5 ms·

Someone is always in charge. They've just decided not to write down the org chart on paper, is all.

by gaius 10y ago

thomasahle 10y ago
I'm not sure it's that simple. Even if some people have more influence than others, it is still different from having one person, who can efficiently do whatever they please.
a_imho 10y ago
flat organization == informal hierarchies, yet to see a counterexample
- ep103 10y ago
  ActUp used to give managerial lessons for leftist organizations. Of the materials I saw, one of the things they used to teach was that a truly flat organization results in informal hierarchies developing, by the people most capable and/or passionate (because they're motivated by the issue primarily). But then these people are most likely to burn out, because without formal recognition of the power they need to achieve that role or the formal hierarchy in place around them, they end up taking too much on themselves to cover the holes. But they were talking to leftist organizations. Often these people had communist / socialist / anarchist ideologies, so you can't just tell them: "Implement a hierarchy". And even when they weren't leftist, they were often all volunteer organizations, so you had the same problem anyway. So their solution, was that when you set up a new organization, you start with it flat. You identify who takes on what roles, and define those roles formally. As you define those roles formally, you define what people have to do to get into that position, clearly and openly. And that's it. You're still flat, because the positions appear to be emergent. You have a hierarchy, but no one feels like they're stuck under the rule of a shit boss, because everyone in those positions are meritocratically elected, there's now a culture of free movement between positions and definition of positions, and what you have to do to move from one position to another is transparent, instead of opaque as a way for people above to keep their position of authority.
  - jeffbr13 10y ago
    Do you have any links? I'd love to read more. How did they suggest dealing with changes over time, as members join and leave or shift roles as the organisation changes?
    - ep103 10y ago
      Probably! But I don't know of em. I helped build a movement based organization a few years ago, someone saw us falling into the same trap, was around during the time of ActUp, and gave me a bunch of papers describing what I just restated above to help. From my own experience, if you're building an organization around something people really care about, there is always an excess of people, so the constant shifting doesn't really matter too much.
    - javaHelena 10y ago
      http://blog.crisp.se/2017/02/19/maxwenzin/reactions-on-no-ceo-by-bbc http://blog.crisp.se/2017/02/19/maxwenzin/reactions-on-no-ce... and http://dna.crisp.se/docs/index.html http://dna.crisp.se/docs/index.html
neolefty 10y ago
They've written it down -- it's the board for big things and "shared among other employees" for others. It actually sounds pretty practical to me. As people become more responsible and self-regulating, there's less need for a single person to be in charge in a hierarchical sense. > The staff decided that many of the chief executive's responsibilities overlapped with those of the board, while other roles could be shared among other employees.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Doesn't happen. People naturally seek out authorities and instinctively elevate and listen to them. Even if no one bears the formal title, there will be a few people who end up directing the group. Far from eliminating political barriers, "unstructured" groups make them supreme. Without granting explicit designations for authorities, the only thing holding the group together is popularity. This means the best propagandists and most personally charming leaders (read: best flatterers; the people most willing to tell you whatever you want to hear) will be in control, regardless of their incentives, motives, or true qualifications.
- notahacker 10y ago
  They've written it down in more detail than "shared responsibilities" too. It's a pool of self-employed freelancers handling projects in their own way paying fees/commission to a holding company with dedicated admin/sales responsibilities and major decisions made by a board or by vote. Paid projects people don't want to handle themselves go to the first person to indicate interest unless the interested parties agree otherwise. It sounds more like a non-profit, elected-board, closed-shop Uber than "shared responsibility". Needless to say, this model is not going to work quite so well with every type of creative process and personnel.
thenomad 10y ago
"Witches... certainly don't have leaders. Granny Weatherwax was the most highly-regarded of the leaders they didn't have." - Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters.

Someone is always in charge. They've just decided not to write down the org chart on paper, is all.

by gaius 10y ago

Someone is always in charge. They've just decided not to write down the org chart on paper, is all.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Even if some people have more influence than others, it is still different from having one person, who can efficiently do whatever they please.

a_imho 10y ago

flat organization == informal hierarchies, yet to see a counterexample

ep103 10y ago
ActUp used to give managerial lessons for leftist organizations. Of the materials I saw, one of the things they used to teach was that a truly flat organization results in informal hierarchies developing, by the people most capable and/or passionate (because they're motivated by the issue primarily). But then these people are most likely to burn out, because without formal recognition of the power they need to achieve that role or the formal hierarchy in place around them, they end up taking too much on themselves to cover the holes. But they were talking to leftist organizations. Often these people had communist / socialist / anarchist ideologies, so you can't just tell them: "Implement a hierarchy". And even when they weren't leftist, they were often all volunteer organizations, so you had the same problem anyway. So their solution, was that when you set up a new organization, you start with it flat. You identify who takes on what roles, and define those roles formally. As you define those roles formally, you define what people have to do to get into that position, clearly and openly. And that's it. You're still flat, because the positions appear to be emergent. You have a hierarchy, but no one feels like they're stuck under the rule of a shit boss, because everyone in those positions are meritocratically elected, there's now a culture of free movement between positions and definition of positions, and what you have to do to move from one position to another is transparent, instead of opaque as a way for people above to keep their position of authority.
- jeffbr13 10y ago
  Do you have any links? I'd love to read more. How did they suggest dealing with changes over time, as members join and leave or shift roles as the organisation changes?
  - ep103 10y ago
    Probably! But I don't know of em. I helped build a movement based organization a few years ago, someone saw us falling into the same trap, was around during the time of ActUp, and gave me a bunch of papers describing what I just restated above to help. From my own experience, if you're building an organization around something people really care about, there is always an excess of people, so the constant shifting doesn't really matter too much.
  - javaHelena 10y ago
    http://blog.crisp.se/2017/02/19/maxwenzin/reactions-on-no-ceo-by-bbc http://blog.crisp.se/2017/02/19/maxwenzin/reactions-on-no-ce... and http://dna.crisp.se/docs/index.html http://dna.crisp.se/docs/index.html

neolefty 10y ago

They've written it down -- it's the board for big things and "shared among other employees" for others. It actually sounds pretty practical to me. As people become more responsible and self-regulating, there's less need for a single person to be in charge in a hierarchical sense. > The staff decided that many of the chief executive's responsibilities overlapped with those of the board, while other roles could be shared among other employees.

cookiecaper 10y ago
Doesn't happen. People naturally seek out authorities and instinctively elevate and listen to them. Even if no one bears the formal title, there will be a few people who end up directing the group. Far from eliminating political barriers, "unstructured" groups make them supreme. Without granting explicit designations for authorities, the only thing holding the group together is popularity. This means the best propagandists and most personally charming leaders (read: best flatterers; the people most willing to tell you whatever you want to hear) will be in control, regardless of their incentives, motives, or true qualifications.
notahacker 10y ago
They've written it down in more detail than "shared responsibilities" too. It's a pool of self-employed freelancers handling projects in their own way paying fees/commission to a holding company with dedicated admin/sales responsibilities and major decisions made by a board or by vote. Paid projects people don't want to handle themselves go to the first person to indicate interest unless the interested parties agree otherwise. It sounds more like a non-profit, elected-board, closed-shop Uber than "shared responsibility". Needless to say, this model is not going to work quite so well with every type of creative process and personnel.

thenomad 10y ago

"Witches... certainly don't have leaders. Granny Weatherwax was the most highly-regarded of the leaders they didn't have." - Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters.