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

81–90 of 325 posts

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

#81

Post by kradroy »

dhruvrrp wrote: post #18

Rough consensus is a really naive solution to making decisions. Being in a flat structure doesn't change the fact that different people have different requirements. Just because you have more people "agreeing" to one particular idea doesn't make it the right idea.

Decision making is fraught with lack of knowledge and uncertainty. I favor rough consensus. Face it - you're never going to get the best or "right" solution in most cases or practically ever. It's good enough to get something that most people involved think will work. I emphasize "involved" because there are always individuals who don't really care about the decision at inception. They sometimes complain if the idea doesn't work out, but then you can point back to the discussion and tell them they had a time and place to give their input.

I feel exercise of decision making is mostly about having stakeholders be aware that a topic is being discussed and making a space for open discussion. The outcome of the decision is largely irrelevant.

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

#82

Post by dingoegret »

js8 wrote: post #47
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…

What about democracy? It is a clear rule (one person one vote) and yet it is not hierarchical.

Clear rule by the majority and a way for the charismatic to sieze power.

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

#83

Post by kbenson »

fapjacks wrote: post #43
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…

While I agree with something of an abstraction of what they're saying, when I read things like this, it's hard for me to see anything but a person that wants to hijack the tyranny for themselves.

There's something to be said for containing your problems in a nice public position so their overreaches can be easily seen and warned about, and their tyranny can be limited in scope.

It's like a cage rat trap with some peanut butter for bait. Once inside, you still have to deal with rat feces, but over a much smaller and more manageable area. On the other side, the rat is always visible now...

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

#84

Post by rocqua »

dhruvrrp wrote: post #18

Rough consensus is a really naive solution to making decisions. Being in a flat structure doesn't change the fact that different people have different requirements. Just because you have more people "agreeing" to one particular idea doesn't make it the right idea.

As per the article. Rough consensus means everyone states "I can live with this solution". This is contrasted against the majority stating "I have no objections against this solution".

The idea is to not get bogged down in 'I think this is fine but X is better' discussions, and only deal with 'I think this is actually bad' discussions. Because any discussion is very long, and the first kind of objection is not severe enough to warrant a lot of discussion. See also the concept of 'bikeshed-ing'

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

#85

Post by Drdrdrq »

Interesting that most comments deal with why flat structure doesn't work. Newsflash: of course there is always a boss. Someone needs to sign the paycheck after all. But the term "flat structure" usually refers to lack of middle management. And yes, that can work, and much better than traditional hierarchical organization. But it takes a great leader and capable employees to achieve that. I am lucky to work at such place and it rocks.

As for reaching consensus, I think the idea is great. Instead of seeking consensus try to find a few proponents and make sure nobody sees fundamental flaws... I think this is a perfect tradeoff between doing the right thing and moving fast.

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

#86

Post by organsnyder »

dpeck wrote: post #2

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

In my experience, these shadow hierarchies exist in both flat and structured organizations. However, in structured organizations, there's the added challenge of figuring out how to navigate both the formal and shadow hierarchies simultaneously.

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

#87

Post by hpschrei »

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…

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

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

#89

Post by ambicapter »

js8 wrote: post #47
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…

What about democracy? It is a clear rule (one person one vote) and yet it is not hierarchical.

Well it is also clearly not structure-less.

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

#90

Post by wayoutthere »

dpeck wrote: post #2

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

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 structures are often slower to make decisions because one person can become a huge bottleneck on decision making without realizing it. It can also be culturally corrosive: informal structures encourage Machiavellian behavior and the most Machiavellian people tend to rise to the top — which creates a terrible work environment for everyone else.

Post reply on HN