22 ms·

I would like to refer to the following - The Tyranny of Structurelessness, originally meant to address the concerns regarding 'flat' organizations. "This means

• dosy 7y ago
  It's not just the women's movement, any postmodern "leaderphobic" group of anti-heroes will operate under this adhocratic masking of power. It's still power, but it's the power-pill that palatable to their sensibilities, suitably masked. Marxist revolutions "of the peasants" pioneered this mass delusion of flattening. But isn't this just gaslighting people? I mean "flat" is just disempowering existing power structures, to empower a secretive cabal, that pretends to rule "benevolently" by consensus by usurping the existing "oppressive evil" but ends up just becoming worse. Prove you can actually be better, then come back and tell me how to. This article should have been called: "Afraid of Kings. How we tried and failed to get s*it done when we need to pander to everyone's leaderphobia." Bottom line is, this is not new hat. It's old hat. What I'd say to the author is: It's an adhorcracy. Read Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Then come back and tell me how to.
  • tehjoker 7y ago
    For what it's worth, most Marxists favor some form of democracy. The libertarian wing favors direct democracy while other tendencies favor different forms of representative democracy. Democracy is favored for exactly the reason that unclear power structures are a kind of oppression and that democracies broadly speaking offer decision making power to the people. A big difference between a Marxist and a liberal is in the analysis of the economic base of power which can either support or undermine democratic structures.
  • hybrids 7y ago
    "Marxist revolutions 'of the peasants' pioneered this mass delusion of flattening." Ironically the Bolshevik revolution didn't really start out this way. The Bolsheviks advocated for a strict disciplined party model - if you've ever read what Lenin wrote of the Left-communists and Anarchists, it was clear that he was very much not mindlessly "against" structure. Of course, this would all eventually be liquidated by Stalin and Mao. "Flat" organizations rarely seek to deliberately create cabals and power cliques - they do inevitably occur, sure, but the call for flatness usually comes as a result of you not getting what you really want out of the system. Ulterior motives are not really at play; rather it is just a case of organic collapse.
    • pyrale 7y ago
      On the topic of Lenin, one can read The state and revolution where he defends the need of a strong state in a communist regime, and this quote: "the people don't want freedom, they want power. Freedom ? What would they do with it ?!"
      • hybrids 7y ago
        I had just reread "State and Revolution" a few months ago and do not remember this quote. Do you mind linking to me where you found it?
  • siidooloo 7y ago
    I think you’re making this more complex then it needs to be. There will always be sociopaths.
    • dosy 7y ago
      Like you? It sounds like you got hurt in a flat structure and were thinking on that here. I feel sorry for you that happened to you.
  • danharaj 7y ago
    Who ordered the word salad?
    • dosy 7y ago
      You're the only one at the table, Sir. This delightful serving comes gratis with your side of bitter sous-word-chef greens. Shall I get you a second helping from the kitchen, Sir?
• fapjacks 7y ago
  While I agree with something of an abstraction of what they're saying, when I read things like this, it's hard for me to see anything but a person that wants to hijack the tyranny for themselves.
  • DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
    I've seen / experienced several train-wrecks caused by flat / self-organizing teams (see my sibling comment). In those catastrophes, I would have been glad for almost anybody to take on the role of team leader / manager. So I'd be reluctant to assume the argument for structure is motived by personal ambition.
    • lapnitnelav 7y ago
      I've been in the opposite situation once and it turns out upper management wasn't really fine with a self directed team without a designated manager / leader. Granted they wanted to introduce changes and needed someone to enforce that. We ended up sort of pushing in unison for the person who we thought would be the best and he did a fine job managing that team.
  • hybrids 7y ago
    The Jo Freeman article was written in retrospect to her own experiences with the feminist movement in the 1960s - she has another article - "Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood" - that I think illustrates very well that in spite of her belief of the movement, she had been hurt by its methodology (which was by no means exclusive to the feminist movement, as we see here) and not to mention was in no position to be able to "take power." She wrote these things in hope that the movement could course-correct, not out of some calculated Machiavellian strategy. https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/trashing.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/trashing.htm
    • fapjacks 7y ago
      I think perhaps I could have been more perspicuous in my post, as both replies to my original post seem to focus on specifics when I'm talking about the more general case. In that regard, I'm not talking specifically about flat hierarchies, feminism or these individuals (though certainly it is true in some cases).
• DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  A few years ago I joined a company with "self-organizing" teams, which have many similarities to "structureless". It was an awful experience, for me at least. Many important choices were made by people trying to avoid ruffling the feathers of the least-mature team member. My woes were likely compounded by being mildly affected by Asperger syndrome: First, I have an innate preference for clear organization and structure. Second, it took tremendous mental/emotional energy to navigate the social/interpersonal minefield tied to every technical decision. Perhaps my experience was unusual, but I cannot understand the thinking that leads upper-management to think this approach is a good idea.
  • surge 7y ago
    I prefer the Scandinavian (specifically Swedish approach) that I experienced at a prior company. It has its shortcomings of course. But put simply, there is a clear hierarchy, but generally most decisions are made by establishing consensus or compromise between all involved parties, the "manager/boss" only steps in to resolve or veto/tie break if none can be reached. It's not structure-less, and there are certainly teams, but employees generally work towards what they feel is the best solution.
    • parsnips 7y ago
      Reading suggestion WRT to this approach: https://www.amazon.com/High-Output-Management-Andrew-Grove/dp/0679762884 https://www.amazon.com/High-Output-Management-Andrew-Grove/d...
      • 1337biz 7y ago
        Can you elaborate a bit?
        • ellard 7y ago
          If I remember the section of that book correctly, Andrew Grove talks about how you want to handle decision making as a manager. According to Andrew, you want to have folks come to a decision with minimal intervention from you. Part of it is having people feel ownership, another is managing your own political capital. In terms of when you intervene, you should step in and help break ties. You should also be able to ultimately make a decision if the group is unable to do so either because they're taking way too long to deliberate, if their arguments are going full circle, etc.
• WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago
  > A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others Is the implication that this is avoided within a structured group/society?
• js8 7y ago
  What about democracy? It is a clear rule (one person one vote) and yet it is not hierarchical.
  • SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    The essay is not against non-hierarchial organization, but against organizations that claim they are non-hierarchial as a result of 'structurelessness'.
  • kristianc 7y ago
    > What about democracy? It is a clear rule (one person one vote) and yet it is not hierarchical. Most, if not all societies do not implement direct democracy, where decisions are truly made by one person one vote. Most at least employ an abstraction such as representative democracy, and the United States employs an abstraction upon an abstraction with the electoral college.
    • jadbox 7y ago
      Couldn't you have both? You have the right to a direct vote, but you also have the option to bestow your vote to a representative to cast for you. Seems like a neat idea and solves many of these structureless problems. Many people know that a topic is out of their reach or interest, but they may know someone knowledgable to give their vote to to cast for them. If they feel that person doesn't represent them, they can immediately reclaim their direct voting right.
      • js8 7y ago
        That's typically called semidirect democracy and is usually what the direct democracy proponents call for.
      • behringer 7y ago
        That's what not voting does...
        • 7y ago
• richardlblair 7y ago
  Saving this as it makes the point I've been trying to make for years much more elegantly. Just because you don't call out the structure doesn't mean there isn't one.
• MisterOctober 7y ago
  I work for a "flat" company. I've certainly observed some of the troubling characteristics of this organizational approach described above and elsewhere in comments. There are some positive characteristics [in our implementation at least] as well, a few of which are : 1) Decisions with broad effect [i.e., beyond the decider's personal work domain] are handled with the "advice process," wherein all affected parties are consulted and their advice weighed before the decision is taken. This can be cumbersome, but on the other hand, it is a check against "cowboy" and "act first, consider later" types. 2) Each person is assigned an "area of responsibility / AOR" -- a work or problem domain[s] in which they are acknowledged to hold more expertise than those not assigned that 'AOR.' This prevents [in practice] people [say] in the shipping department making decisions about software development. 3] The org is not _totally_ flat. The CEO and COO are acknowledged to have veto power and the 'AOR' of big decisions that have a potentially existential bearing on the company. Having always worked at rigidly hierarchical companies before this, I'll say I've more or less gotten used to it and can see the benefits. One thing I especially like about it is that there is no chance of an "Office Space" situation where a boss, or bosses, continually interrupt work to pester about things that are wastes of time -- each worker is more or less left to determine their own task prioritization and has the power to discontinue tasks that are pointless. We use the kanban system for task / bug / feature tracking.
  • daniel_iversen 7y ago
    Yes AORs are great and is quite a complete system (rough consensus is nice too but that’s only a part of the solution) - here’s more details on AORs: https://blog.asana.com/2017/12/distributed-responsibility-engineering-manager/ https://blog.asana.com/2017/12/distributed-responsibility-en...
• sametmax 7y ago
  Most flat org I've seen are not flat. The people naturally organised in tribes that are only known by themself, and that are in no organigram. Each tribe have an implicit leader that bears no title yet influences all decisions just by regular social interractions. Tribes communicate, negociate even, through the implicit leaders even if not directly. Some kind of overuling bdfl also oversees all tribes, like a king, in case of conflict or emergency. Often the CEO. It's not "flat org", it's just good ol' human society. Rules are less clear, social skills are more required and if you get there in the early days you get a big advantages over the newcomers. But if you get a nice tribe, things rock.
  • fapjacks 7y ago
    All of human history in one comment.
    • mocha_nate 7y ago
      Yep
  • vjeux 7y ago
    He refers himself as “the leader of Doist’s back-end team” so there is indeed some sort of structure.
    • davidw 7y ago
      Read the comments before the article, and I was kind of hoping that maybe the 'Doists' were a faction within the company. Maybe those that organized around a "bias for action" or something. They frequently go to war with the Architecture Astronauts. Darn!
      • logosmonkey 7y ago
        They prefer the term Archonauts.
  • andrei_says_ 7y ago
• pyrale 7y ago
  Flat does not mean structureless. Jo Freeman's piece correctly points out that groups without structure inevitably grow shadow organigrams. My point here is that flat structures should lack hierarchy but they should strive to make their organization as transparent as possible.
• EGreg 7y ago
  I disagree. I oppose concentrations of power. Will there be a certain power disparity and hegemony of certain particiants in their little groups? Sure, but as long as they are prevented or discouraged by various mechanisms from joining together into still larger groups, then everyone still has a fighting chance of opposing them or switching groups. The trouble arises when you have concentrations of power. Just look at the Web! It disrupted AOL. And Wikipedia disrupted Britannica.
  • a_c_s 7y ago
    I think it is worth reading the whole essay (The Tyranny of Structurelessness), which does a great job of articulating how if there are no formal levers of power it becomes very difficult for people who don't have power to make changes within the organization. For example, if I'm part of a club and I think the treasurer is doing a bad job, if there are 'formal' elections I can run for treasurer (or vote for a different treasurer) and make changes. In a structureless org it is much harder to tell the 'popular people' that, for example, some of the expenses they are having the club reimburse should actually be paid out of pocket (because by definition the 'popular people' have a lot of informal influence - average or unpopular people are much easier to correct). If one person is highly charismatic they could wield huge amounts of power in a structureless organization - but in a structured organization there can be clear limits on what each role can do. Structures can constrain power and make it easier for those with less informal power to make changes or to create those limits.
    • EGreg 7y ago
      It shouldn’t be easy to make GLOBAL changes within the organization, even by those WITH some power. Global Changes imply that someone has the power to changes how the whole organization operates, which is the whole point of concentration of power. If something is that major, then all the participants or factions have to unite on that one thing and then disband. There is no “club” and there is no single “club account” that a treasurer controls. If there has to be one for purposes of interfacing with others, we have a computer network emulate it to the outside. Concentration of power can be defined, measured, and opposed in principle. The question is, can any structure prevent it? Every unit of time it has to be more expensive to maintain a faction than to let it disband. And you have to factor in all the possible ways to profit by collusion, that’s what the challenge is.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• colordrops 7y ago
  The point of a "flat" organization is not that there is no hierarchy or structure, but that it is not officially prescribed, and instead emerges organically. This allows the structure to change as the needs and members of the team change, whereas in a traditional organization, the leadership and structure often long outlive their usefulness.
  • wang_li 7y ago
    Unless everyone can spend money drawn from the corporate account, and everyone can fire anyone else, the structure isn't flat. It's just that management is choosing not to manage. There is a difference.
    • colordrops 7y ago
      There are many different layers and dimensions to an organization. Finances and hiring are just a couple. There are also product, sales, marketing, support, IT, and many others. Some can be flat while others are not, and in that case, yes, management responsibilities are de facto, temporary, and built through consensus.
      • jacques_chester 7y ago
        The power to hire or fire and the power to spend money are basically the two most central powers in any company. The first decides who the company is. The second can decide whether there is a company. Identity and existence are fairly fundamental things.
        • colordrops 7y ago
          Sure, just as wood, concrete, drywall, and paint are pretty fundamental things to building a house. Using the same materials, two houses could come out very different. There is a spectrum of management style, from complete micromanagement of every schedule, ticket, and team structure. At the other end of the spectrum, you let the product owners set those parameters then reward or punish according to outcomes. Basically just define the fitness function and the product owners will do the rest. People highly underestimate the motivation of ownership and freedom. By the way this only works in orgs with highly capable employees that are self driven. There are not a lot of orgs like this, hence why so many think flat doesn't work. I've had the rare opportunity to work at an org that successfully functioned in this way.
• zem 7y ago
  strongly seconding this essay - it remains one of the most influential things i've ever read, in terms of completely and immediately changing my views on a topic.
• marksweston 7y ago
  It’s hard not to see this as purely a response to an article title. It bears no relation to the actual article content, which was thoughtful and interesting and really deserved a more on-topic critique.
  • jessaustin 7y ago
    There is a great deal of this on HN.
• gwbas1c 7y ago
  I should copy and paste this into must discussions about how Bitcoin is awesome because it's decentralized and not controlled by a government.
• kodz4 7y ago
  When you are talking about complex dynamic systems like human group behavior you can always find counter examples to anything anyone points at. Here's an example of from Niall Ferguson's book The Square and the Tower - "Formally, the directors of the East India Company (EIC) in London controlled a substantial part of the trade between India and western Europe. In reality, as the records of over 4,500 voyages by Company traders show, ship’s captains often made illicit side trips, buying and selling on their own account. By the late eighteenth century the number of ports in the resulting trade network was more than a hundred, ranging from open emporia such as Madras to regulated markets such as Canton (Guangzhou). In effect, private trading provided the weak links that knitted together otherwise disconnected regional clusters. This network had a life of its own that the Company’s directors in London simply did not control. Indeed, that was one of the keys to the success of the EIC: it was more a network than a hierarchy. Significantly, its Dutch rival banned private trade by its employees. This may help explain why it ended up being superseded" What works and what doesn't varies a lot from org to org.
• shanemhansen 7y ago
  To me flat orgs default to lord of the flies leadership.
• Spooky23 7y ago
  You can have structureless orgs on boards for significant organizations but people need to be accountable for a well-understood scope. My little league has a president at 20 board members. There is a president and 4-5 committee chairs. (IIRC finance, concession, baseball and grounds) Somebody is responsible for the snack bar, but any board member may be on duty running it at any time. I've worked on good sized project teams where there was a sponsor (the king), the PM (task guy) and 10-20 contributors. It most mostly democratic as long as the milestones were hit. I've worked in "flat orgs" where there are 100 employees, a director/vp/king, and a big band of equals. Just like in Animal Farm, some of the animals are more equal than others.
• abvdasker 7y ago
  Structurelessness must be distinguished from established structures with a flat hierarchy. Codifying a non-hierarchical structure with explicit rules and norms counters the above situation where a few people start to become dominant through more informal means, and everyone else is left confused. Flat hierarchies are not necessarily structureless and need not suffer from the drawbacks described above.
• leoc 7y ago
  It isn't just Freeman's article. There's a whole academic/industrial literature about this stuff, a literature which seems to have been fairly well known to the broader public about 25 years ago but to be completely unknown to it today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19468090#19468699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19468090#19468699 .