5 ms·
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 bec
by 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 agoDoesn'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 agoThey'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.