Open source appropriate technology — tools anyone can build

The Economics of Power

Let's be materialist about this. What is power actually for? The traditional answer: power is the capacity to make others do what you want. You can see why this seems appealing—if you have power over others, you can accomplish things. You don't have to negotiate. You don't have to listen. You just decide. But this model has massive hidden costs: Compliance costs: You have to monitor people. They're doing what you say only because you're watching. The moment you're not looking, they optimize for their own benefit, not yours. Your organization is filled with people who are withholding their actual intelligence. Adaptation costs: A system run by command-and-control is slow. All information has to flow to the center (you), get processed by one brain, then flow back out. Real-time adaptation becomes impossible. Innovation costs: People who aren't trusted to think don't think. Creativity requires psychological safety and autonomy. Neither exists in power-over systems. Replacement costs: If you have power because of your role and not because of relationships, you're perpetually replaceable. You also can't delegate, because delegation means trusting. But trust doesn't exist in power-over. Exit costs: People leave power-over systems the moment they can afford to. This creates constant turnover, constant retraining, constant friction. Compare this to power-with systems: Distributed intelligence: Everyone is thinking. Everyone is contributing knowledge. The system is as smart as all its members. Real-time adaptation: Information flows in all directions. People at the edges detect changes first and can adapt immediately. Intrinsic motivation: People care because the work reflects their values, not because they're being monitored. They think about it while they're not at work. Resilience: The system doesn't depend on one person. If someone leaves, there's no catastrophic loss of knowledge or relationship. Durability: Power-with organizations can last centuries. Mondragon is over 60 years old and stronger than when it started. Power-over organizations collapse when the person with power leaves. This is not sentiment. This is practical.

The Anatomy of Power-With

Power-with has three components: 1. Shared Purpose Not imposed from above. Developed together. Everyone knows why they're doing this and has had voice in defining it. This creates coherence. When something is unclear, people can refer back to the shared purpose instead of waiting for a decision from the top. This is more efficient than command-and-control because it requires less monitoring. 2. Mutual Accountability Not hierarchy. Not power held by one person. Accountability distributed across the group. Everyone is answerable to everyone else. This feels vulnerable at first because you can't hide. But it's also liberating because you're not trying to perform for an authority figure. You're showing up for people you actually care about. 3. Shared Authority Different people hold authority in different domains. A decision about food is made by people who know food. A decision about finances is made by people who understand finances. But these domains overlap and the structure makes clear: who decides what and why. This prevents both tyranny and chaos.

Building the Infrastructure

Power-with doesn't emerge spontaneously. It requires deliberate design. The Governance Structure You need clarity about: - How decisions get made (consensus? majority? weighted consent?) - Who has voice in which decisions (and why that makes sense) - How conflicts get resolved - How the system evolves when circumstances change - How people enter and leave the structure This is not paperwork. This is clarity. People need to know the rules of the game. Example: A community decides that: - Decisions affecting everyone require consensus - Decisions affecting a subgroup require that subgroup's consent - Decisions that don't affect anyone (like who facilitates) rotate monthly - Conflicts between people are mediated; conflicts about decisions go to council This takes time to develop but creates incredible clarity. The Communication Infrastructure Power-with requires constant, honest communication. This means: - Regular meetings where decisions are made - Ways of communicating that are accessible (not just to people who like meetings) - Mechanisms for feedback (how do people tell you something isn't working?) - Protocols for difficult conversations - Ways of documenting what was decided and why Again: not paperwork. Structure that makes communication easier. The Skill Development People have to learn: - How to listen without planning your response - How to speak from your actual perspective rather than trying to convince - How to facilitate a meeting without controlling the outcome - How to sit with disagreement without needing to win - How to ask questions that open conversation rather than close it These are not innate. They're practices. Communities that invest in teaching them see transformed relationships within months. The Trust-Building Power-with only works with trust. And trust is built through: - Following through on what you say you'll do - Being honest about conflicts instead of pretending they don't exist - Admitting when you've made a mistake - Showing up consistently - Believing the best about people's intentions even when their impact was negative This takes time. There's no shortcut.

The Scaling Structures

Power-with is easy with 12 people. It gets harder with 120. Impossible at 1,200 without structural innovation. The solution is nested structures: Local circles: 8-15 people who make decisions about what affects them directly. Working groups: People from multiple circles who coordinate across the larger organization. Councils: Representatives from working groups who address system-level issues. General assemblies: The whole group meeting maybe quarterly to make decisions that affect everyone. Clear protocols about: - What authority each level has - How information flows up and down - How representatives stay accountable to the people they represent This is how the Zapatistas coordinate across thousands of communities. How Mondragon manages across 250+ companies. How indigenous confederacies governed for centuries.

The Paradox of Autonomy

Here's the thing that trips most people up: power-with requires more autonomy, not less. More personal responsibility, not less. In power-over systems, you can blame the person in charge. You can complain that they're not making good decisions. It's not your fault. In power-with systems, you have to show up. You have to think. You have to be willing to change your mind. You have to tolerate that other people think differently than you do and that that difference is actually valuable. This is harder. But it produces people who are genuinely thinking, genuinely caring, genuinely invested.

What Happens to Power-Holders

Here's a question people don't usually ask: what happens to the person with power in a power-over system? They get tired. Because they're constantly vigilant. They have to monitor everything. They can't actually trust anyone. Everyone is performing for them. Real relationships become impossible because there's always a power differential. In power-with systems, you still might hold particular authority (you might be the person who knows finances, so you hold authority there). But it's bounded. It's specific. You don't have to manage everything. You can actually rest. You also get to be part of something larger than yourself. In power-over systems, everything depends on you. That's terrifying. In power-with systems, the work is distributed. You can actually enjoy what you're building.

The Realistic Timeline

Here's what actually happens when you try to build power-with: Months 1-3: Excitement and initial coordination. You set up structures. You have meetings. You're learning how to work together. This feels great. Months 4-6: Reality starts hitting. Some people aren't showing up. Communication isn't working as well as you hoped. Conflicts emerge. There's frustration. This is when people want to go back to hierarchy (at least then someone was making decisions). Months 6-12: You've worked through the first round of conflicts. You're refining your processes. Things are actually working better, but it's requiring more emotional labor than you expected. Year 2+: You start seeing what's actually possible. Things that would have been blocked in a hierarchy are now happening because distributed intelligence is actually more adaptive. You're also tired in a different way—not the exhaustion of controlling everything, but the vulnerability of being accountable to people you actually care about. Knowing this timeline helps. You don't give up at month 6 when it feels harder. You recognize it as the price of building something real.

From Dominance to Collaboration

The shift from power-over to power-with is not just about how decisions get made. It's about consciousness. It's moving from: What can I extract from this situation? to What can we create together? From: How do I maintain control? to How do we stay coherent? From: What's the minimum I have to do? to What's the maximum we can become? This shift is possible. It's happening in organizations around the world. Mondragon. Cooperative networks. Indigenous communities maintaining sovereignty. Open-source projects coordinating across continents without any boss. It's not naive. It's not going back to something primitive. It's moving forward to something that works better. And it starts with deciding: I'm done with power over. I want to build power-with. ---

Key Sources

- Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness. Nelson Parker. - Wheatley, M.J. & Frieze, D. (2011). Walk Out Walk On: A Learning Journey into Communities Daring to Live the Future Now. Berrett-Koehler. - Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational Learning II. Addison-Wesley. - Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R.I. (2006). Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense. Harvard Business School Press. - Brown, B. & Kuhl, A. (2018). Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts. Random House.