4 ms·

There is always a hierarchy. Either it is explicit or it is implicit (which does not mean I'm pro explicit hierarchies)

• iamwithnail 11y ago
  I think that's kind of right - it's the explicit awareness of hierarchy or other structures that works. (I'd argue that actually you can have hierarchy-less (sp?) organisations, but they require particular consideration - but you'll still overlay other assemblages - social hierarchies or whatever, on top of it. I did a bit responding to the Tony Hsieh email from our perspective as a company that's trying to implement Holarchy right now: http://blog.granttree.co.uk/post/117079306181/zappos-two-point-no http://blog.granttree.co.uk/post/117079306181/zappos-two-poi...
• TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  "Interestingly, none of the organizations I have researched for the book Reinventing Organizations are employee-owned; the question of employee ownership doesn’t seem to matter very much when power is truly distributed." Excuse me while I raise a questioning eyebrow.
• scott_s 11y ago
  That's the stance taken in a famous feminist essay from 1970, "The Tyranny of Structurelessness": http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7409611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7409611
• a3n 11y ago
  Yeah, and the problem with implicit hierarchies is that people are always wondering who has the power today. It's like the Roman Senate.