Démocratie directe, principe de subsidiarité et design thinking :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifeste_agile
Démocratie directe
L’entreprise spontanée type SEMCO (« Semler « A contre-courant », référence de Handy), OTICON, IDEO, IDEMITSU KOSAN, GTE, VISA, WL GORE, AES, ou NUMMI (O’Reilly et Pfffer de Stanford dans « Hidden values »), JOHNSONVILLE FOODS, le swarm system de Kelly (l’open source de Linus), est l’attracteur irrésistible : « The notion of introducing weak broadcasting into evolution is quite appealing… simultaneous agents trying to optimize a path… Thousands of full time adversaries who specialize in finding what’s wrong with it… That’s the evolutionary deal. We trade power for control. For control junkies like us it’s a devil bargain. No one is as smart as everyone. » Pour Pyzdek dans « The end of management » : « The basic idea is that complex order emerges as the result of a large number of interactions among agents following simple rules. »
Selon Argyris (Harvard), repris par Senge (MIT) et préfacé et postfacé par Ramanantsoa (directeur d’HEC) et Moingeon (directeur d’HEC Management) dans son « Savoir pour agir », les individus et les organisations sont caratérisés par des « routines défensives » avec doubles liens [les « jeux sans fin » et les « toujours plus de la même chose » de l’Ecole de Palo Alto]. Ces comportements ont été mis à jour à l’origine dans les thérapies familiales où ils s’accompagnent de rites de parade (Schleffen). Fustec et Fradin (« L’entreprise neuronale »), labellisés par l’APM, Goleman, Boyatzis et McKee (« L’intelligence émotionnelle au travail » avec p246 l’enquête dynamique) validés par 10 ans d’analyses statistiques à la Weatherhead School of Management de Cleveland lèvent ce goulot d’étranglement.
Le véritable outil irrésistible va être l’ « appreciative inquiry », célébration de la chanson de geste (« storytelling » de Denning) du « best of » de chacun, fondé sur l’interview de tous par tous (« 360° » positivant) sur les réussites de chacun, processus en tache d’huile de type cataracte ou avalanche sans retour en arrière. L’appreciative inquiry se répandra sur le modèle du TWI (Robinson et Stern « L’entreprise créative » p 93-100) : aux USA 4 personnes, puis 10, puis 200, puis 12 000, puis 1 million, puis 12 millions…
Les références, pour sortir des routines négatives, des « jeux sans fins », des « toujours plus de la même chose » (cf Ecole de Palo Alto) sont :
« La dynamique interne du travail Le rôle du mental », de Timothy GALLWEY, sur l’invention du coaching à l’équipe de tennis d’Harvard.
« Systémique et entreprise » de Jacques-Antoine Malarewicz, sur la mise en oeuvre du coaching dans un groupe humain dédié à l’action.
– « How to be a star at work » de Robert E.KELLEY, sur l’invention de la performance humaine en groupe par un simple réparateur sur poteaux (promu au Bell Labs du New Jersey et à ses annexes de Chicago et Colombus, pour sa performance humaine) et l’analyse scientifique de son processus.
« A contre-courant » de Ricardo SELMER, sur la mise en oeuvre exhaustive du principe de subsidiarité (la même expérience a eu lieu à Mantes dans le même type d’entreprise de moteurs marins).
– « The end of management » de Thomas PIZDEK, spécialiste de la Qualité qui aboutit au principe de subsidiarité.
« Liberté & Cie Quand la liberté des salariés fait le bonheur des entreprises » de Isaac GETZ de l’ESCP et Brian M.CARNEY du Wall Street, avec page 319 la « méthodologie du design créatif » de David KELLEY fondateur d’IDEO à Palo Alto.
« Out of control» de Kevin Kelly sur l’auto-organisation comme source d’ordre dans les systèmes complexes.
« Innovation organisationnelle & transformation managériale par le design thinking » de Aurélie MARCHAL sur la méthode du design thinking définie par IDEO
Rappel : en crowd sourcing a été résolu, en quelques semaines (par un non-biologiste), le dépliage des protéines sur lequel les biologistes bloquaient depuis des années.
Les outils de la démocratie directe existent :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holacracy?oldid=570595654
Essential Principles
The building blocks of holacracy’s organizational structure are roles. Holacracy distinguishes between roles and the people who “energize” them in order to express certain capacities or potentials, perform certain functions, and/or pursue certain results on behalf of the organization. A role is not a job description, as one individual can hold multiple roles at any given time.
Holacracy structures the various roles in an organization in a system of self-organizing circles. Each circle has the authority to create, execute, and measure its own processes in achieving its aims. Circles conduct their own governance meetings, elect members to fill roles, and take responsibility for carrying out work within their domain of authority. Circles are connected by roles known as links, which sit in multiple circles and ensure alignment with the broader organization’s mission and strategy.
Each circle uses a defined governance process to create its own roles and policies. Holacracy specifies a structured process known as integrative decision making for proposing changes in governance and amending or objecting to proposals. This is not a consensus-based system but one that integrates relevant input from all parties.
Holacracy specifies processes for aligning teams around operational needs, and requires that each member of a circle fulfill certain duties in order to work efficiently and effectively together.
Advantages
Holacracy is claimed to increase agility, efficiency, transparency, innovation and accountability within an organization.[8] The approach encourages individual team members to take initiative and gives them a process in which their concerns or ideas can be addressed.[9] The system of distributed authority reduces the burden on leaders to make every decision.
http://www.frenchweb.fr/3-idees-recues-sur-lholacratie-et-le-management-horizontal/255343
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy
Endenburg's policy decision-making method was originally published as based on four essential principles in order to emphasize that the process of selecting people for roles and responsibilities was also subject to the consent process. As explained below, it is now taught as Endenburg originally developed the method as three principles:[9]
Decisions are made when there are no remaining "paramount objections", that is, when there is informed consent from all participants. Objections must be reasoned and argued and based on the ability of the objector to work productively toward the goals of the organization. All policy decisions are made by consent, although the group may consent to use another decision-making method. Within these policies, day-to-day operational decisions are normally made in the traditional manner. Generally, objections are highly valued to hear every stakeholder's concern. This process is sometimes called "objection harvesting".[10] It is emphasized that focusing on objections first leads to more efficient decision making.[11]
The sociocratic organization is composed of a hierarchy of semi-autonomous circles. This hierarchy, however, does not constitute a power structure as autocratic hierarchies do. Each circle has the responsibility to execute, measure, and control its own processes in achieving its goals. It governs a specific domain of responsibility within the policies of the larger organization. Circles are also responsible for their own development and for each member's development. Often called "integral education," the circle and its members are expected to determine what they need to know to remain competitive in their field and to reach the goals of their circle.
Individuals acting as links function as full members in the decision-making of both their own circles and the next higher circle. A circle's operational leader is by definition a member of the next higher circle and represents the larger organization in the decision-making of the circle they lead. Each circle also elects a representative to represent the circles' interests in the next higher circle. These links form a feedback loop between circles.
At the highest level of the organization, there is a “top circle”, analogous to a board of directors, except that it works within the policies of the circle structure rather than ruling over it. The members of the top circle include external experts that connect the organization to its environment. Typically these members have expertise in law, government, finance, community, and the organization's mission. In a corporation, it might also include a representative selected by the shareholders. The top circle also includes the CEO and at least one representative of the general management circle. Each of these circle members participates fully in decision-making in the top circle.
This fourth principle extends principle 1. Individuals are elected to roles and responsibilities in open discussion using the same consent criteria used for other policy decisions. Members of the circle nominate themselves or other members of the circle and present reasons for their choice. After discussion, people can (and often do) change their nominations, and the discussion leader will suggest the election of the person for whom there are the strongest arguments. Circle members may object and there is further discussion. For a role that many people might fill, this discussion may continue for a several rounds. When fewer people are qualified for the task, this process will quickly converge. The circle may also decide to choose someone who is not a current member of the circle.
In the first formulations of the Sociocratic Circle-Organizing Method, Endenburg had three principles and regarded the fourth, elections by consent, not as a separate principle but as a method for making decisions by consent when there are several choices. He considered it part of the first principle, consent governs policy decisions, but many people misunderstood that elections of people to roles and responsibilities are allocations of resources and thus policy decisions. To emphasize the importance of making these decisions by consent in the circle meetings, Endenburg separated it into a fourth principle.
Sociocracy makes a distinction between "consent" and "consensus" in order to emphasize that circle decisions are not expected to produce "a consensus". It doesn't mean agreement or solidarity. In sociocracy consent is defined as "no objections," and objections are based on one's ability to work toward the aims of the organization. Members discussing an idea in consent based governance commonly ask themselves if it is "good enough for now, safe enough to try".[10] If not, then there is an objection, which leads to a search for an acceptable adaptation of the original proposal to gain consent.
In contrast the consensus process as practiced by many groups is a full group process that uses a definition of consensus close to that of the Boekes. While consensus trainers and facilitators use the same definition that sociocracy uses, it is often misunderstood. Traditionally consensus has often been confused with both unanimous agreement and the exercise of personal values, while most often being practiced as a full-group decision-making method and not adapted to distributed decision-making. In sociocracy, consent is defined and practiced as a decision-making method within a sophisticated governance method that can support a complex organizational structure.[12]
Sociocratisch Centrum co-founder Reijmer has summarized the difference as follows:[13] "By consensus, I must convince you that I am in the right; by consent, you ask whether you can live with the decision."
The principles are interdependent and the application of all of them is required for an organization to function sociocratically. Each one supports the successful application of the others. The principles also require transparency in the organization. Since decision-making is distributed throughout the organization, all members of the organization must have access to information. The only exception to this is proprietary knowledge and any information that would jeopardize the security of the organization or its clients. All financial transactions and policy decisions are transparent to members of the organization and to the organization's clients.
In addition to the principles, sociocratic organizations apply the circular feedback process of directing-doing-measuring to the design of work processes, and in business organizations, compensation is based on a market rate salary plus long-term and short-term payments based on the success of the circle. The operational practices of sociocratic organizations are compatible with the best practices of contemporary management theory.
Advantages
Consent as defined and practiced in sociocratic organizations is claimed to be a more efficient and effective decision-making method than autocratic decision-making because it protects the ability of each member and unit of an organization to work toward the aim effectively. In the end this decision-making method builds trust and understanding, even though its objective is reducing friction and effective action. The consent process educates the participants about the needs of the other members in doing their work effectively.
The well-defined, information-based, and highly disciplined decision-making process helps organizations stay focused and move swiftly through examining an issue and making decisions. The feedback structure between circles and the involvement of all members of the organization in the policy making process ensures a united organization.