6 ms·

This was an excellent read. I feel like it's coming from the trenches from someone who's had much experience creating structureless groups.... tldr: the conclu

by awongh 13y ago

This was an excellent read. I feel like it's coming from the trenches from someone who's had much experience creating structureless groups.... tldr: the conclusion/action points are: Principles of Democratic Structuring 1) Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. 2) Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to those who selected them. 3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. 4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. 5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. 6) Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. 7) Equal access to resources needed by the group.

jrochkind1 13y ago
Thanks for this comment. I think too often this essay is interpreted as an argument for hierarchical control, when that is not what it seems to me to be arguing for, or how it would have been interpreted in the context it was written -- where a commitment to egalitarian and democratic organization was a baseline assumption. The thing is, egalitarian organization is hard, and the contribution of this valuable essay is to point put that simply abolishing structure does't get you there -- and to specifically point out how it can still lead to hierarchy and authoritarianism. But that hierarchy and authoritarianism are still identified as the problem --requiring solutions other than structurelessness-- not the solution to some other problem! which leaves me curious what is being suggested as the applicability to github. I wonder if those at github actually see it as an org committed to democracy or egalitarianism. to me, despite an unusually flat org chart, its still a company with certain people in charge and certain equity owners, dedicated to efficiency and profit for it's owners.
- pron 13y ago
  The problem isn't hierarchy or authoritarianism (though the latter is a symptom of it), but the distribution of power in any organization (or society), regardless of its goals. The point is simple: shying away from a clear power structure results only in an unfair and unmanageable distribution of power. Companies like GitHub, that believe in "self-organizations" would often fall into this trap once they grow large enough. Julie Ann Horvath's story at GitHub demonstrates how events unfold when the power structure isn't explicit.
  - mjn 13y ago
    I agree that's true, but I think that's more or less the problem this essay is tackling also (which I guess is why it ended up here). There is a pretty long history of anti-authoritarian political movements running into the problem that the first step of abolishing formal titles and declaring that your group has a flat hierarchy with collective leadership is... not enough to remove the actual existence of authority. If anything it can sometimes be worse because now there is a boss but it's not explicit, and you have to be "in the know" to even know who calls the shots. While at least with a President or CEO or Supreme Leader the actual boss is labeled, and everyone has fair notice of who he/she is. So the problem is what to do about that: abandon the flat-hierarchy idea, or try to push it further into a really-flat-in-practice organization?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > So the problem is what to do about that: abandon the flat-hierarchy idea, or try to push it further into a really-flat-in-practice organization? Given that "really flat in practice" only works for societies like ants, I would tend to argue in most cases for the former, if only because it's more in keeping with what's actually going to happen anyways. Even at places like Valve, the whole idea isn't to be flat, as much as it's to allow for the "best" sub-teams to arise naturally instead of management forming broken org. structures. But when you use annealing to form your teams you don't just form teams, you form all sorts of other unintended (and possibly harmful) cliques as well. And once you get above Dunbar's Number or thereabouts it becomes impossible to keep pointed in the right direction.
      - jrochkind1 13y ago
        That's definitely not the argument Freeman was making in the OP though, right? She ends with some suggestions for how to structure an organization to be actually non-hiearchical and with equal sharing of power, instead of assuming structureless will get you there. What have we learned from trying these things and similar in the 30 years since she wrote the essay? On what basis, what sort of research or experience, do you conclude with certainty that 'really flat' (do you mean egalitarian, democratic, non-hieararchical, non-authoritarian in general?) organizations are only possible for 'societies' (do you mean 'species'?) 'like ants'? Of course, she wasn't talking about businesses at all. "Even at places like Valve" have no real interest in an egalitarian sharing of power, they have an interest in efficiency and profit, and whatever organizational structure can give them that best. An entirely different context than Freeman was interested in, Freeman was interested in building a radical social movement, and was concerned about an equal democratic sharing of power and privilege -- and what sorts of devices or structures can give them that the best. Which may or may not be accomplished via 'really flat' organization, that's part of the discussion.
MaysonL 13y ago
Interesting that these are essentially what the 12-step movements have come up with as organizational principles, starting with AA in the '50s. (With a few twists, such as random election when no candidate gets 2/3 majority after 4 or 5 ballots, with elimination of low-vote candidates after rounds 2, 3, and possibly 4).

by awongh 13y ago

jrochkind1 13y ago

Thanks for this comment. I think too often this essay is interpreted as an argument for hierarchical control, when that is not what it seems to me to be arguing for, or how it would have been interpreted in the context it was written -- where a commitment to egalitarian and democratic organization was a baseline assumption. The thing is, egalitarian organization is hard, and the contribution of this valuable essay is to point put that simply abolishing structure does't get you there -- and to specifically point out how it can still lead to hierarchy and authoritarianism. But that hierarchy and authoritarianism are still identified as the problem --requiring solutions other than structurelessness-- not the solution to some other problem! which leaves me curious what is being suggested as the applicability to github. I wonder if those at github actually see it as an org committed to democracy or egalitarianism. to me, despite an unusually flat org chart, its still a company with certain people in charge and certain equity owners, dedicated to efficiency and profit for it's owners.

pron 13y ago
The problem isn't hierarchy or authoritarianism (though the latter is a symptom of it), but the distribution of power in any organization (or society), regardless of its goals. The point is simple: shying away from a clear power structure results only in an unfair and unmanageable distribution of power. Companies like GitHub, that believe in "self-organizations" would often fall into this trap once they grow large enough. Julie Ann Horvath's story at GitHub demonstrates how events unfold when the power structure isn't explicit.
- mjn 13y ago
  I agree that's true, but I think that's more or less the problem this essay is tackling also (which I guess is why it ended up here). There is a pretty long history of anti-authoritarian political movements running into the problem that the first step of abolishing formal titles and declaring that your group has a flat hierarchy with collective leadership is... not enough to remove the actual existence of authority. If anything it can sometimes be worse because now there is a boss but it's not explicit, and you have to be "in the know" to even know who calls the shots. While at least with a President or CEO or Supreme Leader the actual boss is labeled, and everyone has fair notice of who he/she is. So the problem is what to do about that: abandon the flat-hierarchy idea, or try to push it further into a really-flat-in-practice organization?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > So the problem is what to do about that: abandon the flat-hierarchy idea, or try to push it further into a really-flat-in-practice organization? Given that "really flat in practice" only works for societies like ants, I would tend to argue in most cases for the former, if only because it's more in keeping with what's actually going to happen anyways. Even at places like Valve, the whole idea isn't to be flat, as much as it's to allow for the "best" sub-teams to arise naturally instead of management forming broken org. structures. But when you use annealing to form your teams you don't just form teams, you form all sorts of other unintended (and possibly harmful) cliques as well. And once you get above Dunbar's Number or thereabouts it becomes impossible to keep pointed in the right direction.
    - jrochkind1 13y ago
      That's definitely not the argument Freeman was making in the OP though, right? She ends with some suggestions for how to structure an organization to be actually non-hiearchical and with equal sharing of power, instead of assuming structureless will get you there. What have we learned from trying these things and similar in the 30 years since she wrote the essay? On what basis, what sort of research or experience, do you conclude with certainty that 'really flat' (do you mean egalitarian, democratic, non-hieararchical, non-authoritarian in general?) organizations are only possible for 'societies' (do you mean 'species'?) 'like ants'? Of course, she wasn't talking about businesses at all. "Even at places like Valve" have no real interest in an egalitarian sharing of power, they have an interest in efficiency and profit, and whatever organizational structure can give them that best. An entirely different context than Freeman was interested in, Freeman was interested in building a radical social movement, and was concerned about an equal democratic sharing of power and privilege -- and what sorts of devices or structures can give them that the best. Which may or may not be accomplished via 'really flat' organization, that's part of the discussion.

MaysonL 13y ago

Interesting that these are essentially what the 12-step movements have come up with as organizational principles, starting with AA in the '50s. (With a few twists, such as random election when no candidate gets 2/3 majority after 4 or 5 ballots, with elimination of low-vote candidates after rounds 2, 3, and possibly 4).