And since human nature limits the size of group that can work together, the only way I can imagine for larger groups to avoid tree structure would be to have no structure: to have each group actually be independent, and to work together the way components of a market economy do. That might be worth exploring. I suspect there are already some highly partitionable businesses that lean this way. But I don't know any tec…
You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss
11–20 of 54 posts
Re: You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss
#12Sure, because no hunter/gatherer tribes had a chief, medicine woman or other revered person who both gave direction to their tribe, and to whom the tribe was responsible.
A pretty weak argument against bosses. Humans naturally tend to form hierarchies - the boss is simply one node in that hierarchy.
That some people thrive in such positions doesn't mean it's our natural state.
Re: You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss
#13But I think this is the weakest part of the article : "And since human nature limits the size of group that can work together, the only way I can imagine for larger groups to avoid tree structure would be to have no structure: to have each group actually be independent, and to work together the way components of a market economy do." There's a reason for that . Ronald Coase in his Theory of the firm explained that th…
Case study: At Sears, Eddie Lampert's Warring Divisions Model Adds to the Troubles
Eddie Lampert’s big idea is that markets and competition rool, so
he’s forcing the different parts of Sears to compete for resources
just as if they were independent firms, with individual division
profitability the only criterion for success.
...
If the different divisions of Sears have no common interests,
if the best model is competition red in tooth and claw, why should
Sears exist at all? Why not just break it up into units that have
no reason not to compete?
For that matter, why should any large firm exist? Why not just have
small firms, or maybe just individuals, who make deals for whatever
they need?
...
There are some things you don't want to leave up to the market — the
market itself is telling us that, by creating islands of
planning and hierarchy.
And here: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-edd...
Re: You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss
#14But I think this is the weakest part of the article : "And since human nature limits the size of group that can work together, the only way I can imagine for larger groups to avoid tree structure would be to have no structure: to have each group actually be independent, and to work together the way components of a market economy do." There's a reason for that . Ronald Coase in his Theory of the firm explained that th…
Case study: At Sears, Eddie Lampert's Warring Divisions Model Adds to the Troubles Eddie Lampert’s big idea is that markets and competition rool, so he’s forcing the different parts of Sears to compete for resources just as if they were independent firms, with individual division profitability the only criterion for success. ... If the different divisions of Sears have no common interests, if the best model is compet…
My own company works this way. It's absolutely ridiculous. Each division hoards good programmers , projects and expertise, and people sometimes get stuck in other divisions without much work , while a few efficiently managed divisions land all the good work , leading to all the good people in the poor divisons leaving because they aren't growing , it's almost like working in a different company if you're in a different division.
Re: You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss
#15> Another thing you notice when you see animals in the wild is that each species thrives in groups of a certain size. This is another reason why we should really limit companies to a maximum size. Other reasons are that companies should not become too big to fail, and that smaller companies lead to a more modular economy, where one company uses the outputs of several other companies, instead of having a few MegaCorps…
smaller companies lead to a more modular economy
This is a very interesting point, which I would extend to saying that it might lead to a more resilient economy.
The trouble is, scale is such a powerful thing. When you look at industries like the automobile industry, or even inside technology the chip industry, you appreciate that. It's hard to imagine modern fabs being run by groups of less than 100 people, for example. (Interestingly, this is something that might change in the extremely long run as production technology matures.)
Re: You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss
#16Re: You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss
#17> Another thing you notice when you see animals in the wild is that each species thrives in groups of a certain size. This is another reason why we should really limit companies to a maximum size. Other reasons are that companies should not become too big to fail, and that smaller companies lead to a more modular economy, where one company uses the outputs of several other companies, instead of having a few MegaCorps…
smaller companies lead to a more modular economy This is a very interesting point, which I would extend to saying that it might lead to a more resilient economy. The trouble is, scale is such a powerful thing. When you look at industries like the automobile industry, or even inside technology the chip industry, you appreciate that. It's hard to imagine modern fabs being run by groups of less than 100 people, for exam…
There's an argument to be made for larger companies in terms of resilience: they will usually be able to absorb more risk. Modularity of small companies is good for if they fail, but I suspect they are more likely to fail. I don't have an opinion one way or another, just musing.
Re: You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss
#18Animal analogy is interesting. Any animals that cultivate crops? Are there any Human hunter/gatherer societies that scaled?
Here's a snippet of dialog from one of my favorite movies:
Jeremiah Johnson: You wouldn't happen to know what month of the year it is?
Bear Claw: Why no, I truly wouldn't. I'm sorry, pilgrim. Winter's a long time going?
Jeremiah Johnson: [exhausted] Ah.
Bear Claw: Stays long this high.
Jeremiah Johnson: March. Maybe, April.
Bear Claw: March maybe. I don't believe April. [rising to depart] March is a green muddy month down below, some folks like it, FARMERS mostly.
---
Recently, a company that I worked at was acquired. Felt like like farming. So, I bailed; hunting for something new.
Re: You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss
#19And since human nature limits the size of group that can work together, the only way I can imagine for larger groups to avoid tree structure would be to have no structure: to have each group actually be independent, and to work together the way components of a market economy do. That might be worth exploring. I suspect there are already some highly partitionable businesses that lean this way. But I don't know any tec…
github too http://www.fastcompany.com/3020181/open-company/inside-githu...
And Morning Star, Zappos, Stripe, Medium, Semco, W L Gore, Whole Foods, and others... http://danieltenner.com/open-cultures
Re: You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
smaller companies lead to a more modular economy This is a very interesting point, which I would extend to saying that it might lead to a more resilient economy. The trouble is, scale is such a powerful thing. When you look at industries like the automobile industry, or even inside technology the chip industry, you appreciate that. It's hard to imagine modern fabs being run by groups of less than 100 people, for exam…
There's an argument to be made for larger companies in terms of resilience: they will usually be able to absorb more risk. Modularity of small companies is good for if they fail, but I suspect they are more likely to fail. I don't have an opinion one way or another, just musing.
[deleted]