7 ms·

Easy, you simply make the decisions within the confines of the shadow hierarchy that exists within all flat organizations.

by dpeck 7y ago

marcinzm 7y ago
And in a company someone has the power to fire or promote you so there is explicit power in play. You can try to distribute it but people are social and clever so they’ll work around any blockers.
andrelaszlo 7y ago
I agree with your point but in the end the article was more about efficient decision making in engineering teams and less about flat organizations. Up-voted both the article and your comment :) Reminds me about the stuff I've read about Valve. In theory, and maybe if you have strong healthy de facto leadership it could work. In practice it seems more like an excuse to dodge responsibility, leading to pretty toxic places to work - but maybe there's another side to it. https://twitter.com/PastelChum/status/1136470238265040896 https://twitter.com/PastelChum/status/1136470238265040896
- papln 7y ago
  This is a common criticism of Valve's model, and it's fair to say that Valve's model isn't clearly obviously better, but those attack's on Valve don't make the case that the traditional hierarchical model, with its own well-known problems, is better.
  - marcinzm 7y ago
    >This is a common criticism of Valve's model, and it's fair to say that Valve's model isn't clearly obviously better, but those attack's on Valve don't make the case that the traditional hierarchical model, with its own well-known problems, is better. I would say that the key difference is that in the traditional model I can learn about my potential bosses during the interview process. In the valve model I don't even know who my bosses will be during the interview process. As people like to say, interviews are a two way process.
    - narnianal 7y ago
      Also getting a shitty task might be a lot better than getting no task and then getting criticised for lack of ambition.
      - blotter_paper 7y ago
        If finding tasks is part of your job that might be a fair criticism.
  - EGreg 7y ago
    Do you have a good link about Valve’s model and are they a socialist / EMPLOYEE OWNED organization? Update: I read about it and no, they are basically anarcho syndicalist and overall owned by a enligtened/benevolent set of owners.
- hinkley 7y ago
  Jeri Ellsworth after she pulled the ripcord: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri-ellsworth/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri-ellsworth/
erikpukinskis 7y ago
There are shadow power structures, but I don't think you are correct that they are necessarily hierarchical.
- pault 7y ago
  Isn't hierarchy intrinsic to power?
  - kd0amg 7y ago
    What's the hierarchical ordering of Congress, SCOTUS, and the White House?
    - sidlls 7y ago
      There are very clear hierarchies in Congress (Speaker/Majority Leader, Majority Whip, Committee Chairs) and White House (President, Vice President, Cabinet). There is no power structure in SCOTUS: each of the justices is equal and has nobody to answer to. There are likely shadow organizations in the Congress and White House with their own (unpublished) hierarchy, but probably not in the SCOTUS due to its size and the implicit potency inherent in being a Justice.
      - papln 7y ago
        SCOTUS is a nearly-pure democracy. Every issue of substance is put to a vote, and everyone has freedom to act individually in anything not put to vote, along with ample funding for their desires (law clerks for work, and indivual pay for personal perks). (Namely, Q&A in session, and what they write in their opinions.) Their scope of power is sufficiently limited that favor-trading isn't very important. All that remains are the minor traditional formalities of when and where they meet and how they dress. When your group grows beyond 9 people, that gets harder.
        pmyteh 7y ago
        The internal politics are still interesting, though. "The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court" by Woodward and Armstrong looked (amongst other things) at why Nixon's new Chief Justice Warren Burger seemed unable to push the court in a more consistently conservative direction despite more conservative membership. Part of the conclusion was that he just wasn't that great at playing the internal political games required to stay in control. Incidentally, the main source for that book was eventually revealed as one of the other Justices, Potter Stewart. It's a fascinating read.
ok_coo 7y ago
In my professional experience, many fiefdoms get created in the shadow hierarchy of flat orgs. Align/get yourself in one that works and is healthy for your development and you can thrive. If not, then leave as quickly as you can. Just MHO.
organsnyder 7y ago
In my experience, these shadow hierarchies exist in both flat and structured organizations. However, in structured organizations, there's the added challenge of figuring out how to navigate both the formal and shadow hierarchies simultaneously.
wayoutthere 7y ago
Exactly! Business schools use a framework of formal power (job title, authority, etc) and informal power (influence and likability). The most effective organizations are the ones where the formal power structures are very close to informal ones. People know how to make decisions. Flat organizations end up being run by the loudest voices in the room. Ironically, flat organizations with largely informal power structures are often slower to make decisions because one person can become a huge bottleneck on decision making without realizing it. It can also be culturally corrosive: informal structures encourage Machiavellian behavior and the most Machiavellian people tend to rise to the top — which creates a terrible work environment for everyone else.
- iguy 7y ago
  "The most effective organizations are the ones where the formal power structures are very close to informal ones " There's a nice parallel here to how parliamentary democracy arose. And conversely, there's no point having a chamber full of the people who you wish had power, if they don't have it.
  - wayoutthere 7y ago
    I think there’s a more HN-relevant one in the way that founder-controlled companies seem to be capable of more growth. There’s not as much backstabbing and jockeying for power because everyone knows who the top dog is. The founder isn’t going to step down unless things go really well (everyone gets rich) or really poorly (everyone gets laid off) so you can’t stab them in the back and take their role. Founders can make decisions with a single vision — design by committee doesn’t produce innovation. There tend to be problems when founders step back from the top of the formal power structure. Steve Jobs remains the best example I can think of; he wielded immense influence within Apple in the early 80s, but was ultimately a destructive presence once he no longer had formal power because he would go around his bosses to build his pet project (the original Macintosh) and created a corporate culture of distrust and deception. When he left, Apple fell apart culturally and really had no product vision until he rejoined a decade later and resumed the role of founder-CEO.
adrianmonk 7y ago
A slightly radical theory: flat organizations are set up to foster that intentionally. Suppose your company has the idea that they want to identify and reward natural leaders and/or those who test limits and push through boundaries. One way to do it is to tell people your organization is flat, then watch for the people who don't buy that and instead see an opportunity to take charge. You create a situation with a little bit of an artificial and completely intentional power vacuum, then you watch who takes it upon themselves to step in and fill it. By holding a bit of a vacuum, you encourage these people to show themselves. (And I'm convinced management is actively watching to see who takes that bait.) I'd say these are the most common responses: (1) never reach awareness that it's happening and continue to take flat at face value, (2) see it as opportunity and take advantage of it, and (3) see it as unnecessary game-playing and dislike it. Whether 2 or 3 is better is an interesting question. It might separate the practical people from the idealists, or maybe it separates the self-interested from the more community-minded. I can see some of both, personally. EDIT: I don't necessarily want to be completely dismissive of the idea. There's something to be said for creating situations that allow for people to stretch and try out new roles. That's how people develop. This is informal and stealthy, but it is a way to do that.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  I like your cynical take, but I'm not convinced it's actually the goal of management in all cases. I could see it drifting in that direction over time regardless. That said, some founders are actually idealists. I frequently discuss this topic with people who are aware of the invisible hierarchy problem and are interested in potential solutions. I think there are well-meaning attempts at this, even if they don't work perfectly.
  - veddox 7y ago
    > the invisible hierarchy problem I'm not in favour of flat systems for exactly this reason. I think they try to solve the problem of bad leadership structurally, by simply pretending to abolish leadership. IMO, it would better be addressed personally - e.g. by investing in leadership training or vetting candidates for leadership roles more thoroughly.

Easy, you simply make the decisions within the confines of the shadow hierarchy that exists within all flat organizations.

by dpeck 7y ago

Easy, you simply make the decisions within the confines of the shadow hierarchy that exists within all flat organizations.

marcinzm 7y ago

And in a company someone has the power to fire or promote you so there is explicit power in play. You can try to distribute it but people are social and clever so they’ll work around any blockers.

andrelaszlo 7y ago

I agree with your point but in the end the article was more about efficient decision making in engineering teams and less about flat organizations. Up-voted both the article and your comment :) Reminds me about the stuff I've read about Valve. In theory, and maybe if you have strong healthy de facto leadership it could work. In practice it seems more like an excuse to dodge responsibility, leading to pretty toxic places to work - but maybe there's another side to it. https://twitter.com/PastelChum/status/1136470238265040896 https://twitter.com/PastelChum/status/1136470238265040896

papln 7y ago
This is a common criticism of Valve's model, and it's fair to say that Valve's model isn't clearly obviously better, but those attack's on Valve don't make the case that the traditional hierarchical model, with its own well-known problems, is better.
- marcinzm 7y ago
  >This is a common criticism of Valve's model, and it's fair to say that Valve's model isn't clearly obviously better, but those attack's on Valve don't make the case that the traditional hierarchical model, with its own well-known problems, is better. I would say that the key difference is that in the traditional model I can learn about my potential bosses during the interview process. In the valve model I don't even know who my bosses will be during the interview process. As people like to say, interviews are a two way process.
  - narnianal 7y ago
    Also getting a shitty task might be a lot better than getting no task and then getting criticised for lack of ambition.
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      If finding tasks is part of your job that might be a fair criticism.
- EGreg 7y ago
  Do you have a good link about Valve’s model and are they a socialist / EMPLOYEE OWNED organization? Update: I read about it and no, they are basically anarcho syndicalist and overall owned by a enligtened/benevolent set of owners.
hinkley 7y ago
Jeri Ellsworth after she pulled the ripcord: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri-ellsworth/ https://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri-ellsworth/

erikpukinskis 7y ago

There are shadow power structures, but I don't think you are correct that they are necessarily hierarchical.

pault 7y ago
Isn't hierarchy intrinsic to power?
- kd0amg 7y ago
  What's the hierarchical ordering of Congress, SCOTUS, and the White House?
  - sidlls 7y ago
    There are very clear hierarchies in Congress (Speaker/Majority Leader, Majority Whip, Committee Chairs) and White House (President, Vice President, Cabinet). There is no power structure in SCOTUS: each of the justices is equal and has nobody to answer to. There are likely shadow organizations in the Congress and White House with their own (unpublished) hierarchy, but probably not in the SCOTUS due to its size and the implicit potency inherent in being a Justice.
    - papln 7y ago
      SCOTUS is a nearly-pure democracy. Every issue of substance is put to a vote, and everyone has freedom to act individually in anything not put to vote, along with ample funding for their desires (law clerks for work, and indivual pay for personal perks). (Namely, Q&A in session, and what they write in their opinions.) Their scope of power is sufficiently limited that favor-trading isn't very important. All that remains are the minor traditional formalities of when and where they meet and how they dress. When your group grows beyond 9 people, that gets harder.
      - pmyteh 7y ago
        The internal politics are still interesting, though. "The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court" by Woodward and Armstrong looked (amongst other things) at why Nixon's new Chief Justice Warren Burger seemed unable to push the court in a more consistently conservative direction despite more conservative membership. Part of the conclusion was that he just wasn't that great at playing the internal political games required to stay in control. Incidentally, the main source for that book was eventually revealed as one of the other Justices, Potter Stewart. It's a fascinating read.

ok_coo 7y ago

In my professional experience, many fiefdoms get created in the shadow hierarchy of flat orgs. Align/get yourself in one that works and is healthy for your development and you can thrive. If not, then leave as quickly as you can. Just MHO.

organsnyder 7y ago

In my experience, these shadow hierarchies exist in both flat and structured organizations. However, in structured organizations, there's the added challenge of figuring out how to navigate both the formal and shadow hierarchies simultaneously.

wayoutthere 7y ago

Exactly! Business schools use a framework of formal power (job title, authority, etc) and informal power (influence and likability). The most effective organizations are the ones where the formal power structures are very close to informal ones. People know how to make decisions. Flat organizations end up being run by the loudest voices in the room. Ironically, flat organizations with largely informal power structures are often slower to make decisions because one person can become a huge bottleneck on decision making without realizing it. It can also be culturally corrosive: informal structures encourage Machiavellian behavior and the most Machiavellian people tend to rise to the top — which creates a terrible work environment for everyone else.

iguy 7y ago
"The most effective organizations are the ones where the formal power structures are very close to informal ones " There's a nice parallel here to how parliamentary democracy arose. And conversely, there's no point having a chamber full of the people who you wish had power, if they don't have it.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  I think there’s a more HN-relevant one in the way that founder-controlled companies seem to be capable of more growth. There’s not as much backstabbing and jockeying for power because everyone knows who the top dog is. The founder isn’t going to step down unless things go really well (everyone gets rich) or really poorly (everyone gets laid off) so you can’t stab them in the back and take their role. Founders can make decisions with a single vision — design by committee doesn’t produce innovation. There tend to be problems when founders step back from the top of the formal power structure. Steve Jobs remains the best example I can think of; he wielded immense influence within Apple in the early 80s, but was ultimately a destructive presence once he no longer had formal power because he would go around his bosses to build his pet project (the original Macintosh) and created a corporate culture of distrust and deception. When he left, Apple fell apart culturally and really had no product vision until he rejoined a decade later and resumed the role of founder-CEO.

adrianmonk 7y ago

A slightly radical theory: flat organizations are set up to foster that intentionally. Suppose your company has the idea that they want to identify and reward natural leaders and/or those who test limits and push through boundaries. One way to do it is to tell people your organization is flat, then watch for the people who don't buy that and instead see an opportunity to take charge. You create a situation with a little bit of an artificial and completely intentional power vacuum, then you watch who takes it upon themselves to step in and fill it. By holding a bit of a vacuum, you encourage these people to show themselves. (And I'm convinced management is actively watching to see who takes that bait.) I'd say these are the most common responses: (1) never reach awareness that it's happening and continue to take flat at face value, (2) see it as opportunity and take advantage of it, and (3) see it as unnecessary game-playing and dislike it. Whether 2 or 3 is better is an interesting question. It might separate the practical people from the idealists, or maybe it separates the self-interested from the more community-minded. I can see some of both, personally. EDIT: I don't necessarily want to be completely dismissive of the idea. There's something to be said for creating situations that allow for people to stretch and try out new roles. That's how people develop. This is informal and stealthy, but it is a way to do that.

blotter_paper 7y ago
I like your cynical take, but I'm not convinced it's actually the goal of management in all cases. I could see it drifting in that direction over time regardless. That said, some founders are actually idealists. I frequently discuss this topic with people who are aware of the invisible hierarchy problem and are interested in potential solutions. I think there are well-meaning attempts at this, even if they don't work perfectly.
- veddox 7y ago
  > the invisible hierarchy problem I'm not in favour of flat systems for exactly this reason. I think they try to solve the problem of bad leadership structurally, by simply pretending to abolish leadership. IMO, it would better be addressed personally - e.g. by investing in leadership training or vetting candidates for leadership roles more thoroughly.