5 ms·

That's one view of how to structure organizations but hardly the only one. Much of SV was built using non-hierarchical organizations, often bragging that nobody

by mmooss 10mo ago

That's one view of how to structure organizations but hardly the only one. Much of SV was built using non-hierarchical organizations, often bragging that nobody had a title. The greater corporate world embraced flat organizational structures for 1-2 decades and did very well. Toyota famously gave (gives?) everyone on the assembly line the power to stop production, and they were (are?) considered the pinnicle of automotive manufacturing. My impression is that recent embrace of hierarchy and authority, and rejection of democracy and equality, are tied to a sharp rise in such ideas in politics. It's hard to believe it's coincidence. And, also maybe not coincidentally, it's inherently conservative to say, 'this is the way it's always been and must be'. Innovation is a powerful force. The management ideas the parent embraces were once innovations, which met the same response the parent gives to newer innovators.

Earw0rm 10mo ago
Am sure you're already aware, but for others in the thread: Absence of titles does not mean absence of hierarchy. Absence of formal hierarchy doesn't mean absence of social power. At their best, flat hierarchies do as described. At their worst, they take on all the worst aspects of cults together with all the worst aspects of high school. Endless manoeuvring for influence, currying favour, autocratic fiefdoms emerging without people having the mental framework to even identify that they exist. Humans are complicated, and we do seem to have a certain amount of low-level social wiring for hierarchy and pecking order, even if it's far from absolute. I don't know how this applies in the context of Toyota, but there are plenty of places where pushing the Stop button - while formally permitted - has a social cost such that only a certain few are effectively given permission to do so; large amounts of energy are expended either attempting to belong to that few, or currying favour with them. Power tends to accrue to those most inclined to seize it. Whereas in a more formal org, people with "manager" in their title are at least subject to a minimum amount of vetting, training and oversight. TLDR, flat hierarchy can be better than rigid hierarchy, but nominally "flat" hierarchy with power-gradient characteristics can be the worst of both worlds.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- csours 10mo ago
  > I don't know how this applies in the context of Toyota, I've never worked for Toyota, but as far as I can tell they take this very seriously. You can look up a history of NUMMI for a case study
- cycomanic 10mo ago
  > Am sure you're already aware, but for others in the thread: > > Absence of titles does not mean absence of hierarchy. Absence of formal hierarchy doesn't mean absence of social power. > > At their best, flat hierarchies do as described. > > At their worst, they take on all the worst aspects of cults together with all the worst aspects of high school. Endless manoeuvring for influence, currying favour, autocratic fiefdoms emerging without people having the mental framework to even identify that they exist. > > Humans are complicated, and we do seem to have a certain amount of low-level social wiring for hierarchy and pecking order, even if it's far from absolute. > > I don't know how this applies in the context of Toyota, but there are plenty of places where pushing the Stop button - while formally permitted - has a social cost such that only a certain few are effectively given permission to do so; large amounts of energy are expended either attempting to belong to that few, or currying favour with them. Power tends to accrue to those most inclined to seize it. > > Whereas in a more formal org, people with "manager" in their title are at least subject to a minimum amount of vetting, training and oversight. > > TLDR, flat hierarchy can be better than rigid hierarchy, but nominally "flat" hierarchy with power-gradient characteristics can be the worst of both worlds. > Am sure you're already aware, but for others in the thread: > > Absence of titles does not mean absence of hierarchy. Absence of formal hierarchy doesn't mean absence of social power. > > At their best, flat hierarchies do as described. > > At their worst, they take on all the worst aspects of cults together with all the worst aspects of high school. Endless manoeuvring for influence, currying favour, autocratic fiefdoms emerging without people having the mental framework to even identify that they exist. > And that is different from more hierarical organisations how? I mean there are plenty of stories about infiting, thiefdoms, manuvering... in hierarical organisations as well. There's also lots of example we're the disconnect between the top and lower tiers of the hierarchy (i.e. the essence of the hierarchy itself) let to the downfall of the organisation. I also fail to see the connection to the article, the organisation did not seem to have failed (in the view of the author at least), due to the failed "democratic" organisation experiments, but due to the leadership in the current hierarical organisation not listening to the "lower tiers". So if anything it seems to be a problem of the hierarical structure. > Humans are complicated, and we do seem to have a certain amount of low-level social wiring for hierarchy and pecking order, even if it's far from absolute. > I dislike these generalised statements about "human nature", there is way too much uncertainty and plenty of counter examples. That said I agree with some of the other points you made, the post reads a bit weird considering that the author essentially gave up his ability to influence the course of the organisation (both by giving up his leadership seat, but also before by disenganging from the process), and the complains that the organisation did not develop how they wanted.
hluska 10mo ago
Perhaps, but the writer removed themselves from leadership. They can have a whole lot of novel or even good ideas but if they’re not in a place to implement them they’re not going to succeed. Leaving leadership was a terrible decision that any business text would have advised against. You can’t beat a hierarchy unless you’re part of it.
- mmooss 10mo ago
  An organization has serious problems, and incompetent leaders, if only leaders' ideas are implemented. (That doesn't necessarily disagree with what you said.)
PaulHoule 10mo ago
There is the famous Tyranny of Structureless essay https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm which describes issues that people struggle with to this day. When it comes to activism I think the most effective organizations I've been in have been "structureless" like that with a few people who lead because they are dedicated and have time and energy. Personally when it comes to structure and the issues Jo talks about the cure (structure) is worse than the disease and once we start talking about Robert's Rules and bylaws and fundraising you are already losing people and going off mission. All the discussions about the perception (and somewhat reality) of "Class X of people is not being represented here" tend to turn into knock-down drag out fights, "Class X" never stepping up, and the ultimate reality of nobody being represented except for Robert and bylaws and fundraising. It's not to say structureful organizations aren't useful but I would say organizations are basically right-wing in that they embody social hierarchy and if you feel your structureless organization is fun and exciting and making some difference in your bit of the world the way to save it when structure encroaches is to tear it down and start another one. "Sustainable" groups tend to become what they oppose, structureless groups can seem to come out of nowhere, strike a decisive blow, then melt into the crowd.
- specialist 10mo ago
  The purpose of RRO assumes majoritarianism while ensuring the minority is heard. As you know, there are light weight versions, for boards and committees. But nothing I'd advocate for product development. > the most effective organizations As a fellow recovering activist, you might be interested in Vincent Bevins' If We Burn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_We_Burn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_We_Burn Connected some dots for me. Things I experienced but wasn't smart enough to sus and articulate.
  - PaulHoule 10mo ago
    I agree there is more than one way to look at it. There are good points to RRO but I think the legalism drives away a "silent majority" [1] of people who out of their background or temperament are particularly repelled by it. Over the long term I've seen the governance of organizations like my food co-op be quite complex and not what I thought when things were going on. For instance we had a conflict that boiled for years which looked like a conflict over the vision of the organization but in retrospect it really was the bad personality of the manager because that manager left and went to run Borders [2] and had the same problems over there whereas the conflicting camps reconciled pretty quickly when that manager was out. But there really are tensions over professionalism, vanguardism, and such that we'll be arguing about for a really long time. The asymmetry between the left and right wings is also interesting -- I think left wing organizations have an unhealthy tendency towards centralization because fundraising is more difficult and you get the "membership organization" model that inevitably fails because of the issues pointed out in [3] [4] vs many right wing millionaires that fund parallel right wing causes that compete in a healthy way and always stay on mission because they can be defunded when they go off mission. In 2026 I have a new commitment to activism but Jacobin magazine would rip into my approach as being radically apolitical but I think that is what is needed in 2026. [1] 20 years ago I didn't think I'd be talking like Nixon... [2] Personally I am not inclined to blame individuals, plus that manager had allies, which is why it took me so long to see it [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
Aurornis 10mo ago
> Much of SV was built using non-hierarchical organizations, often bragging that nobody had a title. The greater corporate world embraced flat organizational structures for 1-2 decades and did very well. I've worked in several "flat" startups and one big company. None of them were actually flat. There's always a hierarchy. There's always an understand chain of command. > Toyota famously gave (gives?) everyone on the assembly line the power to stop production, and they were (are?) considered the pinnicle of automotive manufacturing. This is a good example of how "flat" companies aren't really flat. Assembly line workers can stop production because the assembly line is part of their job. They can't fire anyone or give their peers raises, though. If you ask anyone in the comapny, they can point to the person who can fire them and can give them raises. That's the hierarchy. It always exists.
- mmooss 10mo ago
  All that says is there is nothing absolute in any way. There are no absolute hierarchies; all have a degree of flatness, of people lower on the hierarchy with more influence than people above them, etc.
  - WoodenChair 10mo ago
    Yes, there are degrees of everything. There is cool, kinda cold, cold, very cold. I'm not exactly sure your point? Seems like you are arguing with a straw man. Who said there are not different degrees of flatness or degrees of hierarchy? The previous poster was just saying that there's always some hierarchy, even if it's unwritten, which aligns with "degrees of flatness."
specialist 10mo ago
I've used the group coordination technology of democracy in the workplace. It was both awesome and burdensome. Awesome, because social cognition and personal empowerment are force multipliers. Burdensome, because change is hard, empowerment means accountability, some people would rather complain than contribute. I'd never advocate leaderless, flatness, whatever pseudo anarchist mumbo-jumbo. Doesn't work. Tyranny of Structurelessness, If We Burn, and all that. I threaded the needle by creating an org chart comprised of well defined roles. And (most) every team member served in (most) every role, over time. So the person serving in the QA/Test role dutifully executed the QA/Test playbook. And next release they might represent the Engr, TechSupp, etc role. Otherwise known as cross training, but with better support and culture. YMMV, obv. Different efforts require different structures. There's a cornucopia of group decision making tools, skills, techs. Use what works best for the task and context at hand. -- I'm very intrigued by how Oxide Computers is running things. Just from their podcasts, radically open seems like it's working for them.

by mmooss 10mo ago

Earw0rm 10mo ago

Am sure you're already aware, but for others in the thread: Absence of titles does not mean absence of hierarchy. Absence of formal hierarchy doesn't mean absence of social power. At their best, flat hierarchies do as described. At their worst, they take on all the worst aspects of cults together with all the worst aspects of high school. Endless manoeuvring for influence, currying favour, autocratic fiefdoms emerging without people having the mental framework to even identify that they exist. Humans are complicated, and we do seem to have a certain amount of low-level social wiring for hierarchy and pecking order, even if it's far from absolute. I don't know how this applies in the context of Toyota, but there are plenty of places where pushing the Stop button - while formally permitted - has a social cost such that only a certain few are effectively given permission to do so; large amounts of energy are expended either attempting to belong to that few, or currying favour with them. Power tends to accrue to those most inclined to seize it. Whereas in a more formal org, people with "manager" in their title are at least subject to a minimum amount of vetting, training and oversight. TLDR, flat hierarchy can be better than rigid hierarchy, but nominally "flat" hierarchy with power-gradient characteristics can be the worst of both worlds.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
csours 10mo ago
> I don't know how this applies in the context of Toyota, I've never worked for Toyota, but as far as I can tell they take this very seriously. You can look up a history of NUMMI for a case study
cycomanic 10mo ago
> Am sure you're already aware, but for others in the thread: > > Absence of titles does not mean absence of hierarchy. Absence of formal hierarchy doesn't mean absence of social power. > > At their best, flat hierarchies do as described. > > At their worst, they take on all the worst aspects of cults together with all the worst aspects of high school. Endless manoeuvring for influence, currying favour, autocratic fiefdoms emerging without people having the mental framework to even identify that they exist. > > Humans are complicated, and we do seem to have a certain amount of low-level social wiring for hierarchy and pecking order, even if it's far from absolute. > > I don't know how this applies in the context of Toyota, but there are plenty of places where pushing the Stop button - while formally permitted - has a social cost such that only a certain few are effectively given permission to do so; large amounts of energy are expended either attempting to belong to that few, or currying favour with them. Power tends to accrue to those most inclined to seize it. > > Whereas in a more formal org, people with "manager" in their title are at least subject to a minimum amount of vetting, training and oversight. > > TLDR, flat hierarchy can be better than rigid hierarchy, but nominally "flat" hierarchy with power-gradient characteristics can be the worst of both worlds. > Am sure you're already aware, but for others in the thread: > > Absence of titles does not mean absence of hierarchy. Absence of formal hierarchy doesn't mean absence of social power. > > At their best, flat hierarchies do as described. > > At their worst, they take on all the worst aspects of cults together with all the worst aspects of high school. Endless manoeuvring for influence, currying favour, autocratic fiefdoms emerging without people having the mental framework to even identify that they exist. > And that is different from more hierarical organisations how? I mean there are plenty of stories about infiting, thiefdoms, manuvering... in hierarical organisations as well. There's also lots of example we're the disconnect between the top and lower tiers of the hierarchy (i.e. the essence of the hierarchy itself) let to the downfall of the organisation. I also fail to see the connection to the article, the organisation did not seem to have failed (in the view of the author at least), due to the failed "democratic" organisation experiments, but due to the leadership in the current hierarical organisation not listening to the "lower tiers". So if anything it seems to be a problem of the hierarical structure. > Humans are complicated, and we do seem to have a certain amount of low-level social wiring for hierarchy and pecking order, even if it's far from absolute. > I dislike these generalised statements about "human nature", there is way too much uncertainty and plenty of counter examples. That said I agree with some of the other points you made, the post reads a bit weird considering that the author essentially gave up his ability to influence the course of the organisation (both by giving up his leadership seat, but also before by disenganging from the process), and the complains that the organisation did not develop how they wanted.

hluska 10mo ago

Perhaps, but the writer removed themselves from leadership. They can have a whole lot of novel or even good ideas but if they’re not in a place to implement them they’re not going to succeed. Leaving leadership was a terrible decision that any business text would have advised against. You can’t beat a hierarchy unless you’re part of it.

mmooss 10mo ago
An organization has serious problems, and incompetent leaders, if only leaders' ideas are implemented. (That doesn't necessarily disagree with what you said.)

PaulHoule 10mo ago

There is the famous Tyranny of Structureless essay https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm which describes issues that people struggle with to this day. When it comes to activism I think the most effective organizations I've been in have been "structureless" like that with a few people who lead because they are dedicated and have time and energy. Personally when it comes to structure and the issues Jo talks about the cure (structure) is worse than the disease and once we start talking about Robert's Rules and bylaws and fundraising you are already losing people and going off mission. All the discussions about the perception (and somewhat reality) of "Class X of people is not being represented here" tend to turn into knock-down drag out fights, "Class X" never stepping up, and the ultimate reality of nobody being represented except for Robert and bylaws and fundraising. It's not to say structureful organizations aren't useful but I would say organizations are basically right-wing in that they embody social hierarchy and if you feel your structureless organization is fun and exciting and making some difference in your bit of the world the way to save it when structure encroaches is to tear it down and start another one. "Sustainable" groups tend to become what they oppose, structureless groups can seem to come out of nowhere, strike a decisive blow, then melt into the crowd.

specialist 10mo ago
The purpose of RRO assumes majoritarianism while ensuring the minority is heard. As you know, there are light weight versions, for boards and committees. But nothing I'd advocate for product development. > the most effective organizations As a fellow recovering activist, you might be interested in Vincent Bevins' If We Burn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_We_Burn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_We_Burn Connected some dots for me. Things I experienced but wasn't smart enough to sus and articulate.
- PaulHoule 10mo ago
  I agree there is more than one way to look at it. There are good points to RRO but I think the legalism drives away a "silent majority" [1] of people who out of their background or temperament are particularly repelled by it. Over the long term I've seen the governance of organizations like my food co-op be quite complex and not what I thought when things were going on. For instance we had a conflict that boiled for years which looked like a conflict over the vision of the organization but in retrospect it really was the bad personality of the manager because that manager left and went to run Borders [2] and had the same problems over there whereas the conflicting camps reconciled pretty quickly when that manager was out. But there really are tensions over professionalism, vanguardism, and such that we'll be arguing about for a really long time. The asymmetry between the left and right wings is also interesting -- I think left wing organizations have an unhealthy tendency towards centralization because fundraising is more difficult and you get the "membership organization" model that inevitably fails because of the issues pointed out in [3] [4] vs many right wing millionaires that fund parallel right wing causes that compete in a healthy way and always stay on mission because they can be defunded when they go off mission. In 2026 I have a new commitment to activism but Jacobin magazine would rip into my approach as being radically apolitical but I think that is what is needed in 2026. [1] 20 years ago I didn't think I'd be talking like Nixon... [2] Personally I am not inclined to blame individuals, plus that manager had allies, which is why it took me so long to see it [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty

Aurornis 10mo ago

> Much of SV was built using non-hierarchical organizations, often bragging that nobody had a title. The greater corporate world embraced flat organizational structures for 1-2 decades and did very well. I've worked in several "flat" startups and one big company. None of them were actually flat. There's always a hierarchy. There's always an understand chain of command. > Toyota famously gave (gives?) everyone on the assembly line the power to stop production, and they were (are?) considered the pinnicle of automotive manufacturing. This is a good example of how "flat" companies aren't really flat. Assembly line workers can stop production because the assembly line is part of their job. They can't fire anyone or give their peers raises, though. If you ask anyone in the comapny, they can point to the person who can fire them and can give them raises. That's the hierarchy. It always exists.

mmooss 10mo ago
All that says is there is nothing absolute in any way. There are no absolute hierarchies; all have a degree of flatness, of people lower on the hierarchy with more influence than people above them, etc.
- WoodenChair 10mo ago
  Yes, there are degrees of everything. There is cool, kinda cold, cold, very cold. I'm not exactly sure your point? Seems like you are arguing with a straw man. Who said there are not different degrees of flatness or degrees of hierarchy? The previous poster was just saying that there's always some hierarchy, even if it's unwritten, which aligns with "degrees of flatness."

specialist 10mo ago

I've used the group coordination technology of democracy in the workplace. It was both awesome and burdensome. Awesome, because social cognition and personal empowerment are force multipliers. Burdensome, because change is hard, empowerment means accountability, some people would rather complain than contribute. I'd never advocate leaderless, flatness, whatever pseudo anarchist mumbo-jumbo. Doesn't work. Tyranny of Structurelessness, If We Burn, and all that. I threaded the needle by creating an org chart comprised of well defined roles. And (most) every team member served in (most) every role, over time. So the person serving in the QA/Test role dutifully executed the QA/Test playbook. And next release they might represent the Engr, TechSupp, etc role. Otherwise known as cross training, but with better support and culture. YMMV, obv. Different efforts require different structures. There's a cornucopia of group decision making tools, skills, techs. Use what works best for the task and context at hand. -- I'm very intrigued by how Oxide Computers is running things. Just from their podcasts, radically open seems like it's working for them.