
Kelly O’Donnel: flat, non-hierarchical organizations do not work - lkrubner
http://www.smashcompany.com/business/kelly-odonnel-flat-non-hierarchical-organizations-do-not-work
======
nod
This is not a fully correct conclusion. I feel a need to call out the
conflation of "non-hierarchical" with "structurelessness"/"without a formal
structure".

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.

~~~
JamesBarney
My personal problem with removing "violence inherent in the system" of
bosses/bossing is that all organizations need a way to fire people or they
become overrun with parasites. And if we know we know "0 people who can fire
you" doesn't work that only leads to systems where the number of people who
can fire you is >=1. And I'd much prefer to have one person I need to make
happy than n.

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.

~~~
stevens32
>all organizations need a way to fire people or they become overrun with
parasites.

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

~~~
cameldrv
Different people are different. Some people will work hard based on internal
motivation, others will slack. Being around a bunch of slackers is
demotivating, and it tends to cause high performers to quit or stop working as
hard. You then have an organization of slackers.

------
stcredzero
_Thesis: Every time an organization claims to be flat and non-hierarchical, it
is actually hierarchical, but the chain of command is invisible and based on
the personal charisma of particular people, or sometimes based on their
ability to bully and manipulate others. An organization without a formal
structure will have an informal structure made up of various cliques_

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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Every time an organization claims to be flat and non-hierarchical, it is
> actually hierarchical, but the chain of command is invisible and based on
> the personal charisma of particular people, or sometimes based on their
> ability to bully and manipulate others. An organization without a formal
> structure will have an informal structure made up of various cliques

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.)

~~~
stcredzero
_This is true, but what is less frequently mentioned is that the same thing is
invariably also true of organizations with formal hierarchies_

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.

------
Glench
Just to refute the title, the book Reinventing Organizations
([https://www.reinventingorganizations.com](https://www.reinventingorganizations.com))
has a dozen case studies of >150 employee companies that successfully found
ways to organize non-hierarchically for years (that still take into account
natural hierarchies of differing skill levels).

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...](https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/pay-what-feels-right.html)

------
40acres
Humans are hierarchical creatures, this idea has been co-opted by folks and
turned into a political argument, but nevertheless in many ways humans look
for someone to "drive" decision making, even in a fair and democratic
organization.

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.

~~~
astazangasta
I detest hierarchies, I guess I'm not human. I don't think "humans are
hierarchical creatures" is palatable. Nothing in our biology is fundamentally
hierarchical. You've asserted that "humans look for someone to 'drive'
decision making", but I think this is just a result of culture. Specifically,
military hierarchies are ubiquitous because they allowed organized violence to
grant individuals control over accumulated wealth. This is NOT fundamental to
humans, it began with civilization, the advent of walled cities, armies, etc.
In addition people have organized in non-hierarchical ways throughout history;
the ability to do so certainly belies the notion that we're driven to look to
someone else for decision-making.

~~~
andreilys
So there were no tribal hierarchies when humans were nomadic and the strongest
physically held power?

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

------
rzzzt
I'd like to read an article about (self-)organization that doesn't refer,
rehash, or otherwise revolve around The Tyranny of Structurelessness, just as
an intellectual exercise.

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.

------
viburnum
It’s funny how the word “bully” is used in this context. When it’s your boss
giving the orders, that’s legitimate, but if anybody else tells you want to
do, it’s bullying. Are bosses just bullies by another name?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Bosses have legitimate authority (authority with limits, but still
legitimate). Bullies have no legitimate authority, but try to take it anyway.

~~~
mempko
legitimate authority comes from following someone's advice not imposed upon.
Does a worker have the option of not listening to their boss without material
consequence? If not, then it isn't legitimate.

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.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I strongly disagree with your definition of legitimate authority. From your
wrong definition, you are going to reach all kinds of wrong conclusions, which
will to you seem to be right ones. But the police are _not_ bullies when they
arrest a mugger, rather than advising him to stop mugging people and stop by
the jail.

~~~
SiempreViernes
So you mean the police _always_ has legitimate authorithy?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. No, I did not say that, mean
that, or think that.

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).

~~~
SiempreViernes
Ok, but then it's not a criticism since you completely leave out the central
issue of the source of authority.

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.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Well, it's "will of some large subset of the people". It's probably not ever
the will of the muggers.

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.

------
dredmorbius
Rediscovering Jo "Joreen" Freeman, "The Tyrany of Structurelessness" (1970)

 _...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...._

[https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm](https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm)

------
lsiebert
The way to counteract implicit power structures isn't to make them explicit,
but to acknowledge them and account for them such that they are checked.

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.

~~~
lkrubner
What does the word "implicit" mean? What does the word "acknowledge" mean? I
think you are playing with words. If we stick to plain, ordinary English, once
something is acknowledged it is no longer implicit.

~~~
lsiebert
Only if everyone acknowledges the same thing.

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.

------
treelovinhippie
At ConsenSys we all called it the "shadow hierarchy". Like any cesspit choked
with internal contradictions; it implodes.

------
daemonk
In the short term, command might be determined by charisma or personality. But
I think for long-term survival command will ultimately be based on how much
responsibility someone is willing to take on. Basically, when a fuckup
happens, who is the person willing to take the responsibility/blame for it.

------
marssaxman
That is a mightily depressing thought, if true. Power imbalances suck; is
there truly no way to be rid of them?

~~~
insickness
Power imbalances don't 'suck.' They evolved to provide advantages. In _The
Cohesive Foragers: Human and Chimpanzee_ , Margaret Power writes:

"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."

~~~
claudiawerner
It is entirely possible that evolutionary conferred advantages really do
'suck' in other senses or in certain social situations, which tend to go
beyond evolutionary fitness. Indeed a great many things have evolved that
would be abhorrent to carry out in civil society; many intuitions (moral and
otherwise) we have (even those spread across several cultures) seem correct
but are not scientifically grounded. The is-ought problem shows itself again
here, and as far as modern conceptions of justice and moral psychology go,
social Darwinism has lost a lot of ground in the last fifty years.

------
astazangasta
The main flaw with this claim, at least for tech, is that there remains a CEO,
and more importantly that the CEO is the agent of a board and a set of
investors. In this context the notion of "flat", "non-hierarchical" is a farce
since real authority always rests outside of the group to ensure investor
returns.

------
EdwardDiego
Our flat non-hierarchical organisation works, what are we doing wrong?!

