On The Hierarchy Of CloudsOn Cities That Steer Themselves
Tracing the lines of grief, care and collective power through Mexico City’s cycling transformation
On The Hierarchy Of CloudsBefore we plant anything
A few questions to see if trust is already here
On The Hierarchy Of CloudsThe Fire Is Already Here
On the Hierarchy of Clouds is a space for exploring the structures — seen and unseen — that shape our lives. It’s about systems, governance, and the slow work of change. About how we build, break, and reimagine the institutions around us.
On The Hierarchy Of CloudsOn Cities That Steer Themselves
Tracing the lines of grief, care and collective power through Mexico City’s cycling transformation
On The Hierarchy Of CloudsBefore we plant anything
A few questions to see if trust is already here
On The Hierarchy Of CloudsThe Fire Is Already Here
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
On the Hierarchy of Clouds is a space for exploring the structures — seen and unseen — that shape our lives. It’s about systems, governance, and the slow work of change. About how we build, break, and reimagine the institutions around us.
It is reinforced through experience, through what people have seen work and what they assume would collapse without control. Even those who dislike bureaucracy often trust governance in its current form because they have never worked inside a different system that functioned well.
So when we talk about shifting governance mindsets, we are not just talking about introducing a new model. We are talking about unlearning deeply embedded ways of seeing control, power, and accountability.
The real challenge is not just exposure to another way. It is creating enough cognitive space for people to step outside of governance as they know it; without immediately retreating back into what feels safe.
It is reinforced through experience, through what people have seen work and what they assume would collapse without control. Even those who dislike bureaucracy often trust governance in its current form because they have never worked inside a different system that functioned well.
So when we talk about shifting governance mindsets, we are not just talking about introducing a new model. We are talking about unlearning deeply embedded ways of seeing control, power, and accountability.
The real challenge is not just exposure to another way. It is creating enough cognitive space for people to step outside of governance as they know it; without immediately retreating back into what feels safe.
Most governance structures are defaults. You enter an organisation, a team, a system, and governance is already there. You don’t choose it; it is inherited.
But what if governance was something you could opt into?
What if governance was something you could exit?
A governance model that assumes voluntary participation instead of forced compliance requires a fundamental mindset shift. It asks people to see governance not as something they are ruled by, but as something they actively shape, contribute to, and can leave if it fails to serve them.
A few questions that push this idea further:
• What happens when governance is no longer enforced, but chosen?
• What does accountability look like when people are free to exit a governance system that does not work for them?
• How do we design governance models that people stay in—not because they have to, but because they want to?
These questions shift governance from being about control to being about participation.
If governance is inherited, how do we get people to step outside of it - even temporarily - to experience it as something that could be different?
Mindsets do not shift just through exposure. They shift when people are given enough distance from the system they know to see it as one option among many.
Some ways to create that space:
✅ Governance Sabbaticals: What happens when governance is temporarily removed? Some teams experiment with governance-free periods, where normal approval structures and hierarchy are suspended for a set time, allowing work to flow differently.
✅ Governance by Invitation: Instead of assuming people must participate in a governance model, experiment with governance opt-ins where people choose to engage based on trust, not authority.
✅ Governance Forking: What if people could fork governance models the same way they fork open-source software? Instead of reforming governance from within, allow people to create new structures that run in parallel, adapting as needed.
✅ Governance Sandboxes: What happens when governance is tested before being enforced? A sandbox creates a contained environment where governance can be trialled, adjusted, and evolved before rolling it out more widely. Let people interact with an adaptive model before they are asked to commit to it.
✅ Parallel Governance Structures: Instead of replacing governance structures outright, run experimental governance models alongside existing ones. Let people opt into a different way of making decisions and compare how each system works in practice.
✅ Governance by Participation, Not Theory: Instead of explaining why flexible governance works, create a decision-making space where people experience it first-hand. Let them see that governance can be fluid, trust-based, and functional.
Mindsets don’t shift because of arguments. They shift through direct interaction with a governance model that works differently.
At the root of all of this is trust.
Most governance models distrust people by default. They assume people will make bad decisions unless constrained by rules. They assume control needs to be centralised because otherwise, the system will break down.
Shifting governance mindsets means shifting this underlying assumption.
Governance does not hold systems together. Trust does. Governance is just the scaffolding built around it.
So what happens when governance models are designed for trust first, rather than control?
• Governance that allows for mistakes and learning rather than punishing deviations from process.
• Governance that prioritises distributed responsibility rather than centralised authority.
• Governance that is accountable to the people using it, not just the people enforcing it.
Most governance experiments don’t start with rewriting policies. They start with small shifts in how people work together. Decision-making workarounds. Unwritten agreements. Teams testing new ways of organising themselves, even if those ways contradict the official structures.
The real question is: how do we use little governance experiments to prototype governance that scales?
A governance sandbox is one way to start. A contained space where governance can be tested, adapted, and refined before rolling it out more widely. Some ideas:
✅ Time-box governance experiments: try a new decision-making model for three months, then assess and iterate.
✅ Prototype modular governance: break governance into components that can be reconfigured based on context.
✅ Run governance as a feedback loop: map where decisions actually happen, track where governance slows things down, and adapt accordingly.
Governance is already shifting. The difference is whether we let it happen by accident, or design it with intention.
I am interested in governance that is built for participation rather than control. Governance that people opt into rather than governance they inherit.
Where have you seen governance models that work because they are chosen, rather than enforced?
What governance experiments are happening that allow for trust first, before authority?
How do we shift people’s understanding of governance—not through argument, but through experience?
Most governance structures are defaults. You enter an organisation, a team, a system, and governance is already there. You don’t choose it; it is inherited.
But what if governance was something you could opt into?
What if governance was something you could exit?
A governance model that assumes voluntary participation instead of forced compliance requires a fundamental mindset shift. It asks people to see governance not as something they are ruled by, but as something they actively shape, contribute to, and can leave if it fails to serve them.
A few questions that push this idea further:
• What happens when governance is no longer enforced, but chosen?
• What does accountability look like when people are free to exit a governance system that does not work for them?
• How do we design governance models that people stay in—not because they have to, but because they want to?
These questions shift governance from being about control to being about participation.
If governance is inherited, how do we get people to step outside of it - even temporarily - to experience it as something that could be different?
Mindsets do not shift just through exposure. They shift when people are given enough distance from the system they know to see it as one option among many.
Some ways to create that space:
✅ Governance Sabbaticals: What happens when governance is temporarily removed? Some teams experiment with governance-free periods, where normal approval structures and hierarchy are suspended for a set time, allowing work to flow differently.
✅ Governance by Invitation: Instead of assuming people must participate in a governance model, experiment with governance opt-ins where people choose to engage based on trust, not authority.
✅ Governance Forking: What if people could fork governance models the same way they fork open-source software? Instead of reforming governance from within, allow people to create new structures that run in parallel, adapting as needed.
✅ Governance Sandboxes: What happens when governance is tested before being enforced? A sandbox creates a contained environment where governance can be trialled, adjusted, and evolved before rolling it out more widely. Let people interact with an adaptive model before they are asked to commit to it.
✅ Parallel Governance Structures: Instead of replacing governance structures outright, run experimental governance models alongside existing ones. Let people opt into a different way of making decisions and compare how each system works in practice.
✅ Governance by Participation, Not Theory: Instead of explaining why flexible governance works, create a decision-making space where people experience it first-hand. Let them see that governance can be fluid, trust-based, and functional.
Mindsets don’t shift because of arguments. They shift through direct interaction with a governance model that works differently.
At the root of all of this is trust.
Most governance models distrust people by default. They assume people will make bad decisions unless constrained by rules. They assume control needs to be centralised because otherwise, the system will break down.
Shifting governance mindsets means shifting this underlying assumption.
Governance does not hold systems together. Trust does. Governance is just the scaffolding built around it.
So what happens when governance models are designed for trust first, rather than control?
• Governance that allows for mistakes and learning rather than punishing deviations from process.
• Governance that prioritises distributed responsibility rather than centralised authority.
• Governance that is accountable to the people using it, not just the people enforcing it.
Most governance experiments don’t start with rewriting policies. They start with small shifts in how people work together. Decision-making workarounds. Unwritten agreements. Teams testing new ways of organising themselves, even if those ways contradict the official structures.
The real question is: how do we use little governance experiments to prototype governance that scales?
A governance sandbox is one way to start. A contained space where governance can be tested, adapted, and refined before rolling it out more widely. Some ideas:
✅ Time-box governance experiments: try a new decision-making model for three months, then assess and iterate.
✅ Prototype modular governance: break governance into components that can be reconfigured based on context.
✅ Run governance as a feedback loop: map where decisions actually happen, track where governance slows things down, and adapt accordingly.
Governance is already shifting. The difference is whether we let it happen by accident, or design it with intention.
I am interested in governance that is built for participation rather than control. Governance that people opt into rather than governance they inherit.
Where have you seen governance models that work because they are chosen, rather than enforced?
What governance experiments are happening that allow for trust first, before authority?
How do we shift people’s understanding of governance—not through argument, but through experience?
Subscribe to On The Hierarchy Of Clouds
Subscribe to On The Hierarchy Of Clouds
<100 subscribers
<100 subscribers
No activity yet