So the locals elect a government, that decides to cheap out and not pay Detroit for safe treated water. They further device to cheap out and not treat the river water, known to be polluted, and screw up their infrastructure in the process.
Not quite. The Locals elected a government, then the State Governor removed that government and appointed an Emergency Manager who made the decisions about switching water supply and not updating infrastructure. And hey, the Emergency Manager didn't have to drink the water, he didn't live in Flint.
--
JimFive
taboola
I don't think you need taboola, but I did recently have to add slashcdn.com
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[emphasis added]
--
JimFive
Who manages disputes?
Assuming you mean personal disputes, then I would imagine a team consisting of HR/Legal, dispute resolution person and a couple of peers.
Who decides what projects should move forward and which should be abandoned?
The Steering Committee.
Who decides raises, merit, and promotions?
Merit would need to be well defined using specified goals that can be scored in an unbiased manner. Raises would then be defined based on merit scores and budget. If there are no bosses then what is a promotion?
Who leads the team?
This depends on what is meant by "lead". If you mean, who performs the function of liaison between the team and the customer/business then there should be a team member who takes on that task (this could rotate). If you mean who gets to assign tasks to other team members (especially those tasks that no one wants to do) then there could be a process for that as well that doesn't require someone to be a "boss' (draw lots, etc.). But what I think you mean is someone to make a decision. Consensus processes have a huge problem with this because no one wants to make a hard but correct decision (killing a popular product, disbanding a team that isn't needed anymore, etc.) And yes, some procedure would need to be worked out to make these decisions, and if it is really a bossless environment that's going to be tough to do.
I am doubtful about the possibilities of having a "bossless" workplace but on the other hand, I have my projects and goals for the year and if I don't see my boss for days or weeks at a time I can still do my job and deal with whatever issues come up. I think the biggest issues to address would be
1. Slacking - which would need some sort of team level resolution and escalation process. and
2. Responsiveness - Trying to deal with fast moving strategic requirement changes would be seriously hampered by a committee process.
--
JimFive
"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants