Observations & Thoughts on Radicle DAO Transition from an Outsider

[louiegrey]

Although I’ve only onboarded in May, I’ve been lucky to get to know Radicle through the Org-Design Workstream. After chatting with Radicle team members, I was encouraged to share some of my observations, many inspired by our recent contributor interviews.

The biggest observation is that we (Org-Design Workstream and some other contributors) are trying to figure out how to get to a decentralized org, while trying to figure out what (the org design) we are moving to. Meanwhile, some areas of the org (ie. wider roadmap, coordination) are being discussed about changing today. The challenge with doing that as we’re actively focused on the transition is that we all have mixed ideas of how to direct change in the context of Radicle running as a DAO, since people have different ideas and beliefs of what a DAO (and RadicleDAO in particular) is or can be. Should we enact change for how it would best work today or for the future? If for the future, what does that look like?

We heard questions and concerns around:

• Who and how will budgets and compensation be approved/validated?
• Who is driving product and larger Radicle decisions?
• Who/what process is deciding on what person or team is being accountable for delivering what?
• How do I know an idea is worth pursuing? How do I bring it up?

When we analyze the interviews deeper, the surface answers give deep insights to the core of what individuals really care about:

Navigating while maintaining autonomy & flexibility

(What are the signs that tell us we’re headed in the right direction)

Especially during the process of finding PMF, a common feeling amongst contributors is, ‘Are we heading in the right direction? What direction are trying to go toward?’ Usually the CEO/Founders would be responsible for this question, but in a headless organization, we need to agree on a general direction, exploration boundaries, or at least what we’re trying to discover.

Teams that interact together feel this question the most because it affects the decisions and development process. And while people have various pain tolerances, teams are feeling the pain points (inconsistent user experience, duplicative efforts, incompatibility, lack of clarity of responsibility) of moving in different directions.

To maintain autonomy and flexibility, what is the common thread (at the org level) that teams can hook onto? So we don’t stray too far from the core but we’re tethered enough to still move freely and autonomously.

(What’s the thing that’s threading us together)

For the generation of Radicle contributors who have been around for awhile, that common thread has been ossified and there is less need for it to be obviously pronounced (in say, a vision statement). They may feel safer in knowing how decisions are generally made. For those who are newly joined (in the past year or so), there might be a desire for that thread to be more pronounced instead of only learning through interaction with different teams.

As future individuals or teams onboard, they’ll want to know; how is our work relevant to the greater group/direction? Not just defined by the relationship between teams that work together, but in a larger sense - how would I know that the work I’m delivering is valuable?

Ultimately this comes up when putting forth a budget, proposing a new idea or team, defining compensation, evaluating work, hiring a new person, etc.

Right now, we have models for how these things work today. Most needs are unlocked through specific individuals (ie founders or FC). When that power is distributed, the question becomes who has authority and what will be the new decision criteria?

Changing mental models is challenging and full of friction, especially for those without a clear sense of why we’re doing a transition.

However, today, people like Thom and Kai are proposing potential solutions in the form of vision/values (Thom) and new team formations (Kai) that could replace current Foundation Council’s core functions with more collaborative processes.

These are just some thoughts and observations. If any of this resonates (or doesn’t!) I’d love to know. Leave your own thoughts in the comments below.

[matto]

Love this & it very much resonates.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that questions on all of these things and more have been surfacing at the same time. Questions on purpose, direction, vision, strategy, budgeting, product, org design, governance, design, etc. They all look like symptoms of the “transition to the DAO”.

Right now, we have models for how these things work today. Most needs are unlocked through specific individuals (ie founders or FC). When that power is distributed, the question becomes who has authority and what will be the new decision criteria?

If we want to take away top-down decision making, the decisions that were previously made top-down must be distributed throughout the DAO, and not just to new, smaller, embedded, top-down structures, but to entirely new processes of decision-making. We’re at the stage of figuring out that process, and the vacuum created is kicking up a lot of questions. Rather than who has authority? we could reframe the question to how can we operate without an authority? or how can we give everyone autonomy?

And how do you decide on a decision-making process without a decision-making process to decide it?

Reinventing Organizations is a book with some good food for thought on many of these topics:

Self-management requires an interlocking set of structures and practices. […] Change only the structure, though, and you are left hanging in midair. With the pyramid gone, many of the most fundamental organizational processes need to be reinvented―everything from decision-making practices to information flow, from investments to performance evaluations and compensation processes. We need answers to some very basic questions: if there is no longer a boss to call the shots, how do decisions get made? Who can spend company money? How is performance measured and discussed? What prevents employees from simply slacking off? Who gets to decide who deserves a salary increase or a bonus?

[…]

If there is no formal hierarchy, how are decisions made? Can anybody just make any decision? That sounds like a recipe for chaos. Are decisions then made by consensus? That sounds exhausting and impractical, certainly for organizations with hundreds or thousands of employees.

Towards the end of your post you wrote:

However, today, people like Thom and Kai are proposing potential solutions in the form of vision/values 2 (Thom) and new team formations 2 (Kai) that could replace current Foundation Council’s core functions with more collaborative processes.

It sounds like you’re alluding to something here that feels worth emphasising — that the existence of these posts is in some ways more important than the content within them. That’s not a comment on the quality of the content in those posts, but to say that the emergence of ideas in this way, and a culture and process of being able to discuss and implement them, is what ultimately needs to happen to be able to replace centralised, top-down decision making.

You refer to a common feeling and common questions that come up amongst contributors, many of which point to a lack of connection, understanding and resonance between contributor and DAO, relating to purpose, culture and process.

[…] a common feeling amongst contributors is, ‘Are we heading in the right direction? What direction are trying to go toward?’ Usually the CEO/Founders would be responsible for this question, but in a headless organization, we need to agree on a general direction, exploration boundaries, or at least what we’re trying to discover.

[…]

As future individuals or teams onboard, they’ll want to know; how is our work relevant to the greater group/direction? Not just defined by the relationship between teams that work together, but in a larger sense - how would I know that the work I’m delivering is valuable?

I think addressing that disconnection is key, and I see this idea of resonance between contributor and DAO as one of the important pillars of a healthy, functioning, decentralised org.

Bear with me while I get a little wooey and esoteric with some more excerpts that I think give an interesting perspective on this.

On the relationship between organizational and individual purpose

Most organizations today feel that they are in business to get stuff done, not to help people figure out their calling (and in these soulless organizations, many people would be reluctant to explore subjects as intimate as one’s personal calling). Yet individual and organizational purpose go hand in hand. It’s at the juncture where organizational purpose and individual calling start to resonate with and reinforce each other that truly extraordinary things happen. The more clarity there is around what the organization is called to do, the more people can enter into resonance with it. And the more people know about their calling, the more they can contribute to the organization’s energy to do its work in the world.

On purpose as it relates to strategy

The way Teal Organizations think about purpose turns the typical strategy process on its head. In traditional corporations, strategy is decided at the top. It’s the domain of the CEO and the management team (supported in large corporations by a strategy department, a Chief Strategy Officer, or outside consultants). At regular intervals, a strategy process produces a thick document that sets out a new direction. The plan, and the change projects to put them in place, are then communicated top-down to the organization, often with some “burning- platform” message: we need to change, or else …

In Teal Organizations, there is no strategy process. No one at the top sets out a course for others to follow. None of the organizations I have researched had a strategy in the form of a document that charts out a course. Instead, people in these companies have a very clear, keen sense of the organization’s purpose and a broad sense of the direction the organization might be called to go. A more detailed map is not needed. It would limit possibilities to a narrow, pre-charted course.

With the purpose as a guiding light, everyone, individually and collectively, is empowered to sense what might be called for. Strategy happens organically, all the time, everywhere, as people toy with ideas and test them out in the field. The organization evolves, morphs, expands, or contracts, in response to a process of collective intelligence. Reality is the great referee, not the CEO, the board or a committee. What works gathers momentum and energy within the organization; other ideas fail to catch on and wither.

On purpose as an emergent phenomenon

It’s us humans that can tune into the organization’s evolutionary purpose; but the key is about separating identity and figuring out “What is this organization’s calling?” Not “What do we want to use this organization to do, as property?” but rather “What is this life, this living system’s creative potential?” That’s what we mean by evolutionary purpose: the deepest creative potential to bring something new to life, to contribute something energetically, valuably to the world. … It’s that creative impulse or potential that we want to tune into, independent from what we want ourselves.

On the effect of collaborative creation

These large group techniques can energize organizations in a way that top-down strategies cannot. Something extraordinary happens when a vision emerges collectively, with everybody in the room. People make a personal, emotional connection with the image of the future that emerges. And they take charge of implementing the vision: project teams emerge on the spot, based on people’s interests, skills, and talents. Strategy is no longer the domain of a few minds at the top, and implementation is no longer a mandate given to a few program managers. A whole organization is mobilized to sense into the future and help that future unfold.

There are some interesting and practical ideas relevant to this discussion in that book, including some on the topic of decentralised management structures, project management, decision-making mechanisms and shared purpose.

[louiegrey]

@matto

Rather than who has authority? we could reframe the question to how can we operate without an authority? or how can we give everyone autonomy?

How can we operate without top-down authority?

@matto

And how do you decide on a decision-making process without a decision-making process to decide it?

Yes! I’ve seen a lot of orgs circle around this. I believe in starting with one decision making process + designing the process for how to change the process if it isn’t working.

@matto

the emergence of ideas in this way, and a culture and process of being able to discuss and implement them, is what ultimately needs to happen to be able to replace centralised, top-down decision making.

Spot on! Also to add, even if these don’t move forward, it shouldn’t be discouraged to come up with solutions to explore, which are sometimes best created through the people who feel the pain points the most.

@matto

It’s at the juncture where organizational purpose and individual calling start to resonate with and reinforce each other that truly extraordinary things happen.

I completely agree with this. I think we see this most in the culture of Web3. To expand on your thoughts around Purpose & Organization:

“Purpose Market Fit”- why does this protocol/product/project exist? Why and how is its existence critical? Purpose requires it to resonate with someone who also see the importance of it and at the early stages of its existence, its purpose needs to resonate with people enough to want to help building it (co-create it into existence!). Often I find the tension inside an organization is how purpose should come to life and whether that purpose is being fulfilled.

Maybe we should focus on figuring out what PMF means to us (which includes more specifics like the type(s) of audience, type of feedback expected), which sets a collective goal and allows people to organize and build in whatever way is needed to get to that collective goal. An example is at MakerDAO that collective goal is a combination of stability (peg) and total DAI supply (minted / in circulation).