Would it make sense to impose a limit of 20 cigarettes per day (with a fine when one goes beyond it), in order to protect the safety of other people?

Great piece, thanks!

Thank you. I am very familiar with systems thinking, and I probably know more about it than the people who keep blaming the system.

Between 20 and 30.

Thanks for your input! But actually, "bestuurscentrum" translates (literally) to "central control". So at least, Rabobank does have something in the center that is trying to control a few things. :-)

I fixed the problem. Thanks for reporting this!

Sorry?

Thanks Dave! Still working on the "full-time" part. :-)

Thanks for pointing that out. And yet, I feel encouraged that Taleb seems to be supported by some very smart people, such as Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman and Dan Ariely, behavioral economist.

Nassim Taleb refers to a huge body of research to support his arguments, so your claim that "it has not been proven" is simply not true. It is also a big theme in complexity science, though the scientists use different terminology. Therefore "unfounded" is also untrue. We will simply disagree then. It makes no sense to me to continue debating while ignoring science. "why is this a private discussion" It isn't. Everyone can read this.

I have said on many occasions that we cannot blame methods or frameworks, we can only blame people who create or use them in a bad way. Second, you apparently still don't understand what antifragile means. It means improving health by intentionally inflicting a little bit of harm. I know a company with a team that has as their purpose to inflict harm. Like removing cables, deleting code, stealing computers, etc. Because nobody in the organization knows what will happen next, and they keep improving after every little disaster, the organization learns to become very adaptable, resilient, and secure. Thanks to the malicious team. If you think that people "will only hate you" for doing such things, I'm afraid you still don't get the point of my blog post, and what it means to be antifragile.

No, it is you who is completely missing the point of my blog post (and Taleb's book). Retrospectives and antifragility are totally different things. Retrospectives are about intentionally seeking improvements to the current process BY THE TEAM. Such as, maybe shortening the sprints or moving meetings to another day of the week. Antifragility is about intentionally causing a little bit of UNEXPECTED harm to the team BY THE ENVIRONMENT. Like, maybe hiding their task board, or injecting a virus in their code base, and see how they learn from that and improve their health. I suggest your read the book. In fact, if you do regular retrospectives in a predictable pattern that would be very much *against* antifragility.

Hi Sebastian, thanks for your feedback. I agree with your comments. I'm just warning people not to get stuck at the Shu level. The examples you ask for I already gave in my blog post. And don't confuse Scrum with Management 3.0. I did not suggest to change Scrum by mixing Management 3.0 practices (although that is perfectly fine, as you say). They are two different memeplexes. What I mean is that I don't want Management 3.0 to become a framework, just like Scrum is now. People should feel comfortable adding/removing management practices in management. Just like they must feel comfortable adding/removing Scrum practices in projects.

It is clear you have an intelligent way of applying (multiple) methods and frameworks, in a mix-and-match approach. That's great. You're basically shopping for good practices and techniques from multiple sources, which is what everybody should be doing, IMHO. I just have a problem with the words method and framework because they too easily lead to cargo cult implementations. That's why I prefer choosing a better metaphor.

I didn't tell you to have stress. I try to follow Taleb's definition of adding stressors. That's different. As I said, I like changes (stressors). I rarely have stress.

Sorry, I don't know any tools. Hope to get some suggestions too...

Yes, I totally understand that John Seddon's issue was with the use of the word, not with the original thinking behind it.

"shouldn't be a problem evenly distributing per team" Of course that's a problem. It is unfair if the teams are different sizes. It's unfair if some teams only existed half a year. It's unfair in many cases. It is you who is creating a rule here, and it won't work because people are smarter. "With regard to dealing with individuals who don't work for a team, I don't think a merit type system would address that either." It certainly does. Individuals outside of teams can be rewarded by team members just like normal team members. Because of some great service the individuals offered to teams. Or just because they're great friends. "I don't think that leaving the decision to the team is necessarily bad. In the end, it's their choice." I agree. That's why I suggest to give every person exactly the same amount. And in the teams they can decide what to do with that. "That's the last time I would want to create a system for them" Well, if you correlate money to team boundaries, that's exactly what you're doing: you're creating yet another system. A system of team boundaries. I think you should leave it to the individuals to decide what their boundaries/personal networks are.

Thanks Mike, these are good comments. But I don't think this really addresses the issue. First of all, how do you decide how much money goes to which team, assuming they have different sizes and contributions? Someone needs some criteria here. Second, how do you deal with individuals who don't work on a team? Again, some criteria are needed. Third, if you leave the decision (for how to distribute money) to a team, they have different choices. They can use a bonus system (which is bad). They can use a flat system (also bad). Or they can use some kind of merits system for the distribution criteria. If they do this, I suggest they read my article. :-)

I suggest you read the Merit Money article, referred to at the bottom of the post. It describes a solution using gamification.

Hi Ben, If you read the Merit Money article, referred to at the bottom, you will find a suggestion for a much better system!

Thanks. It's probably more work than most people think. :)

Good reading! Yes, I did. Depending on specific key decision areas/activities. Which is basically also the point of this post.

Indeed. I'd say writers should be very good at written conversation. :)

Good point. Same with my apartment on AirBNB. The people who ask to call me about it are the ones who never book it.