My experience with this dynamic is that leaders and power structures emerge in “leaderless” organizations despite the best efforts of participants. This leads to a lack of accountability for the excercise of de facto authority because it supposedly does not exist, and rapidly creates toxic and exploitative environments with zero recourse for grievance.
I strongly believe that there must be better organizational structures than the white-collar neo-feudalism that is the average American corporation. But I think we have enough examples to say the pure "leaderless" model is on average worse once you get above a very modest number of people.
Ooh, that's a really good question. My first thought is that it's the advertising industry. Or more abstractly, the system of consumerism. But I'll have to think about that.
Companies with "flat" engineering hierarchies -- a CTO/cofounder and everyone else as senior engineer -- often exhibit the same phenomenon. Some senior engineers are more senior than others.
Isn't the solution then to make authority (and thus also accountability) temporary and/or to spread it amongst many smaller areas?
For instance, every employee could take turn at non technical but honorific positions. Regarding technical tasks, each person could also rule absolutely over many small areas of expertise that they also take responsibility for?
I hope there is no need for a fixed arbitrary hierarchy for accountability.
The article mentions at the end some strategies. (points 3 and 4 seem relevant, 5 perhaps counters your argument)
1) Delegation [...]
2) [Responsibility]
3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. [...]
4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's "property" and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. [...]
5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. [...] Ability, interest, and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. [...]
6) Diffusion of information [...]
7) Equal access to resources needed by the group.[...]
I think that can work to an extent, but who decides what code gets pushed to production? You can decentralize responsibility for tasks, but ultimately you need some method of resolving competing pull requests. If someone can take control of that process, they can bully everyone else. This can then result in harassment and discrimination.
Idealistic. You have to treat each position of power in a defensive mode - each can be exploited or suborned in different ways.
There would need to have "watchers who watch the watchers" - a problem that regresses infinitely. Meanwhile even if you do a good job at that, the REAL job is done poorly if at all.
It's a long piece, but skimming shows that Joreen's piece makes that point and she proposes a rather democratic structure as a way to both avoid the problems with usual hierarchies and complete structurelessness.
Comments
My experience with this dynamic is that leaders and power structures emerge in “leaderless” organizations despite the best efforts of participants. This leads to a lack of accountability for the excercise of de facto authority because it supposedly does not exist, and rapidly creates toxic and exploitative environments with zero recourse for grievance.
Yes, exactly. Primates gonna prime. There was an extended tweetstorm from a former Valve employee that just screamed "tyranny of structurelessness": https://www.reddit.com/r/valve/comments/8zmp07/former_valve_...
I strongly believe that there must be better organizational structures than the white-collar neo-feudalism that is the average American corporation. But I think we have enough examples to say the pure "leaderless" model is on average worse once you get above a very modest number of people.
I believe this essay was submitted since it's mentioned in the top comment of the Valve guy story on the front page of HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17584563
The phrase "white-collar neo-feudalism" is probably the best characterization I've heard - thanks for that.
The metaphor makes me wonder: who is the church - those who convince the masses that there's a bigger meaning to sitting around an obeying orders?
Ooh, that's a really good question. My first thought is that it's the advertising industry. Or more abstractly, the system of consumerism. But I'll have to think about that.
Agile coaches, HN talking about the revolutionary power of disruption.
Companies with "flat" engineering hierarchies -- a CTO/cofounder and everyone else as senior engineer -- often exhibit the same phenomenon. Some senior engineers are more senior than others.
Isn't the solution then to make authority (and thus also accountability) temporary and/or to spread it amongst many smaller areas?
For instance, every employee could take turn at non technical but honorific positions. Regarding technical tasks, each person could also rule absolutely over many small areas of expertise that they also take responsibility for?
I hope there is no need for a fixed arbitrary hierarchy for accountability.
The article mentions at the end some strategies. (points 3 and 4 seem relevant, 5 perhaps counters your argument)
1) Delegation [...]
2) [Responsibility]
3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. [...]
4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's "property" and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. [...]
5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. [...] Ability, interest, and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. [...]
6) Diffusion of information [...]
7) Equal access to resources needed by the group.[...]
I think that can work to an extent, but who decides what code gets pushed to production? You can decentralize responsibility for tasks, but ultimately you need some method of resolving competing pull requests. If someone can take control of that process, they can bully everyone else. This can then result in harassment and discrimination.
Idealistic. You have to treat each position of power in a defensive mode - each can be exploited or suborned in different ways.
There would need to have "watchers who watch the watchers" - a problem that regresses infinitely. Meanwhile even if you do a good job at that, the REAL job is done poorly if at all.
It's a long piece, but skimming shows that Joreen's piece makes that point and she proposes a rather democratic structure as a way to both avoid the problems with usual hierarchies and complete structurelessness.