5 ms·

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

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
Also, authority by expertise vs authority by hierarchy make a big difference. As in, people have the security guy vet their security decisions — not because he has power over them but because they trust his expertise. Suddenly everything becomes easy and self organized.
- veddox 7y ago
  > Suddenly everything becomes easy and self organized. Unfortunately not. A technocracy works great works great when choices are straight-forward, but one of the great responsibilities of leadership is taking decisions when things are anything but. A good leader is not one who always knows the right answer, but one who knows how to figure out a good enough answer more often than not. And who does so under confusing circumstances, competing interests, and intense time pressure.
  - hrktb 7y ago
    I am not sure finding acceptable answers in confusing and complex situations needs to be the role of a leader. For instance in some orgs being a system architect has no hierarchical implications. People who are recognised to be good at designing systems get the title, take decisions when no clear consensus is reached, and can still be overruled when other experts veto their decisions (it then becomes a matter of which expert has precedence. E.g. legal wins over anything else)
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - simonask 7y ago
    And far more often than we like to admit, making a decision is more important than making the best decision. And when wrong decisions are being made too often, formal structure helps to hold leaders accountable for their decisions.
- sametmax 7y ago
  When "everything becomes easy and self organized", it's generally because there is an implicit leader that makes it so. You may not see the leader, as he or she may have no title or recognition. But it's the person that people go to when they have problems, it's the person people turn their head to during disagreements in meetings, it's the person that will go from party to party to discuss "off-the-record" and do the real negotiations, it's the person that show example, encourage efforts and discourage disruption. You just think it's self organized because a good leader makes you feel you are part of a whole, not that you are working under someone. I've yet to see a group a human, working together over time, that doesn't see one leader emerge from the group. We can't help it. I've went to NGO stating they were a flat org, hippie events where they promote the team spirit, eco-villages with community driven systems. They all have unacknowledged leaders.
pizzazzaro 7y ago
Lets examine this against the top, root comment, and their comparison to white water rafting. We can debate our course while we cruise slowly on smooth water. But in choppy waters, we need a Captain to decide whether we go left or right around that big rock. I dont see this as such a bad thing for Flat Orgs. Nobody is in charge, but someone has to make the decisions. If we need to switch out who's in the role? Its a lot easier when there's no official title, no extra prestige, no pay raise, nothing but the burden of leadership actually felt as a burden. But what'll make that burden worthwhile? I care that my comra-... coworkers and I get this chance to enrich ourselves and our clients. Maybe we're sheltering in place from an economic maestrom outside, maybe we're here to make a home, maybe this is one step on a larger journey. Regardless, we have much to offer one another along the way.
- watwut 7y ago
  One problem is the lack of accountability. Someone is making decisions, but that someone is not taking responsibility of outcomes of those decisions.
- simonask 7y ago
  > If we need to switch out who's in the role? Its a lot easier when there's no official title, no extra prestige, no pay raise, nothing but the burden of leadership actually felt as a burden. No, it's harder. If nobody is actually named the leader, there can be no official point in time when the role changes hands. The organization will most often break apart at that point.
anigbrowl 7y ago
That's what the essay is about.

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

Also, authority by expertise vs authority by hierarchy make a big difference. As in, people have the security guy vet their security decisions — not because he has power over them but because they trust his expertise. Suddenly everything becomes easy and self organized.

veddox 7y ago
> Suddenly everything becomes easy and self organized. Unfortunately not. A technocracy works great works great when choices are straight-forward, but one of the great responsibilities of leadership is taking decisions when things are anything but. A good leader is not one who always knows the right answer, but one who knows how to figure out a good enough answer more often than not. And who does so under confusing circumstances, competing interests, and intense time pressure.
- hrktb 7y ago
  I am not sure finding acceptable answers in confusing and complex situations needs to be the role of a leader. For instance in some orgs being a system architect has no hierarchical implications. People who are recognised to be good at designing systems get the title, take decisions when no clear consensus is reached, and can still be overruled when other experts veto their decisions (it then becomes a matter of which expert has precedence. E.g. legal wins over anything else)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- simonask 7y ago
  And far more often than we like to admit, making a decision is more important than making the best decision. And when wrong decisions are being made too often, formal structure helps to hold leaders accountable for their decisions.
sametmax 7y ago
When "everything becomes easy and self organized", it's generally because there is an implicit leader that makes it so. You may not see the leader, as he or she may have no title or recognition. But it's the person that people go to when they have problems, it's the person people turn their head to during disagreements in meetings, it's the person that will go from party to party to discuss "off-the-record" and do the real negotiations, it's the person that show example, encourage efforts and discourage disruption. You just think it's self organized because a good leader makes you feel you are part of a whole, not that you are working under someone. I've yet to see a group a human, working together over time, that doesn't see one leader emerge from the group. We can't help it. I've went to NGO stating they were a flat org, hippie events where they promote the team spirit, eco-villages with community driven systems. They all have unacknowledged leaders.

pizzazzaro 7y ago

Lets examine this against the top, root comment, and their comparison to white water rafting. We can debate our course while we cruise slowly on smooth water. But in choppy waters, we need a Captain to decide whether we go left or right around that big rock. I dont see this as such a bad thing for Flat Orgs. Nobody is in charge, but someone has to make the decisions. If we need to switch out who's in the role? Its a lot easier when there's no official title, no extra prestige, no pay raise, nothing but the burden of leadership actually felt as a burden. But what'll make that burden worthwhile? I care that my comra-... coworkers and I get this chance to enrich ourselves and our clients. Maybe we're sheltering in place from an economic maestrom outside, maybe we're here to make a home, maybe this is one step on a larger journey. Regardless, we have much to offer one another along the way.

watwut 7y ago
One problem is the lack of accountability. Someone is making decisions, but that someone is not taking responsibility of outcomes of those decisions.
simonask 7y ago
> If we need to switch out who's in the role? Its a lot easier when there's no official title, no extra prestige, no pay raise, nothing but the burden of leadership actually felt as a burden. No, it's harder. If nobody is actually named the leader, there can be no official point in time when the role changes hands. The organization will most often break apart at that point.

anigbrowl 7y ago

That's what the essay is about.