Originally Posted by innerspaceboy (Post 1689345)

Would any of our community be knowledgeable in this regard?

http://i.imgur.com/p4NDcyTl.jpg

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 1689580)

Since I'm a laborer I don't give a **** about the rights of owners and managers to manage how they see fit. I care about my right to speak from a voice of unified labor. I want there to be a real, organized labor movement exclusively interested in the worker. I want corporations that don't acquiesce to be destroyed. Basically, I want the far left to be as self-serving as the far right. I want everything I can take, right or wrong. I don't want the minimum wage to be $15 an hour I want it to be $1000 an hour. I want the belongings of the rich to be stripped from them and given to me. I don't care how ultimately destructive this would be because I barely have a pot to piss in as it is. It's time to tear this whole capitalist power structure down.

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy (Post 1689603)

So delighted to see everyone's feedback! Let me address each point made thus far.

First off, the illustration in the original post is indeed a very poor representation of a horizontal structure. This is much more accurate:

http://i.imgur.com/EIJH2yMl.png"]htt...m/EIJH2yMl.png

And the interactions of the members at the cooperative base rank would look more like this:

http://i.imgur.com/f37ocCOl.jpg

This model satisfies the statement that "someone must be in charge", whether that person is democratically appointed to their position or not, the point is the significant amount of direct collaboration between the majority of the members of the organization.

And I've found a succinct article from the HBR which directly addresses many of the questions posed by skeptics of flat business structures. Check this out -

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy (Post 1689603)

Hierarchy Is Overrated
by Tim Kastelle
Originally published in the Harvard Business Review

Maybe you’ve heard the old cliché – if you’ve got “too many chiefs,” your initiative will fail. Every time I hear it, I wonder, “Why can’t everyone be a chief?”

For instance, the Second Chance Programme is a group that raises money to help reduce homelessness among women here in Southeast Queensland. It’s achieved impressive results since being founded in 2001, and is run by a committee of about ten people. In the early days, a management consultant used the familiar chiefs/Indians line to predict they’d fail.

This kind of thinking assumes:

• You need a hierarchy to succeed.
• The people that do the work are of lower status than those that decide what work to do.
• Organizations that don’t follow the norms are likely to fail.

I think that all of these ideas are wrong. Second Chance has certainly been very successful with their flat, non-hierarchical structure. They have achieved a great deal, while keeping their overhead close to $0. If the structure of the management committee was a problem, they would have failed by now.

But maybe this kind of structure only works for not-for-profits?

Nope. About 20% of the world’s websites are now on the WordPress platform – making it one of the most important internet companies. And yet, Automattic, the firm behind WordPress, only employs a couple hundred people, who all work remotely, with a highly autonomous flat management structure. GitHub is another highly successful firm with a similar structure.

So, maybe this structure only works for not-for-profits and software firms with open source platforms?

Well, Valve is a gaming company that makes Half Life, Portal and many other popular games. Their software is proprietary. And they are famous for not having bosses at all. And 37Signals has a structure that looks a lot like Automattic’s, while building software that enables distributed collaboration, such as Basecamp and Ruby on Rails.

Ok, then, flat structures work for not-for-profits and software startups. But you surely can’t run, say, a big manufacturing firm like this, can you?

Actually, you can. Take a look at W.L. Gore. Gore is one of the most successful firms in the world. They have more than 10,000 employees, with basically three levels in their organizational hierarchy. There is the CEO (elected democratically), a handful of functional heads, and everyone else. All decision-making is done through self-managing teams of 8-12 people: hiring, pay, which projects to work on, everything. Rather than relying on a command-and-control structure, current CEO Terri Kelly says:

“It’s far better to rely upon a broad base of individuals and leaders who share a common set of values and feel personal ownership for the overall success of the organization. These responsible and empowered individuals will serve as much better watchdogs than any single, dominant leader or bureaucratic structure.”

They’ve had challenges in maintaining their structure as they’ve grown, but the remain one of the most innovative and most profitable firms in the world.

But all of these examples have had flat structures from the day they were founded – you couldn’t do something like this in a firm that has been operating for a while with the normal hierarchical structure, could you?

That’s exactly what Ricardo Semler and his team at Semco did when he joined the firm in 1983. In the 30 years since, the Brazilian conglomerate has continually worked at distributing decision-making authority out to everyone. One of the firm’s key performance indicators is how long Semler can go between making decisions. The time keeps getting longer, while the firm has maintained around 20% growth for nearly 30 years now.

All of these are examples where everyone is a chief. The flat organizational structure can work anywhere. This works best when:

• The environment is changing rapidly. Firms organized around small, autonomous teams are much more nimble than large hierarchies. This makes it easier to respond to change.
• Your main point of differentiation is innovation. Firms organized with a flat structure tend to be much more innovative – if this is important strategically, then you should be flat.
• The organization has a shared purpose. This is what has carried Second Chance through their tough times – their shared commitment to the women they are helping. While the objectives may differ, all of the firms discussed here have a strong central purpose as well.

There is a growing body of evidence that shows that organizations with flat structures outperform those with more traditional hierarchies in most situations (see the work of Gary Hamel for a good summary of these results). But while we are seeing an increasing number of firms using flat structures, they are still relatively rare. Why is this so?

It’s not because people haven’t heard of the idea. There have been more than 200 case studies of Gore and Semco alone, and I would bet that nearly every MBA program in the world includes at least one case study looking at a firm with this kind of structure. But there are other obstacles:

• Many people don’t believe in democracy in the workplace. Even people who adamantly oppose small amounts of central planning in government are perfectly happy to have the strategy of even very large firms set by just a handful of people.
• Even if you do believe in democracy, it can be hard to imagine work without hierarchy. The “normal” structure is so deeply ingrained, and so widespread, that it can challenging to even think of an alternative in the first place. That’s why these case studies are so important.
• Fear of the unusual. John Maynard Keynes said, “Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.” Unfortunately, this is still largely true today.
• It’s hard to change organizational structures. Despite the positive example of Semco, in reality it is very hard to change organizational structures. Even with Semco, it took a financial crisis to trigger the change in thinking. It takes a strong belief in democracy in the workplace along with a resistance to criticism to stay the course and execute such a change.

However, as digital technologies make it easier to work in a distributed manner, and we enter the social era, flat structures will become increasingly common. There are sound business reasons for treating people with dignity, for providing autonomy, and for organizing among small teams rather than large hierarchies.

It’s time to start reimagining management. Making everyone a chief is a good place to start.

- Winston Smith

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1689627)

Did you write the following on your own; or did you copy/paste it? If it's not your own work, then you should use the quote function.

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy (Post 1689603)

So delighted to see everyone's feedback! Let me address each point made thus far.

First off, the illustration in the original post is indeed a very poor representation of a horizontal structure. This is much more accurate:

http://i.imgur.com/EIJH2yMl.png"]htt...m/EIJH2yMl.png

And the interactions of the members at the cooperative base rank would look more like this:

http://i.imgur.com/f37ocCOl.jpg

This model satisfies the statement that "someone must be in charge", whether that person is democratically appointed to their position or not, the point is the significant amount of direct collaboration between the majority of the members of the organization.

And I've found a succinct article from the HBR which directly addresses many of the questions posed by skeptics of flat business structures. Check this out -

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 1689643)

I hate people who choose to work harder than everyone else and then cry about it. It's your own damn fault.

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1689812)

People who don't like to work and do very little cry about work, those are resolved to work hang on in quiet desperation.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1689606)

I think that while it would work, it can also be achieved through communication between the lower and upper classes of a business that operates on hierarchy. The increase in communication can really ease the friction of mobility to the top (or to the bottom). With this, it is important for the higher ups to not only be hearing the ideas of the lower ranks, but that they listen to them as well. It allows for people to be more happy about their work conditions, which increases their productivity since that would likely be the key subject of their thoughts on the company, which benefits the company. It also deconstructs the echo chamber that a lot of people at the top might find themselves in, although that might not apply to companies with very narrow typecasting hiring policies.

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1689636)

The hierarchy or tall organization seems more efficient. On average any one person has to deal with 3.6 people. The round table the average a person has to deal with seven people, and the round table has two less people than in the tall organization. With the flat organization you have to deal with more people and coordinate your actions with everyone. If there are ten people in your group you increase who you have to report to from one person to nine people. You'll have nine bosses. One day you'll find out you are doing 80% of the work will all the other are doing 20% and you'll resent it. Going in you thought everyone is equal and everything is done equally. And one day when you go into work, and look around at your flat organization, you'll realize that is not the case. Pareto principle will bitch slap you in the face and you'll hate your life and hate your job and resent all the rest because the amount of effort you put into it.

Originally Posted by bob_32_116 (Post 1689644)

If you want a true productive round table discussion, as suggested in the illustration above, I'd suggest the first thing to do is ban laptops and mobile phones from the room, and force people to actually talk and to look at each other as they talk. Maybe let them have a pen and paper if anyone wants/needs to take notes on what was discussed.

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1689636)

If there are ten people in your group you increase who you have to report to from one person to nine people. You'll have nine bosses. One day you'll find out you are doing 80% of the work will all the other are doing 20% and you'll resent it. Going in you thought everyone is equal and everything is done equally. And one day when you go into work, and look around at your flat organization, you'll realize that is not the case. Pareto principle will bitch slap you in the face and you'll hate your life and hate your job and resent all the rest because the amount of effort you put into it.

Originally Posted by bob_32_116 (Post 1689644)

If you want a true productive round table discussion, as suggested in the illustration above, I'd suggest the first thing to do is ban laptops and mobile phones from the room, and force people to actually talk and to look at each other as they talk. Maybe let them have a pen and paper if anyone wants/needs to take notes on what was discussed.

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1689878)

The illustration is just, well, an illustration. On a real meeting, there should be a set of democratically-decided rules that everyone will have to follow - for instance, no phones, no interruptions, etc. - and an elected leader for the meeting, who will make sure that everyone speaks in turn and keeps track of the order.

Originally Posted by bob_32_116 (Post 1689888)

Yes!

And also - this sounds boring but it's necessary - you need someone to take minutes. not so much to have the minutes themselves, as to have people aware that suggestions are being recorded, which makes it more likely they will be acted on.

I've been to many meetings of the "Let's get together and talk about these issues" variety at which actions or solutions to a problem are proposed, they are more or less agreed on verbally by those present - and then after the meeting nothing happens. Or, worse, something happens that is in contradiction with what was agreed. Two questions need to be asked repeatedly: "What action are we going to take?" and "Who is going to take that action?" - and if it's decided that Jimmy Jones is going to do such and such, and Jimmy Jones sees that this is going in the minutes, it's much more likely that jimmy Jones will actually do it, rather than forgetting about it and making the meeting a pointless exercise.

Originally Posted by bob_32_116 (Post 1689888)

Yes!

And also - this sounds boring but it's necessary - you need someone to take minutes. not so much to have the minutes themselves, as to have people aware that suggestions are being recorded, which makes it more likely they will be acted on.

I've been to many meetings of the "Let's get together and talk about these issues" variety at which actions or solutions to a problem are proposed, they are more or less agreed on verbally by those present - and then after the meeting nothing happens. Or, worse, something happens that is in contradiction with what was agreed. Two questions need to be asked repeatedly: "What action are we going to take?" and "Who is going to take that action?" - and if it's decided that Jimmy Jones is going to do such and such, and Jimmy Jones sees that this is going in the minutes, it's much more likely that jimmy Jones will actually do it, rather than forgetting about it and making the meeting a pointless exercise.

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1689921)

I wouldn't trust Jim Jones with my goldfish.

Originally Posted by bob_32_116 (Post 1689938)

I think you could. I got mine back, more or less intact.

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy (Post 1689821)

I'm with you on your points 100%, Frown. And many examples of flat-ter hierarchies (e.g. tiers of management each directing their own branch of cooperative/collectives) are able to support each of the benefits you've cited.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1689979)

Like prepared kool aid or just the powder?

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1689979)

Definitely. I think it would be a more effective model for those benefits to come about as well, which would be a good selling point for your boss to have a better understanding of the system and possibly the willingness to transition into it.

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1689878)

The illustration is just, well, an illustration. On a real meeting, there should be a set of democratically-decided rules that everyone will have to follow - for instance, no phones, no interruptions, etc. - and an elected leader for the meeting, who will make sure that everyone speaks in turn and keeps track of the order.

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1690034)

It's strange that the first thing the flat group wants to do is structure itself like a hierarchy or tall organization by having a leader.

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1690034)

It's strange that the first thing the flat group wants to do is structure itself like a hierarchy or tall organization by having a leader.

Originally Posted by bob_32_116 (Post 1690074)

To go back to my analogy of renovating a house, I may choose to accept advice from the builder, but one could not have a situation where all the employees on site held a vote on whether to install that extra room or not. If a bad decision is made, it's me who has to live with the result; those guys have lost nothing.

Originally Posted by bob_32_116 (Post 1690074)

A company in which things are decided by majority vote would not work.

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1690087)