@SebVentures I agree this is an important topic for discussion. The move from an existing structure people work and have contractual relationships with (the Foundation) to a more “ethereal” notion (the DAO) needs to be unpacked so the transition goes as smoothly as possible for everyone.
Personally, I can see at least two dimensions or levels to the conversation. Both have a variety of questions to be discussed and worked through:
- the DAO human resources strategy
- the team level (domain) relationship and ways of working
On the DAO HR side, I think it’s where questions such as those related to compensation, location, team seniority etc come into place. The people of the DAO along with team/domain facilitators will need to agree on what direction and position the DAO wants to take for its future and how the DAO wants to be perceived as. I think some leading questions may be things such as:
- Is it important for us to bring talent from a single location or from across the globe?
- How senior or junior do we want our teams to be? What mix of seniority do we want in them?
- Do we want skills and competencies to be compensated for or not?
- Does the DAO envisage creating mechanisms so teams are continuously up-skilling and remaining on top of their industry or not? How does it plan to nurture this sort of culture? Or will that be a team/individual level nurturing?
- How much granular transparency do we want teams compensation to be?
- Does the DAO want its compensation to be reviewed at intervals of time (e.g. yearly) to adjust for cost of living (i.e. Inflation)? For example CPI index adjustments? Which CPI will be used?
- Does the DAO want to benchmark itself against any market rate for skillset and seniority or not? Which benchmark will the DAO use?
- Does the DAO want to compensate performance? How will the DAO measure it? At what level do we want performance to be compensated: individual, team or both?
These are really just some initial strategic questions on the DAO side. I don’t necessarily think there is right or wrong on any of these choices. But depending on how the choices are made they are likely to position the DAO internally and externally. In the long run, I think they may determine the level of “attractiveness” of the DAO to future contributors. Well, at least for those considering to dedicate themselves on a full time basis to the project.
Tagging @amyjung and @juanjuan for considerations in ops discussions.
On the team/domain side of things, I think the conversation is probably more concrete and impacts people directly on an everyday basis. I think different teams may take different routes in how they want to design and nurture a “team culture”, most with pros and cons.
This touches on the micro-managing vs democratically led teams.
I personally think teams with high trust, high level of transparency, with a high degree of collaboration (and the environment they nurture for it) and continuous peer review (respectful, humble and open) tend to perform better and innovate more. Also, I think these teams tend to be very motivated as all peers learn from each other and everyone is keen to complement weaknesses with other people’s strengths. From personal experience, I also think these teams tend to be more sustainable in the long run. Because they are not only focusing on performing well together but also on strengthening their relationship with each other. All for the betterment of the team.
This is all good and such. But it’s not all flowers. I think this type of “team culture” requires way more effort in a decentralised DAO team than on a group working under the same roof.
- First, most team members have never met in person.
- Second, each member brings his own background and ideas/expectations of how work is done.
- Third, perceptions of hierarchy can vary hugely between companies and even countries, from completely flat to industrial-style organigrams.
This last point can impact quite a bit on communication styles and perceptions of it and, eventually, how teams can create that awesome culture or none at all. e.g. What is considered “normal comms” for some can be viewed as super rude for others and so on… Here is just a funny example of how things can play out (you’ve got love British DAOplomacy)…
All that to say, I think teams probably need to set some expectations and “common standards” together (call it team rules) that they use and nurture in order to create a great team culture. And also make sure teams have, if need be, more difficult conversations. But all in a respectful and diplomatic matter (the British are masters in this kind, sorry for the admiration )
Hope this contributes to the discussion