4 ms·

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 choo

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.
    - jacques_chester 7y ago
      Your original interlocutor argued that > Unless everyone can spend money drawn from the corporate account, and everyone can fire anyone else, the structure isn't flat. which I don't think you ever really addressed. That there is more than these powers doesn't change that these powers are basically what defines meaningful hierarchy. They are necessary, but not sufficient; other functions are contributory, but neither necessary nor sufficient in themselves. You can't have a company without money and people. That's literally what a company is.
      - colordrops 7y ago
        > You can't have a company without money and people. That's literally what a company is. To reiterate my point by playing off your statement: you also can't have a company without a product or service (unless you are Enron). Budgets and hiring are very important, but not core. I have to respectfully disagree.

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.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    Your original interlocutor argued that > Unless everyone can spend money drawn from the corporate account, and everyone can fire anyone else, the structure isn't flat. which I don't think you ever really addressed. That there is more than these powers doesn't change that these powers are basically what defines meaningful hierarchy. They are necessary, but not sufficient; other functions are contributory, but neither necessary nor sufficient in themselves. You can't have a company without money and people. That's literally what a company is.
    - colordrops 7y ago
      > You can't have a company without money and people. That's literally what a company is. To reiterate my point by playing off your statement: you also can't have a company without a product or service (unless you are Enron). Budgets and hiring are very important, but not core. I have to respectfully disagree.