5 ms·

Undoing hierarchy at every turn is in the zeitgeist. We need to take some time to appreciate when it is useful. My belief is that it is useful for quick action

Undoing hierarchy at every turn is in the zeitgeist. We need to take some time to appreciate when it is useful. My belief is that it is useful for quick action and inevitable when human systems scale.

k__ 11y ago
The problem doesn't seem to be hierarchy, but that it's expected to climb it. Some people are good in management, some aren't. But if you're long enough in a job, you have to take on a management position to get paid more or to make decisions in your favor. Yes the payment thing isn't a big problem in the IT sector, senior engineers often get paid as much or even more than managers. But the decision part is still a problem. Often you end up with stupid ideas you have to execute and the only way to change them is to get rid of the manager, because he won't consider he failed...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- laotzu 11y ago
  Success is as dangerous as failure. Hope is as hollow as fear. What does it mean that success is as dangerous as failure? Whether you go up the ladder or down it, your position is shaky. When you stand with your two feet on the ground, you will always keep your balance. -Lao Tzu
  - eggie 11y ago
    Lovely. Are you a Lao Tzu quote bot ;) ?
- kabdib 11y ago
  Even in a flat organization, some people are good at organizing other folks and getting things done that way, while others are good at sitting down by themselves and cranking stuff out. I'd say the needle is much farther towards "communication and cooperation" (as opposed to "unopinionated worker drone") than in a hierarchy, but the spread of abilities is still there. The nice thing about being truly flat is that there's no boss to get rid of if they're not working out. You just decide not to work with them. [Flat isn't totally wonderful and there are still issues with it which I don't care to get into right now.]
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > the decision part is still a problem. "How s plan becomes policy" http://ogun.stanford.edu/~bnayfeh/plan.html http://ogun.stanford.edu/~bnayfeh/plan.html
dsfsdfd 11y ago
Hierarchical systems do NOT scale well. If you want to scale something it needs to be distributed and in human terms that means equality, action by consensus, local decision making. The properties of the system must emerge from the global rules. It's in the Zeitgeist because people are coming to understand how monumentally stupid it is to continue operating in this horrific way - both in terms of overall efficiency and in terms of human suffering.
- sergiosgc 11y ago
  Hierarchical systems absolutely DO scale well. They are just not efficient in the task of adapting to a changing environment. The proof that hierarchical systems do scale is in the military. They operate in absolute hierarchical fashion. In the past they did so with very limited communication, with headcounts unimaginable in today's organizations.
  - dsfsdfd 11y ago
    No they don't. Pointing in the vague direction of an exemplar system and describing it a positive argument does not constitute an argument.
    - jccooper 11y ago
      Pretty much every large business and government is also explicitly hierarchical. For a particular firm it's such a common choice one has to imagine it's a good one. For organizations or broader scope than a single firm (industries and economies, cities and nations) independent competition and cooperation seems to work quite well.
    - obstacle1 11y ago
      >Pointing in the vague direction of an exemplar system and describing it a positive argument does not constitute an argument. Neither does saying "hierarchies do not scale well", or "no they don't", without providing any evidence. So at least you are both "arguing" on the same level: unsubstantiated opinion.
- 11y ago
peteretep 11y ago
I read something very interesting a while ago, which I'm not completely unable to find, about feminist movements rejecting, and then embracing, explicit hierachies. The thrust of it was that without an explicit hierachy, informal hierachies in social structures always emerge. Those informal hierachies are much harder to navigate and much more likely to opress than explicit ones.
- schoen 11y ago
  The article you're thinking of is called "The Tyranny of Structurelessness". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...
- Torgo 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne... From a feminist perspective some complaints are that lack of structure creates a vacuum in which sociopaths and bullies can run free. Also it doesn't have the capacity to enact top-down diagnostic and corrective action to combat institutional or otherwise widespread behavior deficits (for example discrminatory or sexist attitudes.)
  - phlandis 11y ago
    Implying that structure doesn't already favor putting sociopaths and bullies in positions of power (management, CEOs). One solution is to not grow too big, however that is not always an option.
pasquinelli 11y ago
it's also useful for those at the top of the hierarchy. and those who imagine they might be at the top some day, they tend to imagine it might be useful as well.
erikpukinskis 11y ago
> Undoing hierarchy at every turn is in the zeitgeist. Question for folks: Do you really think this is happening or are people just talking about it? I've worked for people who talked a big collaboration/flat structure game, but when it comes down to important projects, all of the sudden, one guy is the decider, and he is only giving responsibility to his lieutenants, who have direct command over the people below. He can count on his hand the number of people who have true control over real resources, which makes it easy for him to reason about where costs are going. Everyone tries to be nice about it, but my sense is that almost no one actually believes in giving serious responsibilities to a wide range of people. They have their go-to people, and everyone else has to prove themselves by following directions well and maybe they can get a position in that structure at some theoretical later date. I haven't worked in very many different companies though, so I would love to hear if that's actually becoming a bigger thing in other places. I know Valve is different, but they seem more and more like an outlier to me.
- freshhawk 11y ago
  It's useful to make the distinction between structural hierarchies and social ones (and useful to be really skeptical of the zeitgeisty posts that don't differentiate between the two). So flatten your company structure however you like, there will be a social hierarchy in place as well because these are Humans we are talking about. The people who have interesting things to say about this will talk about how this is the real power of a flat structure, that the social hierarchy is much more dynamic and re-arranges itself on demand and multiple context dependent hierarchies will exist all inter-relating. Your static and slow to adapt org-chart hierarchy just gets in the way. Of course there are a lot of cons as well as the pros, you will get cliques, introverts, regardless of ability, will be disadvantaged, these subconscious social hierarchy building behaviours incorporate all those ugly human prejudices we know are maladaptive, etc. But overall I find it a really interesting argument.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  This is what really happens, and generally what should be happening. But it's against the zeitgeist - it's undemocratic, it's not inclusive, etc. - that's why you mostly shut up about it and rely on leaders self-selecting themselves when a challenge arises. Humans understand this implicitly, therefore only complain when either a) the matter is insignificant to anything (e.g. things labeled as "just politics"), or b) they have a personal stake in breaking the existing hierarchy (e.g. they want to be leaders themselves).

k__ 11y ago

The problem doesn't seem to be hierarchy, but that it's expected to climb it. Some people are good in management, some aren't. But if you're long enough in a job, you have to take on a management position to get paid more or to make decisions in your favor. Yes the payment thing isn't a big problem in the IT sector, senior engineers often get paid as much or even more than managers. But the decision part is still a problem. Often you end up with stupid ideas you have to execute and the only way to change them is to get rid of the manager, because he won't consider he failed...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
laotzu 11y ago
Success is as dangerous as failure. Hope is as hollow as fear. What does it mean that success is as dangerous as failure? Whether you go up the ladder or down it, your position is shaky. When you stand with your two feet on the ground, you will always keep your balance. -Lao Tzu
- eggie 11y ago
  Lovely. Are you a Lao Tzu quote bot ;) ?
kabdib 11y ago
Even in a flat organization, some people are good at organizing other folks and getting things done that way, while others are good at sitting down by themselves and cranking stuff out. I'd say the needle is much farther towards "communication and cooperation" (as opposed to "unopinionated worker drone") than in a hierarchy, but the spread of abilities is still there. The nice thing about being truly flat is that there's no boss to get rid of if they're not working out. You just decide not to work with them. [Flat isn't totally wonderful and there are still issues with it which I don't care to get into right now.]
pdkl95 11y ago
> the decision part is still a problem. "How s plan becomes policy" http://ogun.stanford.edu/~bnayfeh/plan.html http://ogun.stanford.edu/~bnayfeh/plan.html

dsfsdfd 11y ago

Hierarchical systems do NOT scale well. If you want to scale something it needs to be distributed and in human terms that means equality, action by consensus, local decision making. The properties of the system must emerge from the global rules. It's in the Zeitgeist because people are coming to understand how monumentally stupid it is to continue operating in this horrific way - both in terms of overall efficiency and in terms of human suffering.

sergiosgc 11y ago
Hierarchical systems absolutely DO scale well. They are just not efficient in the task of adapting to a changing environment. The proof that hierarchical systems do scale is in the military. They operate in absolute hierarchical fashion. In the past they did so with very limited communication, with headcounts unimaginable in today's organizations.
- dsfsdfd 11y ago
  No they don't. Pointing in the vague direction of an exemplar system and describing it a positive argument does not constitute an argument.
  - jccooper 11y ago
    Pretty much every large business and government is also explicitly hierarchical. For a particular firm it's such a common choice one has to imagine it's a good one. For organizations or broader scope than a single firm (industries and economies, cities and nations) independent competition and cooperation seems to work quite well.
  - obstacle1 11y ago
    >Pointing in the vague direction of an exemplar system and describing it a positive argument does not constitute an argument. Neither does saying "hierarchies do not scale well", or "no they don't", without providing any evidence. So at least you are both "arguing" on the same level: unsubstantiated opinion.
11y ago

peteretep 11y ago

I read something very interesting a while ago, which I'm not completely unable to find, about feminist movements rejecting, and then embracing, explicit hierachies. The thrust of it was that without an explicit hierachy, informal hierachies in social structures always emerge. Those informal hierachies are much harder to navigate and much more likely to opress than explicit ones.

schoen 11y ago
The article you're thinking of is called "The Tyranny of Structurelessness". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...
Torgo 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne... From a feminist perspective some complaints are that lack of structure creates a vacuum in which sociopaths and bullies can run free. Also it doesn't have the capacity to enact top-down diagnostic and corrective action to combat institutional or otherwise widespread behavior deficits (for example discrminatory or sexist attitudes.)
- phlandis 11y ago
  Implying that structure doesn't already favor putting sociopaths and bullies in positions of power (management, CEOs). One solution is to not grow too big, however that is not always an option.

pasquinelli 11y ago

it's also useful for those at the top of the hierarchy. and those who imagine they might be at the top some day, they tend to imagine it might be useful as well.

erikpukinskis 11y ago

> Undoing hierarchy at every turn is in the zeitgeist. Question for folks: Do you really think this is happening or are people just talking about it? I've worked for people who talked a big collaboration/flat structure game, but when it comes down to important projects, all of the sudden, one guy is the decider, and he is only giving responsibility to his lieutenants, who have direct command over the people below. He can count on his hand the number of people who have true control over real resources, which makes it easy for him to reason about where costs are going. Everyone tries to be nice about it, but my sense is that almost no one actually believes in giving serious responsibilities to a wide range of people. They have their go-to people, and everyone else has to prove themselves by following directions well and maybe they can get a position in that structure at some theoretical later date. I haven't worked in very many different companies though, so I would love to hear if that's actually becoming a bigger thing in other places. I know Valve is different, but they seem more and more like an outlier to me.

freshhawk 11y ago
It's useful to make the distinction between structural hierarchies and social ones (and useful to be really skeptical of the zeitgeisty posts that don't differentiate between the two). So flatten your company structure however you like, there will be a social hierarchy in place as well because these are Humans we are talking about. The people who have interesting things to say about this will talk about how this is the real power of a flat structure, that the social hierarchy is much more dynamic and re-arranges itself on demand and multiple context dependent hierarchies will exist all inter-relating. Your static and slow to adapt org-chart hierarchy just gets in the way. Of course there are a lot of cons as well as the pros, you will get cliques, introverts, regardless of ability, will be disadvantaged, these subconscious social hierarchy building behaviours incorporate all those ugly human prejudices we know are maladaptive, etc. But overall I find it a really interesting argument.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
This is what really happens, and generally what should be happening. But it's against the zeitgeist - it's undemocratic, it's not inclusive, etc. - that's why you mostly shut up about it and rely on leaders self-selecting themselves when a challenge arises. Humans understand this implicitly, therefore only complain when either a) the matter is insignificant to anything (e.g. things labeled as "just politics"), or b) they have a personal stake in breaking the existing hierarchy (e.g. they want to be leaders themselves).