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

201–210 of 325 posts

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

#201

Post by iguy »

wayoutthere wrote: post #164
iguy wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 mak…

Thanks, now I have this image of Jobs as the chief narco, menacing some UN-approved banana-republic democracy which really only controls a little green zone in the capital...

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

#202

Post by bitexploder »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #159
sametmax wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most flat org I've seen are not flat. The people naturally organised in tribes that are only known by themself, and that are in no organigram. Each tribe have an implicit leader that bears no title yet influences all decisions just by regular social interractions. Tribes communicate, negociate even, through the implicit leaders even if not directly. Some kind of overuling bdfl also oversees all tribes, like a king, i…

Also, authority by expertise vs authority by hierarchy make a big difference. As in, people have the security guy vet their security decisions — not because he has power over them but because they trust his expertise. Suddenly everything becomes easy and self organized.

Referent power — people listen to you because they want to be like you. Even for leaders in a position of authority this is often the most powerful way to lead and influence.

https://www.toolshero.com/leadership/five-forms-of-power-fre...

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

#203

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

You can have structureless orgs on boards for significant organizations but people need to be accountable for a well-understood scope.

My little league has a president at 20 board members. There is a president and 4-5 committee chairs. (IIRC finance, concession, baseball and grounds) Somebody is responsible for the snack bar, but any board member may be on duty running it at any time.

I've worked on good sized project teams where there was a sponsor (the king), the PM (task guy) and 10-20 contributors. It most mostly democratic as long as the milestones were hit.

I've worked in "flat orgs" where there are 100 employees, a director/vp/king, and a big band of equals. Just like in Animal Farm, some of the animals are more equal than others.

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

#205

Post by kthejoker2 »

lucb1e wrote: post #180
elamje wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a good podcast with a famous FBI negotiator, Chris Voss, who recommends if you want to sway someone, frame it as, "are you opposed to doing X?" rather than "should we do X?". People are more likely to agree with the former.

Would that still work after having worked in such an organisation for years, if the question is always phrased that way, or is it just an uncommon way of phrasing that works only so long as people are not yet thoroughly used to it?

Getting a shared mindset on what's at stake with a decision, regardless of the outcome, is the critical point.

This is a great way to understand if anything at all is at stake.

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

#206

Post by blotter_paper »

veddox wrote: post #191
blotter_paper wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like your cynical take, but I'm not convinced it's actually the goal of management in all cases. I could see it drifting in that direction over time regardless. That said, some founders are actually idealists. I frequently discuss this topic with people who are aware of the invisible hierarchy problem and are interested in potential solutions. I think there are well-meaning attempts at this, even if they don't work…

> the invisible hierarchy problem I'm not in favour of flat systems for exactly this reason. I think they try to solve the problem of bad leadership structurally, by simply pretending to abolish leadership. IMO, it would better be addressed personally - e.g. by investing in leadership training or vetting candidates for leadership roles more thoroughly.

I think some people, myself included, are coming at this with an ideological lense. The problem we want to solve isn't bad leadership, it's leadership in general. Hierarchy is a problem for us, and it's just as valid a problem to pick as human suffering or anything else. Coming at things from this angle, investing in leadership training is addressing a different problem entirely. I suspect that the "flat" organizations we've seen, such as Valve, have some pretty major shortcomings. I could see there being solutions to some of these shortcomings through technology and game-theory (decision making apps with specifics I don't know the details of), and I also think there might organizational structures somewhere between the traditional hierarchy and a flat structure where small hierarchies exist in a flat higher-level organization (I get how an interpretation of this can converge on the current higher-order ecosystem of corporations, but there are other directions you can take it).

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

#208

Post by icebraining »

sametmax wrote: post #185
andrei_says_ wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, authority by expertise vs authority by hierarchy make a big difference. As in, people have the security guy vet their security decisions — not because he has power over them but because they trust his expertise. Suddenly everything becomes easy and self organized.

When "everything becomes easy and self organized", it's generally because there is an implicit leader that makes it so. You may not see the leader, as he or she may have no title or recognition. But it's the person that people go to when they have problems, it's the person people turn their head to during disagreements in meetings, it's the person that will go from party to party to discuss "off-the-record" and do th…

Is it always a single person?

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

#209

Post by ivanhoe »

There's one thing I've learned from white water rafting: On slow parts democracy works fine - everyone discussing about the best path - but when things start happening fast you need a single captain to make the calls, otherwise you end up hitting every single rock in the river while trying to agree if it's better to go left or right around it.

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

#210

Post by ip26 »

EGreg wrote: post #109
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 disagree. I oppose concentrations of power. Will there be a certain power disparity and hegemony of certain particiants in their little groups? Sure, but as long as they are prevented or discouraged by various mechanisms from joining together into still larger groups, then everyone still has a fighting chance of opposing them or switching groups. The trouble arises when you have concentrations of power. Just look a…

You really should read the essay. One of the takeaways for me was that it is easier to concentrate power in a "structureless" group because it is simply taken. Structure is expressly one way to control & limit the concentration of power.
Post reply on HN