In a recent thread, @oskarth shared the Ted Talk where Ray Dalio from Bridgewater explains the system he used to build an organization where “the best ideas win”
The talk shows the Dot Collector - an app where at meetings (full article)
Participants continuously record assessments of each other by giving them “dots,” positive or negative, on a number of attributes. These dots are laid out in a grid that updates dynamically, so that everyone in the conversation can see one another’s thinking as the meeting progresses. Seeing things through everyone’s eyes naturally causes most people to adopt a higher-level view, with which they recognize that their own perspective is just one of many—so they ask themselves which criteria are best for deciding how to resolve the issue at hand.
By taking data on what everyone in the room is like, the app is able to give people individualized coaching, which is especially important when their own opinions are unlikely to be right. The Dot Collector system notifies people automatically if they disagree with the believability-weighted majority on a given issue, and then gives them guidance on the appropriate steps to take to resolve that disagreement in an evidence-based way; it enables, in effect, believability-weighted voting.
The votes are on both equal-weighted and believability-weighted bases, not just simple majorities.
A simple Slack hack to the same effect already exists and I was wondering if & when could we have such a thing testable into Status?
The Dot Collector is being used in combination with other tools:
Baseball Cards
list up reviews, tests, choices made, etc., for everyone in the organization. All this information is analyzed algorithmically (based on stress-tested logic) in order to create a picture of what certain people are like. They help develop objectively a person’s authority on a given subject. At Bridgewater, people can challenge the ratings on their cards and present evidence-based arguments for changes.
Issue Log (= our Wall of Shame?)
a place to log problems the organization needs to solve (not to be cruel and hurtful to people when they make mistakes). The faster the issue becomes transparent, the quicker it will be solved. Here again, an environment that encourages exposing mistakes is important.
Pain Button
to let people record the emotions (anger, disappointment, frustration, worry, rejection, etc.) as they feel them, then come back at a later time to reflect on that pain using guided reflection questions. The app displays the frequency, the causes , and whether the actions an employee took afterward were productive. The tool creates a template for looping toward improvement - Pain + Reflection = Progress
Dispute Resolver
map to resolving disagreements in an idea-meritocratic way. It asks a series of questions to make sure all important information necessary for making the decision has been presented. It locates all the believable people in the decision-making group. It determines if the issue must be taken to a higher management level. It makes sure everyone knows the other members’ different points of view.
Would developing our own Status versions of these approaches help us towards creating a real meritocracy?
How would this look like at Status?
! I really love having the point of view of someone who had direct experience.
- I think now there is an app for the principles as my experiences were from 2012-2013 so a while ago. Most meetings were run in a way where anyone at the meeting could pause the meeting if a principle wasn’t being followed and point it out etc. Hiring / interviewing tested candidates based on the principles of course. I’m more familiar with the ongoing principles learning vs. onboarding up-front as I wasn’t part of the regular onboarding for hires from campuses.