Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1972)

jofreeman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1972)

#41

Post by TeMPOraL »

erikb wrote: post #35
quanticle wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not relieve us entirely from social or political pressures, but formal lines of authority can serve as a bulwark against capricious turns of political luck. In an organization with formally defined management responsibilities, you know who to escalate to when you get conflicting requirements. If A has formal authority over the group, and tells you that you should be focusing on, say, improving the build syste…

So the difference between our opinions is basically that you think formal power is most important and informal power only a nuance to that, and I think informal power is most important and formal power only a nuance to that. For me it's good to know that people still exist who can believe in the first. I also started out like that but the little experience I could gather from this world taught me otherwise.

I think what the GP is saying is that navigating through the office politics is like crossing a minefield; formal structure at least shows you where most of the mines are located; holocracy means you have no clue, no map.

Re: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1972)

#42

Post by x5n1 »

golemotron wrote: post #10
quanticle wrote: post #3

This brings to mind something I said a while ago about Holocracy. Holocracy doesn't get rid of your managers. Rather it just prevents you from knowing who your manager is. Instead of having clearly defined priorities (e.g. I need to handle requests from person A before I handle requests from person B), you have to do a subtle political calculation, evaluating the relative social capital of person A and person B befor…

The challenge for society going forward is to recognize this and to not reflexively try to remove all authority and hierarchy. OSS does well with the BDFL model ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life ). The people who practice it best use their authority to set tone and agenda and then step back to let people own their participation. They step back in only when they have to. In universities toda…

Society going forward is not going to need producers. Most of the jobs are going the way of the dodo along with the concept of management, etc. Going forward, we need better political structures that don't need to feed egos of sociopaths. Corporations by their very nature are tyrannical dictatorships. Human society should be more about humanism and less about sociopaths and production and consumption.

Re: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1972)

#43

Post by coldtea »

aninhumer wrote: post #25
coldtea wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think anyone would advocate a structure in which they themselves would be less valued than they are currently, that's for sure. Except if they genuinely believe in equality and hate being above/managing other people, but rather be equal part of a team, even if that means losing their managing privileges... It's not like there are no people who didn't dislike management and wanted (and some did) get back to…

Except you probably can give up management if you really want to, but you'll probably have to take a pay cut. Which is kind of the OP's point. It's not that you want to be less valued as a manager, it's that you want to be more valued as a programmer.

>Except you probably can give up management if you really want to, but you'll probably have to take a pay cut. Which is kind of the OP's point.

And I've seen people do that too, why the disbelief?

Turn down more highly paid managerial positions, because they'd rather not be leading people.

Re: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1972)

#44

Post by futuravenir »

dalke wrote: post #26
futuravenir wrote: post #16

I'm in the middle of reading "Reinventing Organisations" and it's absolutely wonderful. It examines a handful of organisations that are doing it differently (including Holocracy) and takes notes about how their techniques compare and what they might have in common. It's basically the blueprints towards building the next most efficient organisation. I highly recommend it. http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/

Does it cover the cooperative model, like the Mondragon Corporation, or the Wobbly shop? I can't find a table of contents, and DDG finds no reference to Mongragon or Wobbly on the web site. I figure that a book which doesn't discuss those two alternative forms of business organization is hiding something. For examples, hiding who owns and controls the capital, or hiding that it's not really a new model but has been a…

I'm about a third of the way through the book. It's tough to say whether it covers 'the cooperative model' because so far, it approaches aspects of business quite individually.

Here's the table of contents: https://i.imgur.com/OS9XGhN.jpg

Re: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1972)

#45

Post by jarofgreen »

walshemj wrote: post #38
dalke wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it cover the cooperative model, like the Mondragon Corporation, or the Wobbly shop? I can't find a table of contents, and DDG finds no reference to Mongragon or Wobbly on the web site. I figure that a book which doesn't discuss those two alternative forms of business organization is hiding something. For examples, hiding who owns and controls the capital, or hiding that it's not really a new model but has been a…

John Lewis is a coop like Mondragon - which makes me doubt the source your quoting.

Knew someone who worked for them years back. They said the co-op thing meant very little to individual workers like them, it basically amounted to a newsletter regularly. I don't know enough details to argue either way, except to observe that just because something says it is a co-op doesn't mean individual workers really feel empowered.

Re: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1972)

#46

Post by dalke »

futuravenir wrote: post #44
dalke wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it cover the cooperative model, like the Mondragon Corporation, or the Wobbly shop? I can't find a table of contents, and DDG finds no reference to Mongragon or Wobbly on the web site. I figure that a book which doesn't discuss those two alternative forms of business organization is hiding something. For examples, hiding who owns and controls the capital, or hiding that it's not really a new model but has been a…

I'm about a third of the way through the book. It's tough to say whether it covers 'the cooperative model' because so far, it approaches aspects of business quite individually. Here's the table of contents: https://i.imgur.com/OS9XGhN.jpg

Thank you! It's hard to tell from the list if it covers coop models. It would be in Board/Ownership, starting on page 251.

One clue earlier might be if the workers can fire the CEO and decide CEO pay.

Re: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1972)

#47

Post by erikb »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #41
erikb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the difference between our opinions is basically that you think formal power is most important and informal power only a nuance to that, and I think informal power is most important and formal power only a nuance to that. For me it's good to know that people still exist who can believe in the first. I also started out like that but the little experience I could gather from this world taught me otherwise.

I think what the GP is saying is that navigating through the office politics is like crossing a minefield; formal structure at least shows you where most of the mines are located; holocracy means you have no clue, no map.

Yes and I think the map is too old and outdated and lacks detail.

Re: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1972)

#48

Post by eru »

x5n1 wrote: post #42
golemotron wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The challenge for society going forward is to recognize this and to not reflexively try to remove all authority and hierarchy. OSS does well with the BDFL model ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life ). The people who practice it best use their authority to set tone and agenda and then step back to let people own their participation. They step back in only when they have to. In universities toda…

Society going forward is not going to need producers. Most of the jobs are going the way of the dodo along with the concept of management, etc. Going forward, we need better political structures that don't need to feed egos of sociopaths. Corporations by their very nature are tyrannical dictatorships. Human society should be more about humanism and less about sociopaths and production and consumption.

> Corporations by their very nature are tyrannical dictatorships.

How so? A boss can only ask for so much before people leave.

(And yes, bad management of the economy can make it hard to find a new job. That's a wider political problem.)

Re: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1972)

#49

Post by eru »

erikb wrote: post #47
TeMPOraL wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what the GP is saying is that navigating through the office politics is like crossing a minefield; formal structure at least shows you where most of the mines are located; holocracy means you have no clue, no map.

Yes and I think the map is too old and outdated and lacks detail.

At least the map gives you excuses---ie harder to get fired for doing what your boss tells you. Your detractors will have to make up another charge.

Re: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1972)

#50

Post by aninhumer »

coldtea wrote: post #43
aninhumer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you probably can give up management if you really want to, but you'll probably have to take a pay cut. Which is kind of the OP's point. It's not that you want to be less valued as a manager, it's that you want to be more valued as a programmer.

> Except you probably can give up management if you really want to, but you'll probably have to take a pay cut. Which is kind of the OP's point. And I've seen people do that too, why the disbelief? Turn down more highly paid managerial positions, because they'd rather not be leading people.

Sure, but if they're fully satisfied by that then they're not the ones advocating structural change, so they're not counterexamples to the OP's claim.

(Arguably changing an individual's role is still restructuring, but I think the OP was talking about more comprehensive restructuring suggestions.)

Post reply on HN