13 ms·

Why is Self-Organization such a bad thing? Why are we hitting it over and over, esp. in the traditional offices where people are spending time in busy-ness inst

by sremani 11y ago

Why is Self-Organization such a bad thing? Why are we hitting it over and over, esp. in the traditional offices where people are spending time in busy-ness instead of business productivity. I swear, 90% of traditional workers work 2 hours of their 8 hour day and middle management is lucky to be 50% right or worse, parrot what ever the megalomaniac who works higher in the hierarchy says. What is really Zappos doing, at least unlike many people in SV they do not claim to put a dent in the Universe. They are SouthWest on steroids, where employee happiness is central to the mission. Even if Zappos fails in its mission, there would be great lesson. I would love to work in a Halocracy, it will have its downsides, and people pretending to be busy and important does not seem to be one of them.

ergothus 11y ago
From the outside, I think a lot is demonstrated by comparing Valve and Zappos Namely, Valve just did it, Zappos made a big deal about doing it ( I know that Zappos consulted Valve about their organization, at least according to a friend that works at Valve, but no idea what Zappos took from that consultation )
- officialchicken 11y ago
  And valve's handbook is short, 37 pages of common sense English, cover and blank pages, and some great full and half page illustrations in a pdf [1]. It seems Zappos requires a translator, proprietary HR software, and at least one consultant along with whatever they call training. [1] http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.p...
- aetherson 11y ago
  In all fairness, Zappos has about 5x the number of employees as Valve, according to a quick Google. That's the kind of thing that matters a lot.
raverbashing 11y ago
> Why is Self-Organization such a bad thing? My guess: the bystander effect
- sremani 11y ago
  As long as Zappos is a profit making organization, the case against Halocracy does not have teeth.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    I have no opinion on Zappos specifically. But I've seen lots of dysfunctional organizations doing a lot of stupid things that were profitable--until they weren't. Profitability is one indicator that a company is doing things mostly right (probably particularly in the case of something like a retail business that isn't highly differentiated). But it's not really evidence.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    I don't know if one can really say that.
  - minimaxir 11y ago
    That logic does not follow. One could argue that Zappos could be making more money with a traditional org structure.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      One could also argue that Zappos would be making less money with a traditional org structure. Both would be baseless opinions. It's damn near impossible to compare like for like here. I'd file the idea under "interesting", but I'm not going to be rushing to send Zappos my business card because there are creepy and inappropriate overtones - not least is the insistence that Work is Family[tm]. But... I think it would be definitely a good thing if more corps experimented like this, so that "business culture" actually meant something identifiable, and there was a lot more corporate diversity, with a much wider variety of management structures and personnel styles. Then if you didn't like a culture, you could avoid a corp. It would be easy. The problem now is that a lot of business culture is implied, and the rules - which are at least as strong as those used in holacracy - are unspoken. Sometimes they're deliberately misleading. I don't think this particular solution has much hope of transcending office politics. But I still think it's a more interesting culture than anything offered by (say) HP, Oracle, or IBM.
kjdal2001 11y ago
I didn't get the impression that this article was overly critical of self-organization. Zappos seems to have had some struggles in transition, but the article still seems to end on a cautiously optimistic tone.

by sremani 11y ago

ergothus 11y ago

From the outside, I think a lot is demonstrated by comparing Valve and Zappos Namely, Valve just did it, Zappos made a big deal about doing it ( I know that Zappos consulted Valve about their organization, at least according to a friend that works at Valve, but no idea what Zappos took from that consultation )

officialchicken 11y ago
And valve's handbook is short, 37 pages of common sense English, cover and blank pages, and some great full and half page illustrations in a pdf [1]. It seems Zappos requires a translator, proprietary HR software, and at least one consultant along with whatever they call training. [1] http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.p...
aetherson 11y ago
In all fairness, Zappos has about 5x the number of employees as Valve, according to a quick Google. That's the kind of thing that matters a lot.

raverbashing 11y ago

> Why is Self-Organization such a bad thing? My guess: the bystander effect

sremani 11y ago
As long as Zappos is a profit making organization, the case against Halocracy does not have teeth.
- ghaff 11y ago
  I have no opinion on Zappos specifically. But I've seen lots of dysfunctional organizations doing a lot of stupid things that were profitable--until they weren't. Profitability is one indicator that a company is doing things mostly right (probably particularly in the case of something like a retail business that isn't highly differentiated). But it's not really evidence.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  I don't know if one can really say that.
- minimaxir 11y ago
  That logic does not follow. One could argue that Zappos could be making more money with a traditional org structure.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    One could also argue that Zappos would be making less money with a traditional org structure. Both would be baseless opinions. It's damn near impossible to compare like for like here. I'd file the idea under "interesting", but I'm not going to be rushing to send Zappos my business card because there are creepy and inappropriate overtones - not least is the insistence that Work is Family[tm]. But... I think it would be definitely a good thing if more corps experimented like this, so that "business culture" actually meant something identifiable, and there was a lot more corporate diversity, with a much wider variety of management structures and personnel styles. Then if you didn't like a culture, you could avoid a corp. It would be easy. The problem now is that a lot of business culture is implied, and the rules - which are at least as strong as those used in holacracy - are unspoken. Sometimes they're deliberately misleading. I don't think this particular solution has much hope of transcending office politics. But I still think it's a more interesting culture than anything offered by (say) HP, Oracle, or IBM.

kjdal2001 11y ago

I didn't get the impression that this article was overly critical of self-organization. Zappos seems to have had some struggles in transition, but the article still seems to end on a cautiously optimistic tone.