Isn't the solution then to make authority (and thus also accountability) temporary and/or to spread it amongst many smaller areas?
For instance, every employee could take turn at non technical but honorific positions. Regarding technical tasks, each person could also rule absolutely over many small areas of expertise that they also take responsibility for?
I hope there is no need for a fixed arbitrary hierarchy for accountability.
The article mentions at the end some strategies. (points 3 and 4 seem relevant, 5 perhaps counters your argument)
1) Delegation [...]
2) [Responsibility]
3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. [...]
4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's "property" and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. [...]
5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. [...] Ability, interest, and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. [...]
6) Diffusion of information [...]
7) Equal access to resources needed by the group.[...]
I think that can work to an extent, but who decides what code gets pushed to production? You can decentralize responsibility for tasks, but ultimately you need some method of resolving competing pull requests. If someone can take control of that process, they can bully everyone else. This can then result in harassment and discrimination.
Idealistic. You have to treat each position of power in a defensive mode - each can be exploited or suborned in different ways.
There would need to have "watchers who watch the watchers" - a problem that regresses infinitely. Meanwhile even if you do a good job at that, the REAL job is done poorly if at all.
Comments
Isn't the solution then to make authority (and thus also accountability) temporary and/or to spread it amongst many smaller areas?
For instance, every employee could take turn at non technical but honorific positions. Regarding technical tasks, each person could also rule absolutely over many small areas of expertise that they also take responsibility for?
I hope there is no need for a fixed arbitrary hierarchy for accountability.
The article mentions at the end some strategies. (points 3 and 4 seem relevant, 5 perhaps counters your argument)
1) Delegation [...]
2) [Responsibility]
3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. [...]
4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's "property" and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. [...]
5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. [...] Ability, interest, and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. [...]
6) Diffusion of information [...]
7) Equal access to resources needed by the group.[...]
I think that can work to an extent, but who decides what code gets pushed to production? You can decentralize responsibility for tasks, but ultimately you need some method of resolving competing pull requests. If someone can take control of that process, they can bully everyone else. This can then result in harassment and discrimination.
Idealistic. You have to treat each position of power in a defensive mode - each can be exploited or suborned in different ways.
There would need to have "watchers who watch the watchers" - a problem that regresses infinitely. Meanwhile even if you do a good job at that, the REAL job is done poorly if at all.