3 ms·

Actual anarchy is not chaos, it's non reliance on authority.

by snitko 12y ago

logfromblammo 12y ago
Except in this case, the authority has predetermined the roles of the team, and has its hand on the money faucet the whole time. This wasn't a condition of no authority, it was a condition of minimal interference by the authority, which is more aptly termed laissez-faire, from the French for "let [them] do [it]". The article describes placing a ball at the top of a hill, and conveys a sort of perplexed astonishment that it reaches the bottom without needing any additional pushing.
- snitko 12y ago
  Nobody forced them to participate. There are many employers out there. Developers could find other jobs had they wished so. An employer cannot be considered an authority because he and the employee enter a job contract voluntarily and both have choices.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    An employer-employee relationship is inherently authoritative. It is literally an arrangement wherein the employee agrees to do as the employer commands, in exchange for an agreed-upon amount of money. The non-authoritative equivalent would be offering a bounty for the desired work, or granting a patronage gift to members of a development team, in the hopes that they produce something pleasing to the patron, and gift it in return. Such arrangements are practically nonexistent, because most businesses prefer to be authoritative. The modal corporate structure is a command hierarchy, wherein the board of directors selects a chief executive, who commands the other C-level executives, who command their middle managers, who command their floor managers, who command the workers. This is so common that I don't even know what sort of business structure is next when ordered by frequency. Per-unit payments to qualified independent contractors? Employee-owned co-op? Municipal utility managed by elected citizens' board? I have no idea. Practically every company I do business with is a corporation with a command hierarchy, where every command potentially comes with an expected value calculation including the cost to issue it and the expected revenue if it is obeyed. I uncertain as to what confusion of ideas led you to believe that an employer-employee relationship is non-authoritative, but I think that you may be presuming that having choices is the same as having freedom. It is not.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Employee-owned co-op? Employee-owned co-ops often follow the same corporate structure, except that the board is elected by the coop members (generally, non-probationary employees).
      - logfromblammo 12y ago
        This must be why Valve gets press for their environment. It is the only company (for which I have any awareness of the internal management structure) that deviates so far from the norm. Is it because hierarchical command is actually more efficient, or because no one ever got fired (or failed to get funded) for choosing it?

Actual anarchy is not chaos, it's non reliance on authority.

by snitko 12y ago

Actual anarchy is not chaos, it's non reliance on authority.

Except in this case, the authority has predetermined the roles of the team, and has its hand on the money faucet the whole time. This wasn't a condition of no authority, it was a condition of minimal interference by the authority, which is more aptly termed laissez-faire, from the French for "let [them] do [it]". The article describes placing a ball at the top of a hill, and conveys a sort of perplexed astonishment that it reaches the bottom without needing any additional pushing.

snitko 12y ago
Nobody forced them to participate. There are many employers out there. Developers could find other jobs had they wished so. An employer cannot be considered an authority because he and the employee enter a job contract voluntarily and both have choices.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  An employer-employee relationship is inherently authoritative. It is literally an arrangement wherein the employee agrees to do as the employer commands, in exchange for an agreed-upon amount of money. The non-authoritative equivalent would be offering a bounty for the desired work, or granting a patronage gift to members of a development team, in the hopes that they produce something pleasing to the patron, and gift it in return. Such arrangements are practically nonexistent, because most businesses prefer to be authoritative. The modal corporate structure is a command hierarchy, wherein the board of directors selects a chief executive, who commands the other C-level executives, who command their middle managers, who command their floor managers, who command the workers. This is so common that I don't even know what sort of business structure is next when ordered by frequency. Per-unit payments to qualified independent contractors? Employee-owned co-op? Municipal utility managed by elected citizens' board? I have no idea. Practically every company I do business with is a corporation with a command hierarchy, where every command potentially comes with an expected value calculation including the cost to issue it and the expected revenue if it is obeyed. I uncertain as to what confusion of ideas led you to believe that an employer-employee relationship is non-authoritative, but I think that you may be presuming that having choices is the same as having freedom. It is not.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Employee-owned co-op? Employee-owned co-ops often follow the same corporate structure, except that the board is elected by the coop members (generally, non-probationary employees).
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      This must be why Valve gets press for their environment. It is the only company (for which I have any awareness of the internal management structure) that deviates so far from the norm. Is it because hierarchical command is actually more efficient, or because no one ever got fired (or failed to get funded) for choosing it?