The thing is that if you're extremely serious about wanting a flat power structure, you can accomplish this _via_ formal means There's this false dicotomy betw

The thing is that if you're extremely serious about wanting a flat power structure, you can accomplish this _via_ formal means There's this false dicotomy between "freedom for people to self-organize" and "formal structures to maintain a system", where people see what pointy-haired suits do and conclude that informal orgs will naturally be better. But _something_ needs to be in place to maintain a good environment. You see this with people talking about Toyota. So many people see Toyota and think "oh I should do kanban". But kanban isn't the thing, the processes that led Toyota to do kanban is the thing. Similarly, the objective isn't "have a flat org chart", but "maintain an environment where a formal power structure doesn't weigh down progress for the company". That requires acknowledging the informal power structures and making sure that the players involved are willing to maintain that environment _through_ this informal power structure. Informal power dynamics do not need to be dysfunctional, if there's a principle driving the players