rsqVYgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Brook Manville Principal, Brook Manville LLC

http://www.brookmanville.com/ http://www.brookmanville.com/ Twitter https://twitter.com/ @brookmanville blogging at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/

[semioticrobotic]

Repeat and nourishing conversations with @brookmanville have convinced me that few people have thought as carefully, deliberately, and concertedly about "meritocracy" and its function in open organizational culture and design as he has. I do listen when he says that meritocracy is an indispensable component of such organizations (and therefore an indispensable part of any model or description of such organizations), but I admit that I'm not yet convinced.

I'm much more aligned with the argument (embodied here in comments from @maximumchange and @samuelknuth) that says "meritocracy" is a particular system or method for "doing" (enacting, espousing, securing) certain core values (like @samuelknuth, I tend to think of it as a mechanism for fostering greater inclusivity). As I recently wrote in my small addendum in support of @brookmanville larger work on Opensource.com, meritocracy is one system of governance among a potential many that find their way into open-style organizations. We just don't know what those are (or what their nuances are), because we haven't done the research yet. @brookmanville says above that meritocracy is "fundamental to the original articulation at Red Hat," but I'd warn us against using Red Hat's open organization as a template (or some kind of Platonic form) for all others. Red Hat is just an example of an open organization that leverages a meritocratic system of governance in some areas of its design to achieve certain ends and espouse certain values (again, perhaps inclusivity).

If the group ultimately agrees that meritocracy should figure more prominently in the materials we produce (definitions, maturity models, and so forth), then I'd suggest that we first revisit its role in The Open Organization Definition (version 1.0, released in December 2016). The work we've done here specifically maps to the core values and characteristics of openness that we defined there; were we to add a new category or value, "meritocracy," we lose the symmetry with the model we've already produced and introduce confusion. I think this also forces us to determine the level of abstract at which we're working when we talk about meritocracy. Is it a core value itself? A system or mechanism for enacting a core value? A set of prescribed behaviors for acting within such a system? And, to follow up on @brookmanville's comment above, is it necessary for "driving performance"? Or can other systems, structures, or approaches do that?

When we get some clarity around this, I think we're better able to determine how we talk about meritocracy in our work.

[maximumchange]

One could argue that Holacracy drives performance... And I don't count that in the same vein as meritocracy. What do you think?

Dr. Philip A Foster

On Apr 4, 2017 6:39 PM, "Bryan Behrenshausen" notifications@github.com wrote:

Repeat and nourishing conversations with @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville have convinced me that few people have thought as carefully, deliberately, and concertedly about "meritocracy" and its function in open organizational culture and design than he has. I do listen when he says that meritocracy is an indispensable component of such organizations (and therefore an indispensable part of any model or description of such organizations), but I admit that I'm not yet convinced.

I'm much more aligned with the argument (embodied here in comments from @maximumchange https://github.com/maximumchange and @samuelknuth https://github.com/samuelknuth) that says "meritocracy" is a particular system or method for "doing" (enacting, espousing, securing) certain core values (like @samuelknuth https://github.com/samuelknuth, I tend to think of it as a mechanism for fostering greater inclusivity). As I recently wrote in my small addendum in support of @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville larger work on Opensource.com, meritocracy is one system of governance among a potential many that find their way into open-style organizations. We just don't know what those are (or what their nuances are), because we haven't done the research yet. @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville says above that meritocracy is "fundamental to the original articulation at Red Hat," but I'd warn us against using Red Hat's open organization as a template (or some kind of Platonic form) for all others. Red Hat is just an example of an open organization that leverages a meritocratic system of governance in some areas of its design to achieve certain ends and espouse certain values (again, perhaps inclusivity).

If the group ultimately agrees that meritocracy should figure more prominently in the materials we produce (definitions, maturity models, and so forth), then I'd suggest that we first revisit it's role in The Open Organization Definition (version 1.0, released in December 2016). The work we've done here specifically maps to the core values and characteristics of openness that we defined there; were we to add a new category or value, "meritocracy," we lose the symmetry with the model we've already produced and introduce confusion. I think this also forces us to determine the level of abstract at which we're working when we talk about meritocracy. Is it a core value itself? A system or mechanism for enacting a core value? A set of prescribed behaviors for acting within such a system? And, to follow up on @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville's comment above, is it necessary for "driving performance"? Or can other systems, structures, or approaches do that?

When we get some clarity around this, I think we're better able to determine how we talk about meritocracy in our work.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291657671, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD474v0Qp6Gh_usbSynML7TqyejcNvYzks5rssaEgaJpZM4LvD-T .

[LappleApple]

I think the folks at Zappos https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/after-a-radical-management-experiment-the-zappos-exodus-continues/ might disagree-- and I would, too. :)

I've seen holocracy/holocratic methods applied at two companies, with very different results. In my observation, it requires an organizational culture of self-discipline combined with pragmatism and good boundary-managing skills to go off successfully. You can definitely hire for and cultivate for that sort of culture, as I've witnessed first-hand. But if you don't ... yikes.

2017-04-05 0:44 GMT+02:00 Dr Philip A Foster notifications@github.com:

One could argue that Holacracy drives performance... And I don't count that in the same vein as meritocracy. What do you think?

Dr. Philip A Foster

On Apr 4, 2017 6:39 PM, "Bryan Behrenshausen" notifications@github.com wrote:

Repeat and nourishing conversations with @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville have convinced me that few people have thought as carefully, deliberately, and concertedly about "meritocracy" and its function in open organizational culture and design than he has. I do listen when he says that meritocracy is an indispensable component of such organizations (and therefore an indispensable part of any model or description of such organizations), but I admit that I'm not yet convinced.

I'm much more aligned with the argument (embodied here in comments from @maximumchange https://github.com/maximumchange and @samuelknuth https://github.com/samuelknuth) that says "meritocracy" is a particular system or method for "doing" (enacting, espousing, securing) certain core values (like @samuelknuth https://github.com/samuelknuth, I tend to think of it as a mechanism for fostering greater inclusivity). As I recently wrote in my small addendum in support of @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville larger work on Opensource.com, meritocracy is one system of governance among a potential many that find their way into open-style organizations. We just don't know what those are (or what their nuances are), because we haven't done the research yet. @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville says above that meritocracy is "fundamental to the original articulation at Red Hat," but I'd warn us against using Red Hat's open organization as a template (or some kind of Platonic form) for all others. Red Hat is just an example of an open organization that leverages a meritocratic system of governance in some areas of its design to achieve certain ends and espouse certain values (again, perhaps inclusivity).

If the group ultimately agrees that meritocracy should figure more prominently in the materials we produce (definitions, maturity models, and so forth), then I'd suggest that we first revisit it's role in The Open Organization Definition (version 1.0, released in December 2016). The work we've done here specifically maps to the core values and characteristics of openness that we defined there; were we to add a new category or value, "meritocracy," we lose the symmetry with the model we've already produced and introduce confusion. I think this also forces us to determine the level of abstract at which we're working when we talk about meritocracy. Is it a core value itself? A system or mechanism for enacting a core value? A set of prescribed behaviors for acting within such a system? And, to follow up on @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville's comment above, is it necessary for "driving performance"? Or can other systems, structures, or approaches do that?

When we get some clarity around this, I think we're better able to determine how we talk about meritocracy in our work.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291657671, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD474v0Qp6Gh_ usbSynML7TqyejcNvYzks5rssaEgaJpZM4LvD-T

.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291659747, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACVwiJQF4aWHQ3lh9aTMJlOn-ob2zhkVks5rsse6gaJpZM4LvD-T .

[maximumchange]

I agree Lauri... You would note that I didn't say it was positive performance :-)

Dr. Philip A Foster

[samuelknuth]

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Bryan Behrenshausen < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Repeat and nourishing conversations with @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville have convinced me that few people have thought as carefully, deliberately, and concertedly about "meritocracy" and its function in open organizational culture and design than he has. I do listen when he says that meritocracy is an indispensable component of such organizations (and therefore an indispensable part of any model or description of such organizations), but I admit that I'm not yet convinced.

The piece Brook has convinced me of is the importance of having accountability represented. I agree with his sentiment that all the principles of "open" without a strong value of accountability, you are in danger of getting ""feel good community stuff" without the performance benefit.

That said, at Red Hat we have four values that we talk about and hold separately from the core concepts around open, so it might be that there are two different pieces that must go together here.

-Sam

I'm much more aligned with the argument (embodied here in comments from @maximumchange https://github.com/maximumchange and @samuelknuth https://github.com/samuelknuth) that says "meritocracy" is a particular system or method for "doing" (enacting, espousing, securing) certain core values (like @samuelknuth https://github.com/samuelknuth, I tend to think of it as a mechanism for fostering greater inclusivity). As I recently wrote in my small addendum in support of @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville larger work on Opensource.com, meritocracy is one system of governance among a potential many that find their way into open-style organizations. We just don't know what those are (or what their nuances are), because we haven't done the research yet. @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville says above that meritocracy is "fundamental to the original articulation at Red Hat," but I'd warn us against using Red Hat's open organization as a template (or some kind of Platonic form) for all others. Red Hat is just an example of an open organization that leverages a meritocratic system of governance in some areas of its design to achieve certain ends and espouse certain values (again, perhaps inclusivity).

If the group ultimately agrees that meritocracy should figure more prominently in the materials we produce (definitions, maturity models, and so forth), then I'd suggest that we first revisit it's role in The Open Organization Definition (version 1.0, released in December 2016). The work we've done here specifically maps to the core values and characteristics of openness that we defined there; were we to add a new category or value, "meritocracy," we lose the symmetry with the model we've already produced and introduce confusion. I think this also forces us to determine the level of abstract at which we're working when we talk about meritocracy. Is it a core value itself? A system or mechanism for enacting a core value? A set of prescribed behaviors for acting within such a system? And, to follow up on @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville's comment above, is it necessary for "driving performance"? Or can other systems, structures, or approaches do that?

When we get some clarity around this, I think we're better able to determine how we talk about meritocracy in our work.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291657671, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APK5fqgiE3s-4xCBH8PdItAW9QNEddzAks5rssaEgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785

[LappleApple]

+1 to adding accountability. End-to-end responsibility for work is essential. Ideally it comes from within/people are intrinsically motivated to own their work. Definitely setting a context for people to work in an accountable environment helps drive the value for people at the personal level. When the expectation comes from above, it can foster resentment and passive-aggressive responses.

2017-04-05 13:09 GMT+02:00 samuelknuth notifications@github.com:

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Bryan Behrenshausen < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Repeat and nourishing conversations with @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville have convinced me that few people have thought as carefully, deliberately, and concertedly about "meritocracy" and its function in open organizational culture and design than he has. I do listen when he says that meritocracy is an indispensable component of such organizations (and therefore an indispensable part of any model or description of such organizations), but I admit that I'm not yet convinced.

The piece Brook has convinced me of is the importance of having accountability represented. I agree with his sentiment that all the principles of "open" without a strong value of accountability, you are in danger of getting ""feel good community stuff" without the performance benefit.

That said, at Red Hat we have four values that we talk about and hold separately from the core concepts around open, so it might be that there are two different pieces that must go together here.

-Sam

I'm much more aligned with the argument (embodied here in comments from @maximumchange https://github.com/maximumchange and @samuelknuth https://github.com/samuelknuth) that says "meritocracy" is a particular system or method for "doing" (enacting, espousing, securing) certain core values (like @samuelknuth https://github.com/samuelknuth, I tend to think of it as a mechanism for fostering greater inclusivity). As I recently wrote in my small addendum in support of @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville larger work on Opensource.com, meritocracy is one system of governance among a potential many that find their way into open-style organizations. We just don't know what those are (or what their nuances are), because we haven't done the research yet. @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville says above that meritocracy is "fundamental to the original articulation at Red Hat," but I'd warn us against using Red Hat's open organization as a template (or some kind of Platonic form) for all others. Red Hat is just an example of an open organization that leverages a meritocratic system of governance in some areas of its design to achieve certain ends and espouse certain values (again, perhaps inclusivity).

If the group ultimately agrees that meritocracy should figure more prominently in the materials we produce (definitions, maturity models, and so forth), then I'd suggest that we first revisit it's role in The Open Organization Definition (version 1.0, released in December 2016). The work we've done here specifically maps to the core values and characteristics of openness that we defined there; were we to add a new category or value, "meritocracy," we lose the symmetry with the model we've already produced and introduce confusion. I think this also forces us to determine the level of abstract at which we're working when we talk about meritocracy. Is it a core value itself? A system or mechanism for enacting a core value? A set of prescribed behaviors for acting within such a system? And, to follow up on @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville's comment above, is it necessary for "driving performance"? Or can other systems, structures, or approaches do that?

When we get some clarity around this, I think we're better able to determine how we talk about meritocracy in our work.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291657671, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APK5fqgiE3s- 4xCBH8PdItAW9QNEddzAks5rssaEgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785 <+1%20612-840-1785>

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291828774, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACVwiI9LoDjFaYa7KaYQ0sQBn0ZA_T7-ks5rs3Z-gaJpZM4LvD-T .

[semioticrobotic]

A hearty +1 for the idea that accountability should be more explicit in the language. Where do we think it's best situated? My gut says "transparency," but my gut is currently full of honey-nut oat Os and not much else, so we should not really trust it.

[maximumchange]

+1

Dr. Philip A Foster

On Apr 5, 2017 8:02 AM, "Bryan Behrenshausen" notifications@github.com wrote:

A hearty +1 for the idea that accountability should be more explicit in the language. Where do we think it's best situated? My gut says "transparency," but my gut is currently full of honey-nut oat Os and not much else, so we should not really trust it.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291840087, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD474nFda7N5c4cPWlChvhY5yNGcnFzoks5rs4LfgaJpZM4LvD-T .

[jenkelchner]

@semioticrobotic I would place accountability in transparency. My reasoning here is while we aren't fully talking about transparency in terms of authenticity, it is part of the same whole (in my opinion). We could probably argue that accountability holds weight in collaboration and community as well - which it does - but, again (for me) it starts as a component of transparency.

[ghost]

+1 for putting accountability under Transparency.

[LappleApple]

+1 too

2017-04-05 15:05 GMT+02:00 Robin Muilwijk notifications@github.com:

+1 for putting accountability under Transparency.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291854932, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACVwiETB0uaZ9Bo-W-QUNbFyJuPjT9vaks5rs5GqgaJpZM4LvD-T .

[semioticrobotic]

Okay, that sounds like a clear mandate to me! I'll start by floating the following for consideration:

• People make their work, their goals, and their progress visible and accessible to others in the organization, and they remain accountable to them.
• People expect others to remain accountable to and for the goals and materials they share with the organization.
• People make their work and goals visible and accessible to others and feel a sense of accountability for them.
• People publish their work, their goals, and their progress where others can see them, and they hold one another accountable for these contributions.

Anything there work as a starting point?

[brookmanville]

How about adding (?):

• standards, understood and agreed by all, are used by people to evaluate whether people being held accountable for goals are actually reaching them.

[jenkelchner]

@semioticrobotic I would start here >> People expect others to remain accountable to and for the goals and materials they share with the organization.<< and the others could easily fall under our maturity model leveling perhaps??? I also agree with & like @brookmanville language used above.

[semioticrobotic]

Very helpful. Thanks, everyone.

Combining @brookmanville and @jenkelchner suggestions, I imagine something like:

• Organizational standards and goals are clear and explicit, and people hold both themselves and others accountable for maintaining or achieving them.

or

• Collectively agreed-upon goals and standards are clear and accessible, and people hold one another accountable for them.

or

• Organizational standards and goals are explicit and accessible, and people feel accountable to and for them.

I'm positive others can whip up something that better fuses these, but hopefully this is an adequate start.

[samuelknuth]

hmm... Not sure about this. I don't know if it's clear what "organizational standards" would mean. Are we talking about competencies or a competency model, or are we talking about expectations for every role/level, or some other kind of standard?

I like Bryan's initial bullets, especially:

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Bryan Behrenshausen < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Very helpful. Thanks, everyone.

Combining @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville and @jenkelchner https://github.com/jenkelchner suggestions, I imagine something like:

• Organizational standards and goals are clear and explicit, and people hold both themselves and others accountable for maintaining or achieving them.

or

• Collectively agreed-upon goals and standards are clear and accessible, and people hold one another accountable for them.

or

• Organizational standards and goals are explicit and accessible, and people feel accountable to and for them.

I'm positive others can whip up something that better fuses these, but hopefully this is an adequate start.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291991682, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APK5fiAbi4WmGl6_mEMgc7RS9La9ENetks5rs_28gaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785

[semioticrobotic]

I don't know if it's clear what "organizational standards" would mean.

Yeah, good call on that, @samuelknuth. Too vague. I'm sure we can tighten it up though. Thanks.

[brookmanville]

When I first mentioned "organizational standards" I was trying to avoid the "M" word ("meritocracy"). However you parse it, it's about clarifying what excellent performance looks like, and insisting that such is what people must hold each other accountable for.

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 4:53 PM, samuelknuth notifications@github.com wrote:

hmm... Not sure about this. I don't know if it's clear what "organizational standards" would mean. Are we talking about competencies or a competency model, or are we talking about expectations for every role/level, or some other kind of standard?

I like Bryan's initial bullets, especially:

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Bryan Behrenshausen < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Very helpful. Thanks, everyone.

Combining @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville and @jenkelchner https://github.com/jenkelchner suggestions, I imagine something like:

• Organizational standards and goals are clear and explicit, and people hold both themselves and others accountable for maintaining or achieving them.

or

• Collectively agreed-upon goals and standards are clear and accessible, and people hold one another accountable for them.

or

• Organizational standards and goals are explicit and accessible, and people feel accountable to and for them.

I'm positive others can whip up something that better fuses these, but hopefully this is an adequate start.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291991682, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APK5fiAbi4WmGl6_ mEMgc7RS9La9ENetks5rs_28gaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785 <(612)%20840-1785>

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-291993484, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZqJAy3ZIGWTwDSvMIZn52Frwt1eJoU8ks5rs_9UgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Brook Manville Principal, Brook Manville LLC

http://www.brookmanville.com/ http://www.brookmanville.com/ Twitter https://twitter.com/ @brookmanville blogging at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/

[semioticrobotic]

Gotcha. Thanks, @brookmanville. So I might amend one of the above options to sound more like:

• Performance standards are clear, explicit, and accessible, and people hold both themselves and others accountable for maintaining or achieving them.

What do people think?

[samuelknuth]

I think this is an area where theory and reality differ a bit. Making "performance standards clear" is no easy task across an organization with hundreds of job families, many different levels of seniority, many siloed departments, thousands of employees, etc. I agree in theory, but I think we have to dig in a bit more to make it useful. You might have a defined competency framework, for example, but getting people to understand/internalize that is an enormous (I might say impossible) task. Not to mention the subjectivity of interpretation of how people measure up to standards.

I think the reality is a bit closer to Bryan's original idea around openly sharing work/goals/metrics in a way that people can clearly see who is contributing value. Google's OKR methodology, for example, is really compelling if the system is truly followed. That kind of model promotes accountability to self and team in a powerful way.

-Sam

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Bryan Behrenshausen < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Gotcha. Thanks, @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville. So I might amend one of the above options to sound more like:

• Performance standards are clear, explicit, and accessible, and people hold both themselves and others accountable for maintaining or achieving them.

What do people think?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-292250619, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APK5fv5Uowzu4USmH8YpXg91Bh2du81lks5rtSLCgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785

[brookmanville]

OK, Sam--but how does accountability for collective performance get rolled up at the enterprise level? If you're running a company like Red Hat, you can't simply expect the identification of value to be purely emergent, defined only team by team, and then bubble up organically. That can be part of the process, but there still needs to be some shared understanding to complement and even finalize that--if not top down, at least enterprise wide--, getting to some agreement what excellent performance is for the collective good of the company. How do we get that into the model?

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:26 PM, samuelknuth notifications@github.com wrote:

I think this is an area where theory and reality differ a bit. Making "performance standards clear" is no easy task across an organization with hundreds of job families, many different levels of seniority, many siloed departments, thousands of employees, etc. I agree in theory, but I think we have to dig in a bit more to make it useful. You might have a defined competency framework, for example, but getting people to understand/internalize that is an enormous (I might say impossible) task. Not to mention the subjectivity of interpretation of how people measure up to standards.

I think the reality is a bit closer to Bryan's original idea around openly sharing work/goals/metrics in a way that people can clearly see who is contributing value. Google's OKR methodology, for example, is really compelling if the system is truly followed. That kind of model promotes accountability to self and team in a powerful way.

-Sam

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Bryan Behrenshausen < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Gotcha. Thanks, @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville. So I might amend one of the above options to sound more like:

• Performance standards are clear, explicit, and accessible, and people hold both themselves and others accountable for maintaining or achieving them.

What do people think?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-292250619, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ APK5fv5Uowzu4USmH8YpXg91Bh2du81lks5rtSLCgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785 <(612)%20840-1785>

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-292286306, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZqJAwGLHWhwKl72NshhhA2GZGmmqxzSks5rtTxegaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Brook Manville Principal, Brook Manville LLC

http://www.brookmanville.com/ http://www.brookmanville.com/ Twitter https://twitter.com/ @brookmanville blogging at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/

[samuelknuth]

I'm not sure I agree, Brook. Having been here for 12 years, I think it does happen team by team and leader by leader. A good leader will help their team members hold themselves accountable to a high level of quality/performance. And that's what we look for in managers. One factor here is that this is a culture - people like Red Hat because it is this way, and some people do better in this kind of environment, so it can be a bit self selecting. Now, when I wrote about this topic for OSDC it was quite controversial.

I agree you can't "simply expect" it to be organic, but you can "engineer" it to be organic by the culture you create through leadership, hiring, following open practices.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:27 AM, brookmanville notifications@github.com wrote:

OK, Sam--but how does accountability for collective performance get rolled up at the enterprise level? If you're running a company like Red Hat, you can't simply expect the identification of value to be purely emergent, defined only team by team, and then bubble up organically. That can be part of the process, but there still needs to be some shared understanding to complement and even finalize that--if not top down, at least enterprise wide--, getting to some agreement what excellent performance is for the collective good of the company. How do we get that into the model?

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:26 PM, samuelknuth notifications@github.com wrote:

I think this is an area where theory and reality differ a bit. Making "performance standards clear" is no easy task across an organization with hundreds of job families, many different levels of seniority, many siloed departments, thousands of employees, etc. I agree in theory, but I think we have to dig in a bit more to make it useful. You might have a defined competency framework, for example, but getting people to understand/internalize that is an enormous (I might say impossible) task. Not to mention the subjectivity of interpretation of how people measure up to standards.

I think the reality is a bit closer to Bryan's original idea around openly sharing work/goals/metrics in a way that people can clearly see who is contributing value. Google's OKR methodology, for example, is really compelling if the system is truly followed. That kind of model promotes accountability to self and team in a powerful way.

-Sam

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Bryan Behrenshausen < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Gotcha. Thanks, @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville. So I might amend one of the above options to sound more like:

• Performance standards are clear, explicit, and accessible, and people hold both themselves and others accountable for maintaining or achieving them.

What do people think?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-292250619, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ APK5fv5Uowzu4USmH8YpXg91Bh2du81lks5rtSLCgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785 <(612)%20840-1785> <(612)%20840-1785>

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-292286306, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AZqJAwGLHWhwKl72NshhhA2GZGmmqxzSks5rtTxegaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Brook Manville Principal, Brook Manville LLC

http://www.brookmanville.com/ http://www.brookmanville.com/ Twitter https://twitter.com/ @brookmanville blogging at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-292535948, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APK5frM3Opdqyco4de35I5rpG9gcsJY7ks5rtjnagaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785

[LappleApple]

I'd agree with Sam's assessment. You can hire people who are intrinsically motivated, and you can guide people to be intrinsically motivated. It's really hard not to do both together.

2017-04-07 15:55 GMT+02:00 samuelknuth notifications@github.com:

I'm not sure I agree, Brook. Having been here for 12 years, I think it does happen team by team and leader by leader. A good leader will help their team members hold themselves accountable to a high level of quality/performance. And that's what we look for in managers. One factor here is that this is a culture - people like Red Hat because it is this way, and some people do better in this kind of environment, so it can be a bit self selecting. Now, when I wrote about this topic for OSDC it was quite controversial.

I agree you can't "simply expect" it to be organic, but you can "engineer" it to be organic by the culture you create through leadership, hiring, following open practices.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:27 AM, brookmanville notifications@github.com wrote:

OK, Sam--but how does accountability for collective performance get rolled up at the enterprise level? If you're running a company like Red Hat, you can't simply expect the identification of value to be purely emergent, defined only team by team, and then bubble up organically. That can be part of the process, but there still needs to be some shared understanding to complement and even finalize that--if not top down, at least enterprise wide--, getting to some agreement what excellent performance is for the collective good of the company. How do we get that into the model?

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:26 PM, samuelknuth notifications@github.com wrote:

I think this is an area where theory and reality differ a bit. Making "performance standards clear" is no easy task across an organization with hundreds of job families, many different levels of seniority, many siloed departments, thousands of employees, etc. I agree in theory, but I think we have to dig in a bit more to make it useful. You might have a defined competency framework, for example, but getting people to understand/internalize that is an enormous (I might say impossible) task. Not to mention the subjectivity of interpretation of how people measure up to standards.

I think the reality is a bit closer to Bryan's original idea around openly sharing work/goals/metrics in a way that people can clearly see who is contributing value. Google's OKR methodology, for example, is really compelling if the system is truly followed. That kind of model promotes accountability to self and team in a powerful way.

-Sam

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Bryan Behrenshausen < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Gotcha. Thanks, @brookmanville https://github.com/brookmanville. So I might amend one of the above options to sound more like:

• Performance standards are clear, explicit, and accessible, and people hold both themselves and others accountable for maintaining or achieving them.

What do people think?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-292250619, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ APK5fv5Uowzu4USmH8YpXg91Bh2du81lks5rtSLCgaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785 <+1%20612-840-1785> <(612)%20840-1785> <(612)%20840-1785>

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-292286306, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ AZqJAwGLHWhwKl72NshhhA2GZGmmqxzSks5rtTxegaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Brook Manville Principal, Brook Manville LLC

http://www.brookmanville.com/ http://www.brookmanville.com/ Twitter https://twitter.com/ @brookmanville blogging at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open- org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-292535948, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ APK5frM3Opdqyco4de35I5rpG9gcsJY7ks5rtjnagaJpZM4LvD-T .

-- Sam Knuth Director, Customer Content Services Red Hat, Inc Mobile: +1 612-840-1785 <+1%20612-840-1785>

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/open-organization-ambassadors/open-org-definition/issues/7#issuecomment-292542937, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACVwiJ_o514KCWhfHzvxHhnHTIIIZKqzks5rtkBHgaJpZM4LvD-T .

[ghost]

What helped my was going back to the top of this discussion, and re-read the fact that we look at the maturity model and decision framework from Red Hat. These are two documents. The model with its levels, and the framework with steps on how to go from level A to B.

A good model/framework, which obviously go hand in hand, should leave room for maneuvering, for those wishing to apply it. Why? A model/best practice does not have to be followed by the letter. An organisation might want to apply just a certain amount of it.

So, we have most of the maturity model in place, describing all levels. And to look at the recent questions from Brook, and answers from Sam, I would actually agree with both of them. Why? The document describing how to get from level A to B (framework/best practice etc) should provide at least a few options: organic by engineering like Sam mentions, but also running a company wide program like Brook suggest.

As Sam mentions, every organisation has its own culture. Having these options in place, the people working with these documents can select the method that best fits the organisation (and culture) to go from A to B most efficiently.