Thread by @rafathebuilder

Career progression in digital-first organizations seems different. In interlocking networks there is dynamic upward mobility, instead of convergent paths. What are the consequences of this? How will people shape their journey?

In the emerging space there are four levels of rewards, which intuitively are associated with varying levels of status and power:
- No Payment
- Bounties
- Grants / Projects
- Stipends

I think we can deconstruct this and identify / communicate to members what “progression” in the organization looks like.

Given this, I think it’s also damaging to say “we don’t have ranks or hierarchy here”. We do, and we should acknowledge it! For the better of the community as a whole. Denial due to cultural preference and taboo is not a sustainable strategy.

The first pattern that emerges from the payment status pyramid has to do with skills. Somewhat correlated - but not fully. Bounty hunters may have significant more skills (even in “leadership”) than folks with stipends.

The second pattern has to do with scope of work. However, this too doesn’t align fully. An org may have grant leads managing full on projects much larger than that Org itself!

The final pattern though, I think may be the main driver: horizon of reliable commitment. As far as I’ve seen, this is a directly correlated. The other two components also are involved, but are more aligned to ecosystem status than community specific status.

In summary:
- Upward mobility exists, but it’s dynamic and has many “peaks” (not a single pyramid)
- We know intuitively this is true due to emerging reward systems and decision delegation patterns
- There are three drivers: skill, scope, and commitment

The first two make sense and most of us have been exposed to it in traditional work environments: Be better at your job, make bigger things happen. But the third? Hmmm

Horizon of Reliable Commitment… it’s a new concept I’d like to introduce. This is not directly rewarded in the corporate or tech environment - although retention rewards do attempt to incentivise it… not that effective though since it depends on coercion instead of preference.

Horizon: (Timeline or Milestone)

Reliable: (Community Trust of Best-Effort Completion)

Commitment: (Personal Intention and Promise of Support)

This third variable requires a subset of skillsets for success.

Firstly, it requires being adept at navigating ambiguity. Without this, the individual can’t extend their Horizon.

Second, it requires community trust building. Which can be done via relationship development, proof of work, or direct stake.

Finally, it requires a personal conscious and vocal public choice (hello getting married, but maybe not monogamous) of supporting the community.

In short, we can think of “upward” mobility in an organization as a personal journey of integration to the community mission!

The deeper in the journey you are, and the more people BELIEVE in your commitment to the journey, then the more the community directs resources to you.

This structure is a world away from traditional org structures - where:

1. commitment is not a requirement for power.
2. there is single dimensional rank that converges to a peak of power.
3. the positions of rank are scarce.

The consequence of which is competitive behaviour.

By creating this new status game:

1. community benefits from commitment
2. there is an infinite amount of ways to participate
3. we create an expanding abundance of available roles

The consequence of which is collaborative behaviour.

Our constraint then becomes community resources… which in turn stimulates community growth and innovation! A virtuous cycle.

I’m certain there are drawbacks - breaking commitments is hard… and worse when not mutual agreements.

The takeaway: Build skills, Increase Scope of Work, but most importantly… Look to succeed in the organizations where you can best navigate ambiguity, gain trust, and commit.

As we build new ecosystems together, we should seek to facilitate honest commitment to the right org:

“The right people, committed to the right community, at the right time, for the right work”

Operational processes that can support this (pulled from healthy human relationship habits):

- Non-Violent Communication
- Ambiguity Training
- Spaces for Imagination and Creativity
- Public Commitment Activities (eg Rituals of Commitment Levels) - Eg voting on core contributors

Excited to see this space evolve!

For more research on traditional career structures, I’d recommend reading about Carta. Note the missing component of commitment:

https://twitter.com/rafathebuilder/status/1454813436907593732?s=21

And this is why:

https://twitter.com/rafathebuilder/status/1441724015685472261?s=21

https://twitter.com/rafathebuilder/status/1432384615545716745?s=21

Given this new structure, a revolution in performance review processes is necessary

https://twitter.com/rafathebuilder/status/1430056734467534880?s=21

A visual to make this easier to understand:

Some additional digested thoughts on this:

https://twitter.com/rafathebuilder/status/1459512210603053057

@threadreaderapp compile thread on careers