No, governance does not imply limitations to autonomy. It biases autonomy. For example, if the team creates roads upon which we can drive, it puts in place rules for what types of behaviors are appropriate for those roads (no DUI). But it simultaneously opens up lots of behaviors the individual could not have previously engaged in (traveling at 55 mph, which is exceedingly difficult without a road).
And such new opportunities are not "just so" difficult. The concept of stigmergy (indeed all complex adaptive systems rhetoric) hinges on the idea that new regions of the solution space are made available through such scaffolding. Viewing such biasing as _limiting_ is a fundamental problem. On 10/27/2016 11:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Teams have governance and process. Governance implies limitations to > autonomy. Process takes time and effort. These things have to be worth > it. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. In particular, not any > random collection of people with improve another's agency. It has to be just > the right kind of complementary people. It may not even improve the > group's agency if the governance, process and leadership is poorly thought > out. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
