8 ms·

Kelly O’Donnel: flat, non-hierarchical organizations do not work

72 points by lkrubner 7y ago

marssaxman 7y ago
That is a mightily depressing thought, if true. Power imbalances suck; is there truly no way to be rid of them?
- vangelis 7y ago
  Probably not. You can certainly mitigate the worst of them though. That a totally flat organization is terrible doesn't imply that tall hierarchy is good.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  Power imbalances suck; is there truly no way to be rid of them? Power imbalances can be mitigated structurally and through community norms based on humanistic principles. If an organization has some sort of "Rule of law" then this can damp down the application of arbitrary power by informal chains of command. Power corrupts. This is why people need structure and limits. When people just start doing as they feel, the power to make their whims real becomes a corrupting power.
- insickness 7y ago
  Power imbalances don't 'suck.' They evolved to provide advantages. In The Cohesive Foragers: Human and Chimpanzee, Margaret Power writes: "The charismatic-dependent relationship is adaptive toward keeping subgroups together as they range, foraging. If all members of a subgroup were equally self-assured, there would be more of a tendency for each individual to go it’s own way, and a lone animal or human is usually more vulnerable to attack. "The more nervous, easily aroused, dependent chimpanzees, through their quick response to disturbance in the group or to danger from without, act to alert the less easily aroused, less observant, charismatic members. One or more of the confident individuals then respond to the situation, backed by the support of the more dependent members. Thus the response is more by group consensus than leader-initiated."
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    It is entirely possible that evolutionary conferred advantages really do 'suck' in other senses or in certain social situations, which tend to go beyond evolutionary fitness. Indeed a great many things have evolved that would be abhorrent to carry out in civil society; many intuitions (moral and otherwise) we have (even those spread across several cultures) seem correct but are not scientifically grounded. The is-ought problem shows itself again here, and as far as modern conceptions of justice and moral psychology go, social Darwinism has lost a lot of ground in the last fifty years.
- lacampbell 7y ago
  I'm perfectly fine with people clearly more competent than me making decisions. I don't micromanage my dentist or demand a referendum on the flight route of every plane I am on. At the same token, if I am the most competent in the room I do resent not being the leader. Them's the breaks.
- natalyarostova 7y ago
  They don't have to. Have you never found a leader who you wanted to be your leader? Who you admired and viewed as worthy of directing you?
  - qwsxyh 7y ago
    No.
- babyslothzoo 7y ago
  Do you really think all power imbalances suck? Should a 2 year old have equal say in household decision making as their 32 year old parent? Should a first year med student who wanders into a patients room have equal sway in patient care as a specialist attending physician? Should an intern be able to make decisions that a CEO typically makes?
  - pgcj_poster 7y ago
    I think there's a difference between saying that something sucks and saying that it should never exist. There are probably a lot of people who would agree that taxes "suck" but who would agree that people should pay at least some taxes. As far as I know, it's pretty widely agreed upon that it sucks to be an intern or a first-year med student in field-training. I don't remember being two years old, but I do remember hating having to do what my parents said when I was a child. So I would say that power imbalances do in general, "suck" even if they're desirable in some cases. As such, I'd be sad to learn that there was no way for most people to work in a "flat" structure.
rzzzt 7y ago
I'd like to read an article about (self-)organization that doesn't refer, rehash, or otherwise revolve around The Tyranny of Structurelessness, just as an intellectual exercise. I mean I get it, it really is a razor-sharp depiction of the process in which a bunch of people slowly form an organizational semi-structure whose very existence is denied. But I sometimes wonder if there are additional observations one can make.
stcredzero 7y ago
Thesis: Every time an organization claims to be flat and non-hierarchical, it is actually hierarchical, but the chain of command is invisible and based on the personal charisma of particular people, or sometimes based on their ability to bully and manipulate others. An organization without a formal structure will have an informal structure made up of various cliques Here's the problem with command based on charisma, formidable personalities, and cliques: Such power is arbitrary. Operating without limitations, such invisible chains of command can often operate through emotionally abusive practices like expulsion and hazing and can subject people to accusation without trial and without the opportunity to face accusers. People need structure and the rule of law. If such structures are based on sound humanitarian principles and are administered fairly, they can act to make groups of people behave in a more principled and egalitarian fashion. If applied correctly, these structures can coexist with and even compliment more communal and non-hierarchical forms of organization.
- mcguire 7y ago
  "Command based on charisma, formidable personalities, and cliques" describes every structured, hierarchical business I've ever worked for. If there's one that's not, I've never even heard of it.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    As I note above, of course! All human groups have a hierarchical side and a communal side. That's simply the human condition.
    - lovemenot 7y ago
      Responding in such a way as to make this seem like a private conversation which happens to be available publicly, is perhaps another example of hidden power relations, to which we've become all too familiar. I don't know how to say this in the right way. It's never really about you - no matter how good it might feel. Not really.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
40acres 7y ago
Humans are hierarchical creatures, this idea has been co-opted by folks and turned into a political argument, but nevertheless in many ways humans look for someone to "drive" decision making, even in a fair and democratic organization. If you want to go against the grain of traditional hierarchy, I don't think 'flat' is the way to go. At least not using the visualization of a horizontal, continuous line. Maybe "dash" is the way to go, with discrete, separate non-hierarchical organizations collaborating to a common end.
- babyslothzoo 7y ago
  Nature is largely hierarchical.
- astazangasta 7y ago
  I detest hierarchies, I guess I'm not human. I don't think "humans are hierarchical creatures" is palatable. Nothing in our biology is fundamentally hierarchical. You've asserted that "humans look for someone to 'drive' decision making", but I think this is just a result of culture. Specifically, military hierarchies are ubiquitous because they allowed organized violence to grant individuals control over accumulated wealth. This is NOT fundamental to humans, it began with civilization, the advent of walled cities, armies, etc. In addition people have organized in non-hierarchical ways throughout history; the ability to do so certainly belies the notion that we're driven to look to someone else for decision-making.
  - andreilys 7y ago
    So there were no tribal hierarchies when humans were nomadic and the strongest physically held power? Of these non-hierarchical orgs you cite, how many were robust to external change and able to survive times of stress? I’m also not familiar of any non-hierarchical org that wasn’t steamrolled by a more dominant hierarchical society
treelovinhippie 7y ago
At ConsenSys we all called it the "shadow hierarchy". Like any cesspit choked with internal contradictions; it implodes.
daemonk 7y ago
In the short term, command might be determined by charisma or personality. But I think for long-term survival command will ultimately be based on how much responsibility someone is willing to take on. Basically, when a fuckup happens, who is the person willing to take the responsibility/blame for it.
nod 7y ago
This is not a fully correct conclusion. I feel a need to call out the conflation of "non-hierarchical" with "structurelessness"/"without a formal structure". There are at least 3 things that the typical org hierarchy provides: 1. The dominance hierarchy, the power structure that says who can give orders to (and/or fire people for refusal to comply with orders) whom. 2. Decision-making governance. There has to be a way to get decisions made, including what people work on. 3. Conflict resolution. How does conflict get managed and escalated. It is not true that the necessary opposite of hierarchy is anarchy - you can't just destroy the org chart and expect nothing to replace it. The org chart typically provides all 3, but the proponents of flat/innovative org structures are usually trying to dismantle just #1 the dominance hierarchy. I totally agree that it "doesn't work" if replacements for #2 and #3 aren't implemented at the same time. Approaches like Holacracy/Sociocracy are actually quite structured! They attempt to make decision-making and conflict-resolution explicit and effective, even while trying to remove the "violence inherent in the system" of bosses/bossing.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  My personal problem with removing "violence inherent in the system" of bosses/bossing is that all organizations need a way to fire people or they become overrun with parasites. And if we know we know "0 people who can fire you" doesn't work that only leads to systems where the number of people who can fire you is >=1. And I'd much prefer to have one person I need to make happy than n. The other issue is it's great when responsibility and power align. I've worked on too many projects that failed because someone who wasn't directly responsible for the success or failure of the application had input and decision making authority.
  - stevens32 7y ago
    >all organizations need a way to fire people or they become overrun with parasites. Feels like this is just generalized personal experience but are there any studies that show this? Is the threat of getting fired really the only thing motivating people to not be a parasite? That seems like a horrendously dark view of human ambition
viburnum 7y ago
It’s funny how the word “bully” is used in this context. When it’s your boss giving the orders, that’s legitimate, but if anybody else tells you want to do, it’s bullying. Are bosses just bullies by another name?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Bosses have legitimate authority (authority with limits, but still legitimate). Bullies have no legitimate authority, but try to take it anyway.
  - mempko 7y ago
    legitimate authority comes from following someone's advice not imposed upon. Does a worker have the option of not listening to their boss without material consequence? If not, then it isn't legitimate. If a doctor is an expert on lungs, do you listen to what they tell you which TV show to watch, or shoes to wear, or where to be at a certain time each day? Leadership is not a position, but a role anyone can take at any time.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      I strongly disagree with your definition of legitimate authority. From your wrong definition, you are going to reach all kinds of wrong conclusions, which will to you seem to be right ones. But the police are not bullies when they arrest a mugger, rather than advising him to stop mugging people and stop by the jail.
      - SiempreViernes 7y ago
        So you mean the police always has legitimate authorithy?
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. No, I did not say that, mean that, or think that. The police do not always have legitimate authority. But not never, either. In particular, the police have legitimate, legally-given authority. When they exceed that, they become illegitimate (and bullies).
Glench 7y ago
Just to refute the title, the book Reinventing Organizations (https://www.reinventingorganizations.com https://www.reinventingorganizations.com) has a dozen case studies of >150 employee companies that successfully found ways to organize non-hierarchically for years (that still take into account natural hierarchies of differing skill levels). The book is really good. You can pay-what-value-you-got-out-of-it for a digital copy here: https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/pay-what-feels-right.html https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/pay-what-feels-righ...
lsiebert 7y ago
The way to counteract implicit power structures isn't to make them explicit, but to acknowledge them and account for them such that they are checked. Also, the base case of an organization is a two person group. Are all two person groups hierarchical? I think not, especially if you include romantic relationships.
- lkrubner 7y ago
  What does the word "implicit" mean? What does the word "acknowledge" mean? I think you are playing with words. If we stick to plain, ordinary English, once something is acknowledged it is no longer implicit.
  - lsiebert 7y ago
    Only if everyone acknowledges the same thing. If you have to spend a year working in a company to figure out how things are done, I can certainly then acknowledge how things work, but that doesn't mean that it was ever explicitly conveyed.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Rediscovering Jo "Joreen" Freeman, "The Tyrany of Structurelessness" (1970) ...Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the nature of a human group.... https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
astazangasta 7y ago
The main flaw with this claim, at least for tech, is that there remains a CEO, and more importantly that the CEO is the agent of a board and a set of investors. In this context the notion of "flat", "non-hierarchical" is a farce since real authority always rests outside of the group to ensure investor returns.
EdwardDiego 7y ago
Our flat non-hierarchical organisation works, what are we doing wrong?!

72 points by lkrubner 7y ago

marssaxman 7y ago

That is a mightily depressing thought, if true. Power imbalances suck; is there truly no way to be rid of them?

vangelis 7y ago
Probably not. You can certainly mitigate the worst of them though. That a totally flat organization is terrible doesn't imply that tall hierarchy is good.
stcredzero 7y ago
Power imbalances suck; is there truly no way to be rid of them? Power imbalances can be mitigated structurally and through community norms based on humanistic principles. If an organization has some sort of "Rule of law" then this can damp down the application of arbitrary power by informal chains of command. Power corrupts. This is why people need structure and limits. When people just start doing as they feel, the power to make their whims real becomes a corrupting power.
insickness 7y ago
Power imbalances don't 'suck.' They evolved to provide advantages. In The Cohesive Foragers: Human and Chimpanzee, Margaret Power writes: "The charismatic-dependent relationship is adaptive toward keeping subgroups together as they range, foraging. If all members of a subgroup were equally self-assured, there would be more of a tendency for each individual to go it’s own way, and a lone animal or human is usually more vulnerable to attack. "The more nervous, easily aroused, dependent chimpanzees, through their quick response to disturbance in the group or to danger from without, act to alert the less easily aroused, less observant, charismatic members. One or more of the confident individuals then respond to the situation, backed by the support of the more dependent members. Thus the response is more by group consensus than leader-initiated."
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  It is entirely possible that evolutionary conferred advantages really do 'suck' in other senses or in certain social situations, which tend to go beyond evolutionary fitness. Indeed a great many things have evolved that would be abhorrent to carry out in civil society; many intuitions (moral and otherwise) we have (even those spread across several cultures) seem correct but are not scientifically grounded. The is-ought problem shows itself again here, and as far as modern conceptions of justice and moral psychology go, social Darwinism has lost a lot of ground in the last fifty years.
lacampbell 7y ago
I'm perfectly fine with people clearly more competent than me making decisions. I don't micromanage my dentist or demand a referendum on the flight route of every plane I am on. At the same token, if I am the most competent in the room I do resent not being the leader. Them's the breaks.
natalyarostova 7y ago
They don't have to. Have you never found a leader who you wanted to be your leader? Who you admired and viewed as worthy of directing you?
- qwsxyh 7y ago
  No.
babyslothzoo 7y ago
Do you really think all power imbalances suck? Should a 2 year old have equal say in household decision making as their 32 year old parent? Should a first year med student who wanders into a patients room have equal sway in patient care as a specialist attending physician? Should an intern be able to make decisions that a CEO typically makes?
- pgcj_poster 7y ago
  I think there's a difference between saying that something sucks and saying that it should never exist. There are probably a lot of people who would agree that taxes "suck" but who would agree that people should pay at least some taxes. As far as I know, it's pretty widely agreed upon that it sucks to be an intern or a first-year med student in field-training. I don't remember being two years old, but I do remember hating having to do what my parents said when I was a child. So I would say that power imbalances do in general, "suck" even if they're desirable in some cases. As such, I'd be sad to learn that there was no way for most people to work in a "flat" structure.

rzzzt 7y ago

I'd like to read an article about (self-)organization that doesn't refer, rehash, or otherwise revolve around The Tyranny of Structurelessness, just as an intellectual exercise. I mean I get it, it really is a razor-sharp depiction of the process in which a bunch of people slowly form an organizational semi-structure whose very existence is denied. But I sometimes wonder if there are additional observations one can make.

stcredzero 7y ago

Thesis: Every time an organization claims to be flat and non-hierarchical, it is actually hierarchical, but the chain of command is invisible and based on the personal charisma of particular people, or sometimes based on their ability to bully and manipulate others. An organization without a formal structure will have an informal structure made up of various cliques Here's the problem with command based on charisma, formidable personalities, and cliques: Such power is arbitrary. Operating without limitations, such invisible chains of command can often operate through emotionally abusive practices like expulsion and hazing and can subject people to accusation without trial and without the opportunity to face accusers. People need structure and the rule of law. If such structures are based on sound humanitarian principles and are administered fairly, they can act to make groups of people behave in a more principled and egalitarian fashion. If applied correctly, these structures can coexist with and even compliment more communal and non-hierarchical forms of organization.

mcguire 7y ago
"Command based on charisma, formidable personalities, and cliques" describes every structured, hierarchical business I've ever worked for. If there's one that's not, I've never even heard of it.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  As I note above, of course! All human groups have a hierarchical side and a communal side. That's simply the human condition.
  - lovemenot 7y ago
    Responding in such a way as to make this seem like a private conversation which happens to be available publicly, is perhaps another example of hidden power relations, to which we've become all too familiar. I don't know how to say this in the right way. It's never really about you - no matter how good it might feel. Not really.
dragonwriter 7y ago

40acres 7y ago

Humans are hierarchical creatures, this idea has been co-opted by folks and turned into a political argument, but nevertheless in many ways humans look for someone to "drive" decision making, even in a fair and democratic organization. If you want to go against the grain of traditional hierarchy, I don't think 'flat' is the way to go. At least not using the visualization of a horizontal, continuous line. Maybe "dash" is the way to go, with discrete, separate non-hierarchical organizations collaborating to a common end.

babyslothzoo 7y ago
Nature is largely hierarchical.
astazangasta 7y ago
I detest hierarchies, I guess I'm not human. I don't think "humans are hierarchical creatures" is palatable. Nothing in our biology is fundamentally hierarchical. You've asserted that "humans look for someone to 'drive' decision making", but I think this is just a result of culture. Specifically, military hierarchies are ubiquitous because they allowed organized violence to grant individuals control over accumulated wealth. This is NOT fundamental to humans, it began with civilization, the advent of walled cities, armies, etc. In addition people have organized in non-hierarchical ways throughout history; the ability to do so certainly belies the notion that we're driven to look to someone else for decision-making.
- andreilys 7y ago
  So there were no tribal hierarchies when humans were nomadic and the strongest physically held power? Of these non-hierarchical orgs you cite, how many were robust to external change and able to survive times of stress? I’m also not familiar of any non-hierarchical org that wasn’t steamrolled by a more dominant hierarchical society

treelovinhippie 7y ago

At ConsenSys we all called it the "shadow hierarchy". Like any cesspit choked with internal contradictions; it implodes.

daemonk 7y ago

In the short term, command might be determined by charisma or personality. But I think for long-term survival command will ultimately be based on how much responsibility someone is willing to take on. Basically, when a fuckup happens, who is the person willing to take the responsibility/blame for it.

nod 7y ago

This is not a fully correct conclusion. I feel a need to call out the conflation of "non-hierarchical" with "structurelessness"/"without a formal structure". There are at least 3 things that the typical org hierarchy provides: 1. The dominance hierarchy, the power structure that says who can give orders to (and/or fire people for refusal to comply with orders) whom. 2. Decision-making governance. There has to be a way to get decisions made, including what people work on. 3. Conflict resolution. How does conflict get managed and escalated. It is not true that the necessary opposite of hierarchy is anarchy - you can't just destroy the org chart and expect nothing to replace it. The org chart typically provides all 3, but the proponents of flat/innovative org structures are usually trying to dismantle just #1 the dominance hierarchy. I totally agree that it "doesn't work" if replacements for #2 and #3 aren't implemented at the same time. Approaches like Holacracy/Sociocracy are actually quite structured! They attempt to make decision-making and conflict-resolution explicit and effective, even while trying to remove the "violence inherent in the system" of bosses/bossing.

JamesBarney 7y ago
My personal problem with removing "violence inherent in the system" of bosses/bossing is that all organizations need a way to fire people or they become overrun with parasites. And if we know we know "0 people who can fire you" doesn't work that only leads to systems where the number of people who can fire you is >=1. And I'd much prefer to have one person I need to make happy than n. The other issue is it's great when responsibility and power align. I've worked on too many projects that failed because someone who wasn't directly responsible for the success or failure of the application had input and decision making authority.
- stevens32 7y ago
  >all organizations need a way to fire people or they become overrun with parasites. Feels like this is just generalized personal experience but are there any studies that show this? Is the threat of getting fired really the only thing motivating people to not be a parasite? That seems like a horrendously dark view of human ambition

viburnum 7y ago

It’s funny how the word “bully” is used in this context. When it’s your boss giving the orders, that’s legitimate, but if anybody else tells you want to do, it’s bullying. Are bosses just bullies by another name?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Bosses have legitimate authority (authority with limits, but still legitimate). Bullies have no legitimate authority, but try to take it anyway.
- mempko 7y ago
  legitimate authority comes from following someone's advice not imposed upon. Does a worker have the option of not listening to their boss without material consequence? If not, then it isn't legitimate. If a doctor is an expert on lungs, do you listen to what they tell you which TV show to watch, or shoes to wear, or where to be at a certain time each day? Leadership is not a position, but a role anyone can take at any time.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I strongly disagree with your definition of legitimate authority. From your wrong definition, you are going to reach all kinds of wrong conclusions, which will to you seem to be right ones. But the police are not bullies when they arrest a mugger, rather than advising him to stop mugging people and stop by the jail.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      So you mean the police always has legitimate authorithy?
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. No, I did not say that, mean that, or think that. The police do not always have legitimate authority. But not never, either. In particular, the police have legitimate, legally-given authority. When they exceed that, they become illegitimate (and bullies).

Glench 7y ago

Just to refute the title, the book Reinventing Organizations (https://www.reinventingorganizations.com https://www.reinventingorganizations.com) has a dozen case studies of >150 employee companies that successfully found ways to organize non-hierarchically for years (that still take into account natural hierarchies of differing skill levels). The book is really good. You can pay-what-value-you-got-out-of-it for a digital copy here: https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/pay-what-feels-right.html https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/pay-what-feels-righ...

lsiebert 7y ago

The way to counteract implicit power structures isn't to make them explicit, but to acknowledge them and account for them such that they are checked. Also, the base case of an organization is a two person group. Are all two person groups hierarchical? I think not, especially if you include romantic relationships.

lkrubner 7y ago
What does the word "implicit" mean? What does the word "acknowledge" mean? I think you are playing with words. If we stick to plain, ordinary English, once something is acknowledged it is no longer implicit.
- lsiebert 7y ago
  Only if everyone acknowledges the same thing. If you have to spend a year working in a company to figure out how things are done, I can certainly then acknowledge how things work, but that doesn't mean that it was ever explicitly conveyed.

dredmorbius 7y ago

Rediscovering Jo "Joreen" Freeman, "The Tyrany of Structurelessness" (1970) ...Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the nature of a human group.... https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

astazangasta 7y ago

The main flaw with this claim, at least for tech, is that there remains a CEO, and more importantly that the CEO is the agent of a board and a set of investors. In this context the notion of "flat", "non-hierarchical" is a farce since real authority always rests outside of the group to ensure investor returns.

EdwardDiego 7y ago

Our flat non-hierarchical organisation works, what are we doing wrong?!