EP51 Richard Bartlett on Self-Organizing Collaboration



Richard Bartlett talks to Jim about his experiences with decentralized work & organization, Gameb, group size dynamics, big change movements & much more…

Rich Bartlett

Richard Bartlett talks to Jim about his experiences with decentralized work & organization, transitioning from game a to Gameb, models for financial solidarity, technology-first vs psychology-first approaches to collaboration, dyad vs crew vs congregation dynamics, competency-based networks, practices vs principles, moving podcasts towards community, activism vs actionism, decision-making methods & conflict management, post-COVID network change potential, fundamentals focus in big change movements, intentions vs competencies, the power of modularity, and more.

Episode Transcript

Mentions & Recommendations

Richard D. Bartlett co-founded the digital tool Loomio and a decentralization consulting company, The Hum. He writes about how we work together, at any scale, from relationships to organizations to social change.

He publishes on Medium.com, was a contributing author for Better Work Together, curates a comprehensive list of resources for decentralized organizations, and his first unfinished book (Patterns for Decentralised Organising) covers solutions to common failure points of groups – current draft available here. His most recent project, Microsolidarity is a plan for weaving purposeful networks where people support each other with deep mutual aid.


One thought on “EP51 Richard Bartlett on Self-Organizing Collaboration

  1. Thanks for this beautiful conversation. I really enjoyed the spirit of experimentation and honesty you bring to your discussion. It helps me learn not only about the things you talk about but also strenghtens a sense of how healthy conversations could sound and feel like.
    Here is a comment: When Rich talked about the self as a group and touched upon the method Internal Family Systems (IFS), I felt compelled to add something. Yes, there is an emphasis on the differentiation of the psyche, but there is also an idea of a unifying force. In IFS, the “Self” refers to something which is not a “part”, but more like a perspective from which you (who? 😉 can develop a more inclusive understanding of how different parts interact. For me, the perspective of Self feels like the space between parts. It functions like a streets which enables movement from part to part (from inner world to inner world?) – and ultimately, through inner conflict resolution: a sense of (self-)understanding and greater coherence.
    In the IFS-practice, I found, embodying the perspective of Self takes the shape of, let’s call it, internal system facilitation. And I have the hunch that there is great potential for deep learning when internal and external facilitation (and conflict resolution!) are seen as both necessary and interdependent.

Leave a Reply

*