

Reinventing organizations (2014) [pdf] - xvirk
http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/uploads/2/1/9/8/21988088/140305_laloux_reinventing_organizations.pdf

======
bcx
The author of this book wants readers to pay what they feel the book was worth
to them. [http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/pay-what-feels-
right...](http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/pay-what-feels-right.html)

So you if you end up downloading and reading the direct PDF link (the security
through obscurity method is clearly failing here) I recommend paying what
feels right to the author:

You can watch a pretty good summary of the book here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcS04BI2sbk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcS04BI2sbk)

~~~
tome
The PDF link isn't to the book.

------
swombat
I started a company (GrantTree) that operates (or tries to operate) largely by
the principles described in this book, though of course we have our own unique
vision of it. A lot of it is described at [http://danieltenner.com/open-
cultures/](http://danieltenner.com/open-cultures/) .

Feel free to ask me anything about how this actually works in practice - I
know it's not obvious from just reading about it. I'll do my best though.

------
Joeri
I found this a worthwhile read. It's an interesting view of how to run a
business without hierarchy, with plenty of real world examples and answers to
all of those "yeah, but how do you ... ?" questions. There is one weakness
however, there needs to be one leader who forces a leaderless style, because
left to its own devices a group of people develops a hierarchy. All of the
examples in the book had founders or leaders who forcibly did away with
hierarchy, and in the examples where they left the company reverted to
traditional c&c.

~~~
swombat
To be fair, the only example "where they left" is AES, where the leader was
forced out by the shareholders and replaced with a more traditionally minded
leader, so it's not the leader's absence which caused the reversion - or at
least we can't know for sure.

The other examples don't show a leader leaving and the company reverting to
traditional top-down, as far as I can remember.

------
dpweb
There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the idea of a hierarchy-free
organization. I get the appeal of thinking we are going to live in a world
without bosses, but how utopian is this idea? Misguided, maybe.

I believe the current examples show that even relatively flat orgs must revert
back to a command and control structure once they get to any size, for
instance Github, and Google retricting freedom (the 20% worktime perk being
taken away). Orgs are based on a division of labor and that means roles and
that means you play your position and that is less individual freedom.

Also, hierarchies don't exist just to 'tell people what to do' or divide
people by status - bosses have authority to resolve conflicts among peers, and
a final decider - as anyone who has witnessed the pitfalls of 'design by
committee'.

~~~
swombat
First of all, as dangoor points out, the presentation linked to here lists a
dozen companies, some including thousands of employees, operating by teal,
hierarchy-of-people-free principles.

Secondly, teal does not mean "flat hierarchy". The meaning is far more subtle
than that. There is some impact on hierarchy but calling it "flat hierarchy"
is very misleading - arguably that's more a green approach than teal - this is
not surprising if you're operating in an orange environment at the moment, as
people typically only see one level higher at best. Teal recognises that
people are different and different people are likely to have greater or lesser
accountabilities, impact, etc. What it rejects is the idea that anyone owns
anyone else. We are all free agents operating in the organisation by choice.
No one has the authority to order another person around. That is not a "flat
hierarchy", nor is it a false declaration of equality between all - it is
something else altogether.

Thirdly, yes, the traditional management hierarchy serves many, many
functions, including conflict resolution and making decisions. Those processes
have to be handled in some way. According to the RO book, most teal companies
end up developing robust conflict management practices that teach people to
resolve their own conflicts. You might think that doesn't work - that's
because you're operating in a traditional hierarchical environment where
indeed it can't work. GrantTree has been going down the teal route for over 2
years now and it's only this year that we started developing a proper conflict
management process. As for the decision making, I cover that in this article,
if you're curious: [http://danieltenner.com/2014/11/06/the-advice-process-
defini...](http://danieltenner.com/2014/11/06/the-advice-process-definition-
and-usage-tips/)

So, while your points are totally fair and skepticism is always a good
practice, based on my direct experience _and_ based on the dozen or so
examples of companies doing this, in the book - I believe that this is not
utopian at all. In fact, I am fairly convinced that just as 100 years ago the
red and amber models were dominant, and today the orange model is dominant,
give it another few decades (I reckon less than 3) and the green and teal
models will start to dominate.

~~~
thejuggler
Thanks for these perspectives. Haven't thought that people might not be able
to see beyond the next level from the level they're in. Quite an interesting
thought. And it seems to apply to all the verticals of human development, like
spirituality, self-identity, cognitive capacities, etc.

------
blakec
Nice read. Pay what feels right.

