In a group, when the need for cooperation grows, the output tends to fall. How do we approach this?
It is fascinating to see what a group of well integrated and cooperating individuals can achieve. What is even more fascinating or rather should we say concerning is the fact that the size of a group does not necessarily increase the quality or quantity of output regardless of the discipline.
With the size of a group an inherent complexity is introduced which is communication between individuals. The bigger the group, the harder it is to keep everybody on the same page and knowing what the actual development process is. One solution to this complexity is introduction of structure or bureaucracy. However when one does that the output of the group suffers as the creative dimension of the process of each individual is hindered. This can frequently lead to output which is uninspiring or mediocre.
Ray Dalio is one of the few people that managed to create and document (Ray Dalio Principles 2017) a system for groups, which does not limit the creative dimension of an individual, leaving each employee a critical thinker that still achieves their best regardless of the group size, not hindered by the innate complexity of the group, but actually leveraging the diversity of the group to achieve best results. Every individual knows they should and have to stand up for their ideas and fight (with a structured way to resolve conflicts) for what is right in their respective field they are competent in. Ray Dalio does that by many means, but one of the key ones is transparency and engagement.
QVote is a system that provides transparency, increased engagement and inclusion for large groups of individuals. Every individual can take part in decision making processes or just share their view on each of the key points of a discussion. QVote allows groups to leverage their inherent diversity to discuss and arrive at best conclusions by introducing a conflict resolution mechanism in the form of quadratic voting that is mathematically proven to be the best voting method (with least welfare loss in the outcome of a decision) (Weyl, E.G, 2017).