4 ms·

Worth reading "The Tyranny of Structurelessness". It's from the 70s and is specifically about the women's movement, but is applicable to these kinds of discussi

Worth reading "The Tyranny of Structurelessness". It's from the 70s and is specifically about the women's movement, but is applicable to these kinds of discussions. Whenever you have a flat hierarchy, informal structures will arise in place of explicit ones. http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm "A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones."

hammerzeit 11y ago
100 times this. Eliminating structure just transfers the heavy lifting to informal mechanisms -- i.e. your "culture." No culture is sufficiently well-defined that everybody has a consistent definition of it, meaning you will inevitably have a situation where 2 people are doing directly contradictory things in the name of the company culture. The whole situation at GitHub from a few years ago with a founder's wife running reckless is a perfect example of this. Ultimately there are probably non-hierarchical models that allow for effective and interesting coordination in certain types of small organizations (viz the Kibbutz), but Holocracy seems like it's replacing Shit Umbrellas with Shit Centrifuges.
- Glench 11y ago
  Holacracy actually has way more structure than a hierarchy. Just look at the constitution (http://www.holacracy.org/constitution http://www.holacracy.org/constitution), or read about the rigid way they conduct meetings.
  - jacques_chester 11y ago
    > read about the rigid way they conduct meetings. It reminds me of common rules of order, except untested by the courts and not covering the many, many permutations of motions that can arise. I'd just be inclined to use Robert's Rules or a local equivalent. Meeting procedure works very well, when you use it correctly and consistently.
Jafit 11y ago
I suppose its just the way humans are wired to function. New ideas won't erase millions of years of tribalistic instinct.

hammerzeit 11y ago

100 times this. Eliminating structure just transfers the heavy lifting to informal mechanisms -- i.e. your "culture." No culture is sufficiently well-defined that everybody has a consistent definition of it, meaning you will inevitably have a situation where 2 people are doing directly contradictory things in the name of the company culture. The whole situation at GitHub from a few years ago with a founder's wife running reckless is a perfect example of this. Ultimately there are probably non-hierarchical models that allow for effective and interesting coordination in certain types of small organizations (viz the Kibbutz), but Holocracy seems like it's replacing Shit Umbrellas with Shit Centrifuges.

Glench 11y ago
Holacracy actually has way more structure than a hierarchy. Just look at the constitution (http://www.holacracy.org/constitution http://www.holacracy.org/constitution), or read about the rigid way they conduct meetings.
- jacques_chester 11y ago
  > read about the rigid way they conduct meetings. It reminds me of common rules of order, except untested by the courts and not covering the many, many permutations of motions that can arise. I'd just be inclined to use Robert's Rules or a local equivalent. Meeting procedure works very well, when you use it correctly and consistently.

Jafit 11y ago

I suppose its just the way humans are wired to function. New ideas won't erase millions of years of tribalistic instinct.