3 ms·

> Navy SEALS exemplify this idea. Strict hierarchy dominates out in the field: When a leader says go left, they go left. But when the team returns for debrief,

> Navy SEALS exemplify this idea. Strict hierarchy dominates out in the field: When a leader says go left, they go left. But when the team returns for debrief, “they literally leave their stripes at the door,” says Greer. The hierarchy disappears; nobody is a leader, nobody a follower. “They fluidly shift out of these hierarchical structures,” This sounds ideal, but I wonder what their secret is to pulling it off in practice. In my experience, when companies try to create a meeting to encourage "open discussion" where everyone has an equal voice, the hierarchies are still plainly obvious even if we pretend they are not. Egos, company politics, etc. are definitely not left at the door.

RobertRoberts 4y ago
> This sounds ideal, but I wonder what their secret is to pulling it off in practice. Their lives depend on it? When a group works in extreme environments (of any kind) cohesion, order and unity are likely something that could be the difference between success and failure. (my assumptions based on armchair logic and some life experience) Also, I have no problems asking people's opinion when I am leading, but I don't have to act on it. But I really appreciate "boots on the ground" opinions, because they always have a different perspective than those leading from a distance.
- oreally 4y ago
  It helps that their tasks are generally time limited too. Well defined mission->debrief cycles allow for some good breaks from intense work. Can't say the same for corporate though.
dbingham 4y ago
Where there are hierarchies in place and there's an attempt to create a flat, open space, it's on those higher in the hierarchy to make that real for those lower in it. Everyone in the hierarchy has to be very aware of power, and the pitfalls of having it. And those who have more of it have to be very intentional about quieting their own voices and soliciting the voices of those who have less power. It's not an easy thing to do, but it is possible, and it's something someone can practice and get better at.
newaccount2021 4y ago
> This sounds ideal, but I wonder what their secret is to pulling it off in practice. insane levels of personal discipline...just look at the entrance qualification testing they do. these people aren't average
potta_coffee 4y ago
They're elite units. Everyone in the group is incredibly driven and it takes a certain type of personality to get there. Esprit d' corps contributes to a higher level of cohesion. Also because the units are smaller, leaders have to contribute more rather than simply delegating. They have skin in the game and they need to trust their subordinates with their lives, which puts a limit on self-serving motives when decision making. Just my take, I don't have any proof/ citations, but I do have military experience.
abeppu 4y ago
I think people with authority struggle with applying a policy or norm which in general supports a more egalitarian working style vs deviating in the specific cases where they want a particular outcome. And if managers/execs/whomever diverges from those policies or norms even occasionally, it can break the trust which allows people around them to believe that stated polices are real. Consider: A manager wants to run open discussions in which all opinions are equally welcome, but in just one session cuts off an team member who seems to be voicing a real concern which might actually affect team morale meaningfully? Later, through glass conference room walls, that team member is seen on the receiving side of what seems to be a stern one-sided conversation. In all future discussions, who should trust that discussions are actually "open"? How long must that manager go without stifling an uncomfortable view before they're again credible in saying that all views are welcome? A director wants to empower teams by saying they "own" projects, can make decisions autonomously, etc. If that director sweeps in to override a team just once, when they feel a team is making the "wrong" choice on some matter, from that point forward how do those team members trust that they actually can make decisions on their own? Should we feel surprised if they start asking for permission for more things, and inviting the director to more fine-grained meetings? An engineering department has a stated policy about who must approve various kinds of changes, which is not oriented around hierarchy but about domain expertise. The CTO unexpectedly chimes in on an occasional PR unsolicited, with detailed question about the project of which the PR is one part. What has to be true for a junior IC to feel comfortable merging? I've never been in the military, but I would have to guess (a) it probably doesn't always work as well as described in the article and (b) when it does work, the parties involved must have both a high degree of trust backed by a consistent record of living up to their stated practices.

RobertRoberts 4y ago

> This sounds ideal, but I wonder what their secret is to pulling it off in practice. Their lives depend on it? When a group works in extreme environments (of any kind) cohesion, order and unity are likely something that could be the difference between success and failure. (my assumptions based on armchair logic and some life experience) Also, I have no problems asking people's opinion when I am leading, but I don't have to act on it. But I really appreciate "boots on the ground" opinions, because they always have a different perspective than those leading from a distance.

oreally 4y ago
It helps that their tasks are generally time limited too. Well defined mission->debrief cycles allow for some good breaks from intense work. Can't say the same for corporate though.

dbingham 4y ago

Where there are hierarchies in place and there's an attempt to create a flat, open space, it's on those higher in the hierarchy to make that real for those lower in it. Everyone in the hierarchy has to be very aware of power, and the pitfalls of having it. And those who have more of it have to be very intentional about quieting their own voices and soliciting the voices of those who have less power. It's not an easy thing to do, but it is possible, and it's something someone can practice and get better at.

newaccount2021 4y ago

> This sounds ideal, but I wonder what their secret is to pulling it off in practice. insane levels of personal discipline...just look at the entrance qualification testing they do. these people aren't average

potta_coffee 4y ago

They're elite units. Everyone in the group is incredibly driven and it takes a certain type of personality to get there. Esprit d' corps contributes to a higher level of cohesion. Also because the units are smaller, leaders have to contribute more rather than simply delegating. They have skin in the game and they need to trust their subordinates with their lives, which puts a limit on self-serving motives when decision making. Just my take, I don't have any proof/ citations, but I do have military experience.

abeppu 4y ago

I think people with authority struggle with applying a policy or norm which in general supports a more egalitarian working style vs deviating in the specific cases where they want a particular outcome. And if managers/execs/whomever diverges from those policies or norms even occasionally, it can break the trust which allows people around them to believe that stated polices are real. Consider: A manager wants to run open discussions in which all opinions are equally welcome, but in just one session cuts off an team member who seems to be voicing a real concern which might actually affect team morale meaningfully? Later, through glass conference room walls, that team member is seen on the receiving side of what seems to be a stern one-sided conversation. In all future discussions, who should trust that discussions are actually "open"? How long must that manager go without stifling an uncomfortable view before they're again credible in saying that all views are welcome? A director wants to empower teams by saying they "own" projects, can make decisions autonomously, etc. If that director sweeps in to override a team just once, when they feel a team is making the "wrong" choice on some matter, from that point forward how do those team members trust that they actually can make decisions on their own? Should we feel surprised if they start asking for permission for more things, and inviting the director to more fine-grained meetings? An engineering department has a stated policy about who must approve various kinds of changes, which is not oriented around hierarchy but about domain expertise. The CTO unexpectedly chimes in on an occasional PR unsolicited, with detailed question about the project of which the PR is one part. What has to be true for a junior IC to feel comfortable merging? I've never been in the military, but I would have to guess (a) it probably doesn't always work as well as described in the article and (b) when it does work, the parties involved must have both a high degree of trust backed by a consistent record of living up to their stated practices.