4 ms·

A more democratic company structure would probably help with these issues. It seems that a dictatorial structure allows the top execs to ignore all the underlin

by omouse 15y ago

A more democratic company structure would probably help with these issues. It seems that a dictatorial structure allows the top execs to ignore all the underlings, to ignore the little people who actually do much of the work.

Maro 15y ago
That's a terrible idea. A company is not a democracy. The only solution is to have good leaders.
- staktrace 15y ago
  Agreed. Generally speaking companies should be meritocracies, allowing the good leaders to rise up. The people at the bottom may do all the work, but probably can't make overall strategic decisions nearly as well.
  - pradocchia 15y ago
    People at the top only need to make a few big strategic decisions a year. Some of them, purely through dumb luck, will make the rights one and continue to rise. This is not meritocracy, it's a crap shoot. People at the bottom make lots of little decisions every day. They may get lucky now and then, but over a year, the occasional bad luck will cancel that out. So you have more meritocracy at the bottom, and less the higher up you go. In a large organization like RIM, the principle talent of senior management is not strategic decision making, or management, but rent seeking: appropriating the product of the lower ranks for their own glory. Other principle qualities: fine grooming and dress, a firm hand shake, politics, public speaking, and punctuality. These qualities are practiced daily. You can't fake it. Strategic decision making? A few times a year. Add a little random luck in strategic decisions, and you have the CEO. There are enough contenders for his position that someone, somewhere will have a string of good enough fortune to land them there, regardless of merit. [hat tip to Taleb re: executives and strategic decision making]
- scubzero 15y ago
  a public company is a democracy of that requires you buy a vote(s). Good leaders realize that they must to some degree listen to their underlings, they shouldnt be beholden to underlings, but they should always listen and know when act on what they hear and when not to.
- scubzero 15y ago
  A good leader is more valuable than an good underling, but just as a body without a brain is useless, so a brain without a body is useless. What is necessary isnt 'democracy' per se, but some means of a good body rejecting a bad brain, because bad leadership more than any other single thing is what kills companies, and typically there is nothing structurally in place to eliminate bad leaders.
  - allwein 15y ago
    > just as a body without a brain is useless, so a brain without a body is useless RIM's problem isn't a lack of a body or a brain, but rather a broken nervous system. RIM's fingers are slowly being burned in the fire and the brain is just happily looking on, since it's not feeling the danger from any nerve impulses.
- ohyes 15y ago
  There are plenty of examples of 'flat' companies. Having good leaders is important, but it is unrelated to having a more democratic company structure.

by omouse 15y ago

Maro 15y ago

That's a terrible idea. A company is not a democracy. The only solution is to have good leaders.

staktrace 15y ago
Agreed. Generally speaking companies should be meritocracies, allowing the good leaders to rise up. The people at the bottom may do all the work, but probably can't make overall strategic decisions nearly as well.
- pradocchia 15y ago
  People at the top only need to make a few big strategic decisions a year. Some of them, purely through dumb luck, will make the rights one and continue to rise. This is not meritocracy, it's a crap shoot. People at the bottom make lots of little decisions every day. They may get lucky now and then, but over a year, the occasional bad luck will cancel that out. So you have more meritocracy at the bottom, and less the higher up you go. In a large organization like RIM, the principle talent of senior management is not strategic decision making, or management, but rent seeking: appropriating the product of the lower ranks for their own glory. Other principle qualities: fine grooming and dress, a firm hand shake, politics, public speaking, and punctuality. These qualities are practiced daily. You can't fake it. Strategic decision making? A few times a year. Add a little random luck in strategic decisions, and you have the CEO. There are enough contenders for his position that someone, somewhere will have a string of good enough fortune to land them there, regardless of merit. [hat tip to Taleb re: executives and strategic decision making]
scubzero 15y ago
a public company is a democracy of that requires you buy a vote(s). Good leaders realize that they must to some degree listen to their underlings, they shouldnt be beholden to underlings, but they should always listen and know when act on what they hear and when not to.
scubzero 15y ago
A good leader is more valuable than an good underling, but just as a body without a brain is useless, so a brain without a body is useless. What is necessary isnt 'democracy' per se, but some means of a good body rejecting a bad brain, because bad leadership more than any other single thing is what kills companies, and typically there is nothing structurally in place to eliminate bad leaders.
- allwein 15y ago
  > just as a body without a brain is useless, so a brain without a body is useless RIM's problem isn't a lack of a body or a brain, but rather a broken nervous system. RIM's fingers are slowly being burned in the fire and the brain is just happily looking on, since it's not feeling the danger from any nerve impulses.
ohyes 15y ago
There are plenty of examples of 'flat' companies. Having good leaders is important, but it is unrelated to having a more democratic company structure.