4 ms·

Not necessarily no, not all organizations are hierarchal. "Reinventing Organizations" has some good examples of such.

Miraste 4y ago
There are no non-hierarchal organizations, only ones that are written down and ones that aren’t. Even Reinventing Organizations talks about “fluid, natural hierarchies” - i.e. cliques.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  That’s true, but there’s more nuance to it. I worked once for an organization where relative power was part of the culture. Supervisors literally sat at high desks facing the minions. In another, there was a power structure and folks directly accountable for certain things; but it was very collegial. Everyone treated each other as peers and the senior folks were more like mentors or folks with other responsibilities than bosses.
msla 4y ago
https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS by Jo Freeman: > 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. > This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. 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. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  I think the premise is wrong. Having a structure has many advantages and these advantages work favourably for companies in many cases. Clear hierarchy can immediately end a discussion and bring people to act. Striving for objective news stories is highly valuable as well as social science regarding as many perspectives on different values as possible. That generates value. Otherwise you just iterate on stagnation. The comparison the author makes is a bit random here and I believe the motivation to define it as such is that she is not content with people making different decisions. Well, nobody truly is but there are different ways to deal with that. What I agree with is that you should look at power dynamics. Competence is as often seen as a threat by you colleagues as it is seen as a positive. Why is that? Because people feel threatened by it and start to downplay its worth. All those that are threatened do indeed quickly form a structure because of their common goals. That said, there are managers that deserve the authority as they have a talent to keep people focused on relevant issues. They are often well liked and people gladly delegate decision making. But only in the scope of their mission which should be defined just as rigidly as groups are proposed to be here. Although I argue that the latter rigidity is not as relevant.
themitigating 4y ago
I messed up a bunch of words and it drastically alterted what I was trying to say. Here's the correction Doesn't this apply to any organization? If you care about the goals (engineer, metal worker, etc) of an organization you AREN'T going to be promoted because of your value and need for that task. For example the lead designer for BMW M cars has great value in non-managerial role. Those that don't care about the goals can then focus on caring about the structure, the politics, fitting in, etc. They are going to be promoted because they are modifying their behavior for that purpose. This doesn't apply in all situations but basically business people care about business and when they are successful end up in charge.
- shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
  I think the point is a criticism of organizational bearucracy becoming an end in itself. Any organization can probably end up here, not all are at that point and some may have control to prevent bureaucrats from gaining total control. I don't have good sources but I imagine something along use lines is the common criticism of politicians that they become pure political operatives, disconnected from their constituents actual needs. I imagine an alternative to this would be sortition where randomizing the office holder theoretically minimizes their ability to perpetuate the institution for the sake of its existence.

There are no non-hierarchal organizations, only ones that are written down and ones that aren’t. Even Reinventing Organizations talks about “fluid, natural hierarchies” - i.e. cliques.

Spooky23 4y ago
That’s true, but there’s more nuance to it. I worked once for an organization where relative power was part of the culture. Supervisors literally sat at high desks facing the minions. In another, there was a power structure and folks directly accountable for certain things; but it was very collegial. Everyone treated each other as peers and the senior folks were more like mentors or folks with other responsibilities than bosses.

msla 4y ago

https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS by Jo Freeman: > 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. > This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. 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. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
I think the premise is wrong. Having a structure has many advantages and these advantages work favourably for companies in many cases. Clear hierarchy can immediately end a discussion and bring people to act. Striving for objective news stories is highly valuable as well as social science regarding as many perspectives on different values as possible. That generates value. Otherwise you just iterate on stagnation. The comparison the author makes is a bit random here and I believe the motivation to define it as such is that she is not content with people making different decisions. Well, nobody truly is but there are different ways to deal with that. What I agree with is that you should look at power dynamics. Competence is as often seen as a threat by you colleagues as it is seen as a positive. Why is that? Because people feel threatened by it and start to downplay its worth. All those that are threatened do indeed quickly form a structure because of their common goals. That said, there are managers that deserve the authority as they have a talent to keep people focused on relevant issues. They are often well liked and people gladly delegate decision making. But only in the scope of their mission which should be defined just as rigidly as groups are proposed to be here. Although I argue that the latter rigidity is not as relevant.

themitigating 4y ago

I messed up a bunch of words and it drastically alterted what I was trying to say. Here's the correction Doesn't this apply to any organization? If you care about the goals (engineer, metal worker, etc) of an organization you AREN'T going to be promoted because of your value and need for that task. For example the lead designer for BMW M cars has great value in non-managerial role. Those that don't care about the goals can then focus on caring about the structure, the politics, fitting in, etc. They are going to be promoted because they are modifying their behavior for that purpose. This doesn't apply in all situations but basically business people care about business and when they are successful end up in charge.

shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
I think the point is a criticism of organizational bearucracy becoming an end in itself. Any organization can probably end up here, not all are at that point and some may have control to prevent bureaucrats from gaining total control. I don't have good sources but I imagine something along use lines is the common criticism of politicians that they become pure political operatives, disconnected from their constituents actual needs. I imagine an alternative to this would be sortition where randomizing the office holder theoretically minimizes their ability to perpetuate the institution for the sake of its existence.