4 ms·
Flattening excessive hierarchical structures is the solution, but the devil is in that "excessive" qualification. It's best to eliminate narrow choke-points w
by MichaelCollins 4y ago
Flattening excessive hierarchical structures is the solution, but the devil is in that "excessive" qualification. It's best to eliminate narrow choke-points where a single person can make themselves a problem for the whole organization, and that may mean lopping to top of the pyramid off (a pyramid, unless truncated, narrows to a single point.)
But if you try to flatten all hierarchy entirely, you create a new sort of problem; an informal hierarchy where the only rule is to be popular: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
- fallingknife 4y agoA flatter system actually tends to avoid the key man problem. A team of 20 is almost certain to have someone who can take the lead's job if he leaves. A team of 4, not so much.
- lupire 4y agoWhy is a broadly popular person worse than someone popular with execs? Maybe what we need is... internally elected leadership!
- yellowapple 4y agoBut that's socialism, and is therefore bad because reasons.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoIn well designed democratic systems, there is a rigidly enforced hierarchy, ideally structured and organized to limit the power of any one person. In a structureless system those safeguards don't exist. Things might work for a while, until people make a mistake of electing a dictator who decides to hold onto power. Now you don't have a democracy anymore.