No Kings: How Do You Make Good Decisions Efficiently in a Flat Organization? • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by abvdasker » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 5:04 AM UTC

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…

Structurelessness must be distinguished from established structures with a flat hierarchy. Codifying a non-hierarchical structure with explicit rules and norms counters the above situation where a few people start to become dominant through more informal means, and everyone else is left confused.

Flat hierarchies are not necessarily structureless and need not suffer from the drawbacks described above.

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

#282

Post by yakshaving_jgt » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 5:19 AM UTC

surge wrote: post #56

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I prefer the Scandinavian (specifically Swedish approach) that I experienced at a prior company. It has its shortcomings of course. But put simply, there is a clear hierarchy, but generally most decisions are made by establishing consensus or compromise between all involved parties, the "manager/boss" only steps in to resolve or veto/tie break if none can be reached. It's not structure-less, and there are certainly t…

I have worked in several Swedish companies, and I prefer the Swedish approach of not having several layers of hierarchy, but I really don't prefer the Swedish approach of just about everything needing full consensus, or being a total democracy.

Basically I recognise the problems described in the article.

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

#283

Post by maxxxxx » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 5:22 AM UTC

suchire wrote: post #273

achenatx wrote: post #79

The problem with explicit leadership positions is that people have no downward mobility. If you are bad, then the organization loses a great resource. I like the model of dept head in academia. Professors really want to be doing research, but they also need a dept head who handles administration. No one really wants to do it, so it rotates through the department. There are some perks like a pay bump, reduced teaching…

The way my workplace addresses this is: 1. Transitioning to management or tech lead is not a promotion, but a change in responsibilities (and transitions back are common); 2. Whether manager or IC, we only promote people based on demonstrated ability, not potential, to avoid the Peter Principle

I think 1. is very good In most companies the rational decision is to go into management because you make more money. If that incentive is removed I think we will have better managers and individual contributors because they could choose their path without financial preasure.

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

#284

Post by cf498 » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 5:38 AM UTC

solonagathon wrote: post #97

hpschrei wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on the several reasons in your last sentence, possibly by pointing towards some sources?

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…

I am hard pressed to see Athens from a few thousand years ago as a real case study, its simply to far out of our frame of reference. Switzerland in more recent history is a rather ugly counterexample to your theory. They had a referendum on women suffrage in 1959 which was declined by a 2 to 1 ratio. You assume a well meaning population, which doesnt have to be the case. Direct democracy is still the dictatorship of the majority over the minority. There is just the hope to have better chances on get the equivalent of a benevolent dictator instead of mad tyrants. And if that fails we put our hope in the bdfl in form of the constitution.

But back to the point i dont think you can compare business with societal structures. We are not doing democracy because its more efficient. Its extra effort we spend in hopes to achieve a better society. People have an entirely different stake in their job as in society. For your job the hassle is likely not worth the trade off (if there are any for an employee).

And back to OP

>A lot of people who advocate flat or structureless organizations actually have philosophical problems with even direct democracy for decision making.

I have to agree with the statement. The "real" democracy as a solution to the problem of organizations falls short. Crimethinc had an interesting article on the topic (which got turned into a book later) https://crimethinc.com/2016/04/29/feature-from-democracy-to-... . Its their usual over the top approach but an interesting line of thought.

Although, you lost me here

>Smaller objections to things like elected positions and parliamentary procedure, which are seen as too hierarchical.

I wouldnt say proponents of non hierarchical forms of organization have less of a problem with the representative approach.

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

#285

Post by leoc » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 6:35 AM UTC

Quoting my self from a comment on another article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19468090#19468699 :

> AFAICT—and again, I'm just someone who read about this stuff in magazines as a child—this kind of management-theory/theory-of-the-firm study and experimentation really was much more prominent in the public eye twenty-five or more years ago, and has faded from popular awareness since; maybe because the work itself is less common, and less influential on institutions, nowadays too. I think that's a pity, because it seems relevant to some supposedly-new things you see generating excitement nowadays, especially in the vicinity of the tech industry. For example the whole Valve structureless-or-notionally-structureless-organisation effort is probably pretty well prefigured in the work of a generation of management consultants who looked at and tried out all kinds of institutional structures or absences of structure beside the traditional corporate model, generally in pursuit of much the same ends—more innovation, more amenability to change, better decision-making—and with similar mixed-to-disappointing results.

I find it weird to hear this kind of thing discussed without reference to previous research.

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

#286

Post by leoc » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 6:37 AM UTC

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…

It isn't just Freeman's article. There's a whole academic/industrial literature about this stuff, a literature which seems to have been fairly well known to the broader public about 25 years ago but to be completely unknown to it today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19468090#19468699 .

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

#287

Post by js8 » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 7:04 AM UTC

veddox wrote: post #187

js8 wrote: post #71

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. 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…

> Mainly I just wanted to point out that democracy is also a flat system and has no kings. Having no kings is not the same as being flat. Democracies have no kings, because any leaders are elected (instead of inheriting/being installed/etc.). But democracies can be anything but flat. Consider Germany, where you have three tiers of government (municipal, state, and federal), and each tier is further subdivided in its…

I guess it depends on definition of "flat" (or "without hierarchy". The way I understand flat is that people are peers, they have same access to power. That is, there are no kings and no lords, either.

That doesn't mean there cannot be "hierarchy" in the sense of administrative division (state, county) or in the sense of respect (like in Linux kernel development for instance).

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

#288

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 7:14 AM UTC

mikeklaas wrote: post #200

narnianal wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding Greenspun I have to think about a colleague. He is a studied mathematician. So in the past 15 years he was working on a tool in Perl. Now he switched teams and is tasked to work on a Python problem. You don't hear about him for weeks besides he need to setup is development environment. Then he comes back and starts to code. It seems like he doesn't need to spend any time learning Python. You look into his c…

That's horrifying.

[deleted]

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

#289

Post by mongol » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 7:57 AM UTC

surge wrote: post #56

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I prefer the Scandinavian (specifically Swedish approach) that I experienced at a prior company. It has its shortcomings of course. But put simply, there is a clear hierarchy, but generally most decisions are made by establishing consensus or compromise between all involved parties, the "manager/boss" only steps in to resolve or veto/tie break if none can be reached. It's not structure-less, and there are certainly t…

What makes that a Swedish approach?

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

#290

Post by pizzazzaro » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 9:07 AM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #80

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…

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…

Lets examine this against the top, root comment, and their comparison to white water rafting.

We can debate our course while we cruise slowly on smooth water. But in choppy waters, we need a Captain to decide whether we go left or right around that big rock.

I dont see this as such a bad thing for Flat Orgs. Nobody is in charge, but someone has to make the decisions.

If we need to switch out who's in the role? Its a lot easier when there's no official title, no extra prestige, no pay raise, nothing but the burden of leadership actually felt as a burden.

But what'll make that burden worthwhile? I care that my comra-... coworkers and I get this chance to enrich ourselves and our clients. Maybe we're sheltering in place from an economic maestrom outside, maybe we're here to make a home, maybe this is one step on a larger journey. Regardless, we have much to offer one another along the way.