6 ms·

Agreed. I've noticed that organizations that often times claim to be 'leaderless', just have other implicit ways of exerting power and influence. Truly leaderle

Agreed. I've noticed that organizations that often times claim to be 'leaderless', just have other implicit ways of exerting power and influence. Truly leaderless is difficult, and requires humility from all it's members.

amirmc 10y ago
This seems like an opportune moment to remind people about the Tyranny of Structurelessness article. If you haven't come across it before, it's definitely worth a read. http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
- azernik 10y ago
  I was just about to post this. I find Freeman's description of successful "unstructured" groups to be an uncanny description of the idealized early-stage startup, despite her very different context.
TallGuyShort 10y ago
There's possibly a good analog in data. A while ago it seemed very popular to talk about "schemaless" data systems, and I heard the perfect commentary: "If you think your data is schemaless, what that really means is you don't know what the schema is, and that's bad." What people probably meant by schemaless: It's very easy for things to have a slightly different schema than they used to if that's needed. Things that don't all conform to the same schema can still be handled well. And it should be understood that sometimes you do need a better defined schema. So my point? Don't focus on being 'leaderless' or 'structureless'. Focus on being flexible enough to allow new substructures in the company as needed. Make sure there's a system in place that allows people to coordinate with groups that don't have the same structure as them. And recognize when you do need a bit of structure to keep scaling.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Yep. It only works as long as everyone knows each other. I've been arguing this point for years with my anarchist friends (both left and right varieties), who seem unwilling to grapple with basic concepts like scale and externalities. I don't think straight hierarchies are the only possible organizational structure but it does seem like more people want to be told what to do than to think for themselves. .
- dpc59 10y ago
  My experience working with anarchist friends is that something as simple as leadership creates a certain hierarchy. Obviously if there's nothing formal everyone is pretty cool, but in the organisation of a society and a longer time frame I can see how it can lead to our historical material conditions.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    If you're interested, I've been toying with the idea of an organizational structure that's loosely but explicitly modeled on the human body. My basic idea is that since bodies are complex interdependent structures that mostly Just Work, social structures that explicitly recapitulate human anatomy should be inherently more robust.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      Would this open the social structure to all sorts of disease states in a similar way to the human body? Then you would need teams within the social structure who's role it is to seek out pathogenic agents / sub-structures and terminate them. An immune system, if you will. Analogy could be a police force to deal with auto-immune issues, and a military to deal with foreign invaders. Well, in a way, our social / structural systems already do mimic bacterial colonies: reproduce by consuming all available resources until the host system dies or the infection is cleared.
  - sethrin 10y ago
    Voluntary association could produce hierarchies, and it's interesting to think about what sort of societies would result. But classically government is defined as a monopoly on violence, and that formulation essentially rules out the possibility of non-coercive government, at least so long as men are capable of violence.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  > but it does seem like more people want to be told what to do than to think for themselves I just want to have some clarity around what my role is and where my responsibilities begin and end. Necessarily sometimes I'm required to reach beyond my regular duties. In that context, then, being told what to do vs thinking for myself is a false dichotomy. The two are a nested-hierarchy, whereby I think for myself within the role required.

amirmc 10y ago

This seems like an opportune moment to remind people about the Tyranny of Structurelessness article. If you haven't come across it before, it's definitely worth a read. http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

azernik 10y ago
I was just about to post this. I find Freeman's description of successful "unstructured" groups to be an uncanny description of the idealized early-stage startup, despite her very different context.

TallGuyShort 10y ago

There's possibly a good analog in data. A while ago it seemed very popular to talk about "schemaless" data systems, and I heard the perfect commentary: "If you think your data is schemaless, what that really means is you don't know what the schema is, and that's bad." What people probably meant by schemaless: It's very easy for things to have a slightly different schema than they used to if that's needed. Things that don't all conform to the same schema can still be handled well. And it should be understood that sometimes you do need a better defined schema. So my point? Don't focus on being 'leaderless' or 'structureless'. Focus on being flexible enough to allow new substructures in the company as needed. Make sure there's a system in place that allows people to coordinate with groups that don't have the same structure as them. And recognize when you do need a bit of structure to keep scaling.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Yep. It only works as long as everyone knows each other. I've been arguing this point for years with my anarchist friends (both left and right varieties), who seem unwilling to grapple with basic concepts like scale and externalities. I don't think straight hierarchies are the only possible organizational structure but it does seem like more people want to be told what to do than to think for themselves. .

dpc59 10y ago
My experience working with anarchist friends is that something as simple as leadership creates a certain hierarchy. Obviously if there's nothing formal everyone is pretty cool, but in the organisation of a society and a longer time frame I can see how it can lead to our historical material conditions.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  If you're interested, I've been toying with the idea of an organizational structure that's loosely but explicitly modeled on the human body. My basic idea is that since bodies are complex interdependent structures that mostly Just Work, social structures that explicitly recapitulate human anatomy should be inherently more robust.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Would this open the social structure to all sorts of disease states in a similar way to the human body? Then you would need teams within the social structure who's role it is to seek out pathogenic agents / sub-structures and terminate them. An immune system, if you will. Analogy could be a police force to deal with auto-immune issues, and a military to deal with foreign invaders. Well, in a way, our social / structural systems already do mimic bacterial colonies: reproduce by consuming all available resources until the host system dies or the infection is cleared.
- sethrin 10y ago
  Voluntary association could produce hierarchies, and it's interesting to think about what sort of societies would result. But classically government is defined as a monopoly on violence, and that formulation essentially rules out the possibility of non-coercive government, at least so long as men are capable of violence.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
> but it does seem like more people want to be told what to do than to think for themselves I just want to have some clarity around what my role is and where my responsibilities begin and end. Necessarily sometimes I'm required to reach beyond my regular duties. In that context, then, being told what to do vs thinking for myself is a false dichotomy. The two are a nested-hierarchy, whereby I think for myself within the role required.