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

No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization?

doist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 325 posts

Re: No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization?

#161

Post by gwbas1c »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #9

I would like to refer to the following - The Tyranny of Structurelessness, originally meant to address the concerns regarding 'flat' organizations. "This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a sm…

I should copy and paste this into must discussions about how Bitcoin is awesome because it's decentralized and not controlled by a government.

Re: No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization?

#162

Post by Matticus_Rex »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #44
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #9

I would like to refer to the following - The Tyranny of Structurelessness, originally meant to address the concerns regarding 'flat' organizations. "This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a sm…

A few years ago I joined a company with "self-organizing" teams, which have many similarities to "structureless". It was an awful experience, for me at least. Many important choices were made by people trying to avoid ruffling the feathers of the least-mature team member. My woes were likely compounded by being mildly affected by Asperger syndrome: First, I have an innate preference for clear organization and structu…

This is pretty much the set of insights that led to creating Holacracy (which is all about explicit structure and process) as an upgrade to chaotic, structureless anti-manager methods. I love working in a self-managed, self-organizing company... but only because it runs on Holacracy. I would never (again) work anywhere with a consensus decision-making mechanism.

Re: No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization?

#163

Post by hinkley »

andrelaszlo wrote: post #4
dpeck wrote: post #2

Easy, you simply make the decisions within the confines of the shadow hierarchy that exists within all flat organizations.

I agree with your point but in the end the article was more about efficient decision making in engineering teams and less about flat organizations. Up-voted both the article and your comment :) Reminds me about the stuff I've read about Valve. In theory, and maybe if you have strong healthy de facto leadership it could work. In practice it seems more like an excuse to dodge responsibility, leading to pretty toxic pla…

Jeri Ellsworth after she pulled the ripcord:

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri-ellsworth/

Re: No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization?

#164

Post by wayoutthere »

iguy wrote: post #151
wayoutthere wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! Business schools use a framework of formal power (job title, authority, etc) and informal power (influence and likability). The most effective organizations are the ones where the formal power structures are very close to informal ones. People know how to make decisions. Flat organizations end up being run by the loudest voices in the room. Ironically, flat organizations with largely informal power structure…

"The most effective organizations are the ones where the formal power structures are very close to informal ones " There's a nice parallel here to how parliamentary democracy arose. And conversely, there's no point having a chamber full of the people who you wish had power, if they don't have it.

I think there’s a more HN-relevant one in the way that founder-controlled companies seem to be capable of more growth. There’s not as much backstabbing and jockeying for power because everyone knows who the top dog is. The founder isn’t going to step down unless things go really well (everyone gets rich) or really poorly (everyone gets laid off) so you can’t stab them in the back and take their role. Founders can make decisions with a single vision — design by committee doesn’t produce innovation.

There tend to be problems when founders step back from the top of the formal power structure. Steve Jobs remains the best example I can think of; he wielded immense influence within Apple in the early 80s, but was ultimately a destructive presence once he no longer had formal power because he would go around his bosses to build his pet project (the original Macintosh) and created a corporate culture of distrust and deception. When he left, Apple fell apart culturally and really had no product vision until he rejoined a decade later and resumed the role of founder-CEO.

Re: No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization?

#165

Post by skybrian »

js8 wrote: post #71
currymj wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people who advocate flat or structureless organizations actually have philosophical problems with even direct democracy for decision making. The big objection is to making majority (or even supermajority) decisions binding on the minority, which is seen as coercive. Smaller objections to things like elected positions and parliamentary procedure, which are seen as too hierarchical.

> A lot of people who advocate flat or structureless organizations actually have philosophical problems with even direct democracy for decision making. It seems to me they have a problem with anything, frankly. Mainly I just wanted to point out that democracy is also a flat system and has no kings. Still, majority in democracy happens ad hoc. You don't know on which side of the fence you will sit. At least, in the me…

Seems like democracy can be about concentrating power? At least when electing a president, that's a powerful position.

Re: No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization?

#166

Post by solonagathon »

cortesoft wrote: post #105
solonagathon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historical instances of politically soverign and stable direct democracies are exceedingly rare, and so it is difficult to say definitively that minorities would be treated better or worse than in representative democracy. In the Athenian democracy minorities were inter alia excluded from political decision making - one had to be a male member of the ethnic majority to participate, there was no mechanism for obtainin…

Even if you think direct democracies are the best, how do they scale? As a group (or society) grows, there are simply too many decisions to make for everyone to participate in every decision.

Direct democracy does not imply that everyone participate in every decision, merely that everyone has the potential to do so, with respect to constitutive matters. Prepetory committees would iron out most details.

Re: No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization?

#167

Post by dpeck »

adrianmonk wrote: post #126
dpeck wrote: post #2

Easy, you simply make the decisions within the confines of the shadow hierarchy that exists within all flat organizations.

A slightly radical theory: flat organizations are set up to foster that intentionally. Suppose your company has the idea that they want to identify and reward natural leaders and/or those who test limits and push through boundaries. One way to do it is to tell people your organization is flat, then watch for the people who don't buy that and instead see an opportunity to take charge. You create a situation with a lit…

You may be overestimating how much management is paying attention. As long as things are shipped reasonably close to time and no one is filing lawsuits most stay more concerned with their own goals than that of their staff.

Re: No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization?

#168

Post by logosmonkey »

davidw wrote: post #125
vjeux wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He refers himself as “the leader of Doist’s back-end team” so there is indeed some sort of structure.

Read the comments before the article, and I was kind of hoping that maybe the 'Doists' were a faction within the company. Maybe those that organized around a "bias for action" or something. They frequently go to war with the Architecture Astronauts. Darn!

They prefer the term Archonauts.

Re: No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization?

#169

Post by blotter_paper »

jadbox wrote: post #140
behringer wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what not voting does...

Oh god, no. By not voting, I've surrendered to what the entire crowd wants by average (which might be entirely counter to the direction I want). By giving my vote to someone else to cast, I temporarily empower my leader who stands for my principles or movement, who may understand better which policies to vote for on my behalf.

>By not voting, I've surrendered to what the entire crowd wants by average (which might be entirely counter to the direction I want).

By having a democracy you've surrendered to what the entire crowd wants by average, by not voting you've surrendered to what the rest of the crowd wants by average, and as the size of the crowd grows the distinction between these two states of surrender approaches zero.

Re: No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization?

#170

Post by duskwuff »

jedberg wrote: post #93

I'm still looking for someone who works at Valve who can tell me the nuts and bolts logistics of how things actually work there. If there are no bosses, how are decisions made? How are raises actually determined? They publish their handbook but the logistical details aren't in there.

There was a recent HN thread about this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20099261

In short: power is held by insiders. It's really not all that different from a traditional hierarchical company, except without any job titles to tell newcomers who holds the power, and without the ability to hold managers responsible for the performance of their reports.

Post reply on HN