01| Decentralization at IkoCiti is not a moral position. It is a performance decision. The people standing in the barrio see things the people in a global office cannot see, and they see them weeks earlier. If we route their judgment through an approval queue, we pay for the delay in impact. That is the whole argument. Everything else in this book part is machinery to make that argument survive contact with reality. 02| The machinery matters because the argument has an obviou

01| Global Leadership runs on three levels: the Board, the Global Management Team, and the Division Leaders. The levels exist to separate three different kinds of question, and most governance failures we have looked at come from a single body trying to answer all three. 02| The Board owns the mission. Ethics, mission integrity, legal and regulatory compliance, financial integrity, and stakeholder trust. It rules on escalations — the last word when a decision has been contest

01| The CITI Management Team runs the local platform — the barrio departments, operations, the liaison functions that connect the CITI to the global divisions. The CITI Leader is accountable for the whole local result: barrio transformation and project production, both. 02| The premise is that local authority is structural, not delegated. Headquarters does not grant permission for local decisions. It defines the boundary, and inside that boundary the CITI decides with full au

01| One principle runs underneath everything: leaders at every level hold final decision authority in their own domain, subject only to escalation on defined criteria. CITI Leaders decide local operations. Division Leaders decide division strategy. Group Leads decide group operations. Maveriqs decide their projects. The default is to trust the decision-maker. 02| The teams that carry the work scale to the work, and most work needs no team-building at all. A project inside a s

V7-3.05 | Management Never Has the Last Word 01| Everything above this chapter describes leaders deciding. This chapter describes what happens when the people the decisions land on believe the leaders got it wrong. 02| The mechanism: a 60% majority of qualified Ikosi can escalate any major decision by the GMT, a Division MT or a CITI MT to the Board for a final ruling. Inside Circles the same right runs to the Division MT. 03| Note carefully what that is and is not. It is not

01| Leadership emerges wherever people work on something together — quickly, and without anyone arranging it. The interesting finding is the second half: the followers largely determine which kind of leadership emerges. Groups get the leaders they will tolerate. 02| That points at where the leverage is. If you want leadership that does not dominate, you do not primarily fix the leader. You empower the followers — literally give them the power to challenge leadership, dominant

01| Decentralization has a bill attached, and it is an oversight bill. Senior leaders in a distributed system have two bad options: trust without seeing, which lets problems grow in the dark, or demand visibility through approval workflows, which destroys the speed that was the point of decentralizing. Almost every organization that re-centralizes does it because of this bill, not because it stopped believing in autonomy. 02| Our answer is that AI carries the monitoring load

01| A system that pushes authority outward has to be equally serious about what happens when the authority is misused or simply not up to the job. Otherwise decentralization is just a way of distributing failure. 02| Problems have to be visible early, which means monitoring is continuous rather than annual. Maveriq satisfaction, project delivery rates, Impact Buyer satisfaction with verified outcomes, transparency compliance, financial health, training completion, validation