3 ms·

when shit hits the fan and you need a synchronized effort by many to reach a common goal, the hierarchical organization is the best. proven over thousands of ye

when shit hits the fan and you need a synchronized effort by many to reach a common goal, the hierarchical organization is the best. proven over thousands of years of human development. past a certain size these hierarchies do not work, hence you break them down and then let them compete against each other. look outside of software and see how humans have organised, what has worked and what not. the modern army is a great test bed for any form of team effort, they try out everything in large, controlled samples. one of the few organisations where management is a distinct set of skills you need to prove to have (officers, NCO, etc.). strategy comes from the top, defines the goals, objectives. smaller teams then take those goals and have freedom to execute against them - but only in the how, not the when. orchestration, synchronization of those teams is management, pure and simple. leading by objectives. then measuring the outcomes and defining what to do better the next time, executed in AARs (after action reviews). making sure the right things are done at the right time. removing obstacles, managing resources (hiring, etc.) - all of that is management. capitalist societies still have management as well, it's called government, selected representatives to manage a country. difference to feudalism is rule of law and a process to elect people in the ruling structure.

Ovid 13y ago
I'm happy you used the military as an example because I'm talking about markets. A military is precisely the place where a command-and-control structure is paramount. They do not have, and should not have "price signals" directing what they do. Their goals and motivations are entirely distinct from a profit-driven corporation. I think we should all feel grateful for that :) Edit: as an aside, I did have a military analogy in my talk at one point and I used guerrilla warfare as the classic example of where a smaller force, with fewer resources, can take on a larger, well-organized force. In some ways guerrilla warfare can resemble Agile, but though I loved the analogy, I cut it from my training because it felt like too much of a stretch.
- lymie 13y ago
  If you want to know more about how the command and control structures of the military align with and compare to modern capitalism you can read up on "Creative Destruction"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction) for a 1000 foot view of capitalism in general, but more importantly you should research the ways in which the unique brand of capitalism expressed by massive American conglomerations stifle competition. There is a wealth of information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy) about how the militaristic, "Grow and Destroy" mentality undermines traditional competition in capitalism and stems from the military model of management. Command and Control and Grow and Destroy capitalism is, in a sense, the antithesis of real capitalism which requires competition to function.
- mchusma 13y ago
  I think these are good arguments, but that said, the market mechanisms at most companies today are relatively weak. Just because the organization exists within a market, doesn't mean that the organization itself acts like a market. I think the reality of companies today is much more like benevolent dictatorships than anything else.
  - Ovid 13y ago
    Completely agreed. This is one of the main points I made in the original reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6547517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6547517).

Ovid 13y ago

I'm happy you used the military as an example because I'm talking about markets. A military is precisely the place where a command-and-control structure is paramount. They do not have, and should not have "price signals" directing what they do. Their goals and motivations are entirely distinct from a profit-driven corporation. I think we should all feel grateful for that :) Edit: as an aside, I did have a military analogy in my talk at one point and I used guerrilla warfare as the classic example of where a smaller force, with fewer resources, can take on a larger, well-organized force. In some ways guerrilla warfare can resemble Agile, but though I loved the analogy, I cut it from my training because it felt like too much of a stretch.

lymie 13y ago
If you want to know more about how the command and control structures of the military align with and compare to modern capitalism you can read up on "Creative Destruction"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction) for a 1000 foot view of capitalism in general, but more importantly you should research the ways in which the unique brand of capitalism expressed by massive American conglomerations stifle competition. There is a wealth of information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy) about how the militaristic, "Grow and Destroy" mentality undermines traditional competition in capitalism and stems from the military model of management. Command and Control and Grow and Destroy capitalism is, in a sense, the antithesis of real capitalism which requires competition to function.
mchusma 13y ago
I think these are good arguments, but that said, the market mechanisms at most companies today are relatively weak. Just because the organization exists within a market, doesn't mean that the organization itself acts like a market. I think the reality of companies today is much more like benevolent dictatorships than anything else.
- Ovid 13y ago
  Completely agreed. This is one of the main points I made in the original reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6547517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6547517).