Hacker News Reader

Comment by Macha | Hacker News Reader

Seen this before too.

1. Company makes unpopular decision (cuts a benefit, partners with someone unpopular, enforces some tedious process to make management life earlier)

2. Next poll season comes round

3. Shock, results are down

4. Declare an aggregate engagement measure as an action item which incorporates both the happiness metric but others such as understanding of company strategy

5. Declare the problem with this metric are line managers not conveying company direction well enough

6. Declare you're taking action by measuring line management on this metric

7. A bunch of ensuing makework on something execs think is important (at a certain size, a singular company vision is just too generic for line employees to care), yet they sell it as taking action

View on HN

simple solution == flat-as-possible org structure?

But once you make a formal structure flat enough, informal structures can start to solidify and dominate (think High School).

I always try to keep this in mind, Valve which famously has a completely flat structure, ended up turning into an environment where things like popularity and ability to dispense resources defined the practiced org structure. Be careful what you wish for.

Perhaps "popularity and ability to dispense resources" is better than just "ability to dispense resources" (i.e. traditional hierarchy).

Did you go to High School with the rampant bullying? Popularity is not linked at all with personality traits that make someone a good leader afaik. Traditional hierarchy at least tries to keep people who are a competent in power.

"Did you go to High School with the rampant bullying"

Do adults have judgement of pre-pubernecent 14 year olds? I mean, maybe some do, but...

High school age is generally 14 to 18. And I wouldn't be so confident adults in unchecked power are better then high schoolers on morality and decency.

So the concept of "well adjusted adult' is a myth?

I'm not entirely sure what you are expecting me to say. I didn't say every adult will be a bully. But not every teenager in high school is a bully either. The existence of "well adjusted adult" doesn't have anything to do with this. You can have "well adjusted adults" and still have rampant bullying. The point I'm making is that a traditional hierarchy tries to put the "wall adjusted adults" with good leadership skills in leadership positions. In contrast to a flat hierarchy where it's essentially just a popularity contest.

yes. More or less.

What happens is that we learn to "hide" our impulses in more social acceptable behavior.

We didn't have that many bully's when i grew up but most of them are just slightly more polished version of themselves.

But when they are drinking or emotions are high they revert back. (which is bad since 2 of them are cops now)

I am not saying that person cannot change his life and ways around. I know some that have done that. But most people (in my expirience) don't

> Popularity is not linked at all with personality traits that make someone a good leader afaik.

On the contrary! Good personality traits evolved because they make for good leaders.

…which makes me depressed about being on the spectrum because it means I had to accept I could never be a “leader”.

(Well, I am a technical lead, it’s in my job-description, but that’s only because I get -Wpedantic on peoples’ code - and not because I can inspire people)

Do you have a source for this. I wouldn't say from for example actors and musicians(ultimate popularity contests) that most of them would even be remotely good leaders.

I work at a place with a flat structure and I can’t emphasize enough how true this is.

It’s especially noticeable when you’re not one of the in-crowd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com