Kelly O’Donnel: flat, non-hierarchical organizations do not work
smashcompany.com
smashcompany.com
There are at least 3 things that the typical org hierarchy provides:
1. The dominance hierarchy, the power structure that says who can give orders to (and/or fire people for refusal to comply with orders) whom.
2. Decision-making governance. There has to be a way to get decisions made, including what people work on.
3. Conflict resolution. How does conflict get managed and escalated.
It is not true that the necessary opposite of hierarchy is anarchy - you can't just destroy the org chart and expect nothing to replace it. The org chart typically provides all 3, but the proponents of flat/innovative org structures are usually trying to dismantle just #1 the dominance hierarchy. I totally agree that it "doesn't work" if replacements for #2 and #3 aren't implemented at the same time. Approaches like Holacracy/Sociocracy are actually quite structured! They attempt to make decision-making and conflict-resolution explicit and effective, even while trying to remove the "violence inherent in the system" of bosses/bossing.
The other issue is it's great when responsibility and power align. I've worked on too many projects that failed because someone who wasn't directly responsible for the success or failure of the application had input and decision making authority.
Feels like this is just generalized personal experience but are there any studies that show this? Is the threat of getting fired really the only thing motivating people to not be a parasite? That seems like a horrendously dark view of human ambition
In the context of political anarchism, I think you're making the exact same mistake as the original author. In politics anarchy doesn't imply lack of structure. Rather, anarchy is a category of organizational systems much like you outline above; they include #2 and #3, but exclude #1.
"Chaos" and "chaotic" are better words for describing lack of directed structure.
Here's the problem with command based on charisma, formidable personalities, and cliques: Such power is arbitrary. Operating without limitations, such invisible chains of command can often operate through emotionally abusive practices like expulsion and hazing and can subject people to accusation without trial and without the opportunity to face accusers.
People need structure and the rule of law. If such structures are based on sound humanitarian principles and are administered fairly, they can act to make groups of people behave in a more principled and egalitarian fashion. If applied correctly, these structures can coexist with and even compliment more communal and non-hierarchical forms of organization.
I don't know how to say this in the right way. It's never really about you - no matter how good it might feel. Not really.
This is true, but what is less frequently mentioned is that the same thing is invariably also true of organizations with formal heirarchies, and the actual structure based on personal charisma, manipulation, and bullying will often be significantly different than the formal heirarchy (which influences the actual heirarchy because position in the for heirarchy—especially when people believe in it—influences the ability to manipulate and bully, but never fully determines the actual heirarchy.)
Of course. All human groups have a hierarchical side and a communal side. That's simply the human condition. Sometimes it even seems like all the "magic" is on the communal side.
This is true, but what is less frequently mentioned is that the same thing is invariably also true of organizations with formal heirarchies, and the actual structure based on personal charisma, manipulation, and bullying will often be significantly different than the formal heirarchy
There's an old story about the AT&T takeover of NCR, told to me by an NCR employee in the mid 90's. Basically, the AT&T execs thought the sharper, more powerful NCR execs were a-holes, so they fired them. What they didn't realize, is that those execs knew the parts down inside NCR that were still muscular and not useless and flubby, so after they were gone, NCR was just a dead weight around AT&T's neck for awhile.
Both sides exist and need each other. They do indeed interact in subtle ways.
The book is really good. You can pay-what-value-you-got-out-of-it for a digital copy here: https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/pay-what-feels-righ...
If you want to go against the grain of traditional hierarchy, I don't think 'flat' is the way to go. At least not using the visualization of a horizontal, continuous line. Maybe "dash" is the way to go, with discrete, separate non-hierarchical organizations collaborating to a common end.
Of these non-hierarchical orgs you cite, how many were robust to external change and able to survive times of stress? I’m also not familiar of any non-hierarchical org that wasn’t steamrolled by a more dominant hierarchical society
I mean I get it, it really is a razor-sharp depiction of the process in which a bunch of people slowly form an organizational semi-structure whose very existence is denied. But I sometimes wonder if there are additional observations one can make.
If a doctor is an expert on lungs, do you listen to what they tell you which TV show to watch, or shoes to wear, or where to be at a certain time each day?
Leadership is not a position, but a role anyone can take at any time.
The police do not always have legitimate authority. But not never, either.
In particular, the police have legitimate, legally-given authority. When they exceed that, they become illegitimate (and bullies).
In particular, your clarification implies that you subscribe to the "will of the people" source for police authority, which is the sort of voluntary system you set out criticise.
In particular, it's rarely voluntary on the part of the person being arrested. And that's kind of the point. We, the majority of the people, voluntarily bestow on the police the authority to act, within limits, on our behalf, up to and including the use of force. Having done so, however, those police have (within those limits) legitimate authority even over those of us who wanted there to be a police force, even when (in that encounter) we do not voluntarily submit to them.
So: Is that a voluntary system? Yes and no. You could say it's voluntary that we set it up. But it's not voluntary when you're on the receiving end.
Or, to use my terms: Bullying is giving orders without legitimate authority. But then the question is, is there any legitimate authority, or is it all just bullying?
I assert that there is. But this turns into an argument about the definition of "legitimate", and arguments about definitions are almost always a waste of time.
I've been fortunate enough to never have been significantly harmed or intimidated by any of my bosses (I suppose they could fire me or something but they've never threatened anything like that at all) so in my experience it's pretty clear that not all bosses are bullies.
...Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the nature of a human group....
Also, the base case of an organization is a two person group. Are all two person groups hierarchical? I think not, especially if you include romantic relationships.
If you have to spend a year working in a company to figure out how things are done, I can certainly then acknowledge how things work, but that doesn't mean that it was ever explicitly conveyed.
Power imbalances can be mitigated structurally and through community norms based on humanistic principles. If an organization has some sort of "Rule of law" then this can damp down the application of arbitrary power by informal chains of command.
Power corrupts. This is why people need structure and limits. When people just start doing as they feel, the power to make their whims real becomes a corrupting power.
"The charismatic-dependent relationship is adaptive toward keeping subgroups together as they range, foraging. If all members of a subgroup were equally self-assured, there would be more of a tendency for each individual to go it’s own way, and a lone animal or human is usually more vulnerable to attack.
"The more nervous, easily aroused, dependent chimpanzees, through their quick response to disturbance in the group or to danger from without, act to alert the less easily aroused, less observant, charismatic members. One or more of the confident individuals then respond to the situation, backed by the support of the more dependent members. Thus the response is more by group consensus than leader-initiated."
At the same token, if I am the most competent in the room I do resent not being the leader. Them's the breaks.
Should a 2 year old have equal say in household decision making as their 32 year old parent?
Should a first year med student who wanders into a patients room have equal sway in patient care as a specialist attending physician?
Should an intern be able to make decisions that a CEO typically makes?
As far as I know, it's pretty widely agreed upon that it sucks to be an intern or a first-year med student in field-training. I don't remember being two years old, but I do remember hating having to do what my parents said when I was a child. So I would say that power imbalances do in general, "suck" even if they're desirable in some cases. As such, I'd be sad to learn that there was no way for most people to work in a "flat" structure.