3 ms·
I would think it'd be even more efficient the more unknowns there are. If no one has the ability to listen to the differing opinions of the group and then initi
by mwfunk 11y ago
I would think it'd be even more efficient the more unknowns there are. If no one has the ability to listen to the differing opinions of the group and then initiate a course of action by deciding on one or more of the available paths, there are plenty of cases where no consensus is reached and everything goes in a bunch of different directions at once, or nowhere at all (as anyone who has witnessed the parade of "YYYY will be the year of Linux on the desktop!" jokes every year for the past 15+ years can attest to).
Now, hierarchy may not produce the most correct decision making, but it does produce decision making (not even "quick decision making", just "decision making"). Nonhierarchical organizations can't guarantee that. I also think there are large categories of business, design, marketing, or engineering decisions about which groups might never reach a consensus because each position is true and correct and attainable in isolation, but are not attainable when combined together.
I strongly believe that good engineering is all about optimizing compromises, and that it's irrational human nature for us to even think that "no compromises" solutions to any nontrivial problems even exist. We might convince ourselves that the compromises we're making don't matter, but all that does is help hide a potential source of future problems. Compromise isn't a dirty word in engineering, or at least it shouldn't be.
That's what having a hierarchy gives you- a way for people to argue their position as strongly as needed, an understanding that it's natural for people to focus on different ways of looking at the same problem and coming to conclusions that are simultaneously correct and incompatible, and a mechanism (the hierarchy) that ensures action by either enforcing compromise or just picking a winner in situations in situations where a decision must be made but more than one correct but incompatible solution is being fought for within the group.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> If no one has the ability to listen to the differing opinions of the group and then initiate a course of action by deciding on one or more of the available paths, there are plenty of cases where no consensus is reached and everything goes in a bunch of different directions at once Organizational structures without hierarchical authority structures, e.g. network models, don't necessarily rely on consensus; they may well have distributed authority where decisions can be made at the point in the organization where the issue is encountered, rather than being kicked up a hierarchy until it reaches someone authorized to make it. > Now, hierarchy may not produce the most correct decision making, but it does produce decision making (not even "quick decision making", just "decision making"). Nonhierarchical organizations can't guarantee that. I don't see any evidence that that is particular true of hierarchy as opposed to non-hierarchical organizations. Hierarchical organizations are certainly not incapable of analysis paralysis; having a hierarchy doesn't guarantee a decision. Hierarchies might promote consistency in the decisions that do get made, but that's a different issue.