Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by qzcx 3941 days ago
There is a good reason why successful cultures have hierarchies. Specialization and structure improve efficiency and standard of living for everyone under it. Do you think companies could do without CEOs?
2 comments

The question of whether specialization requires hierarchies is kind of the question that Coase sought to answer in the Nature of the Firm. To make a long story short, Coase thought the answer was "no" so long as it was more efficient for the specialists to contract with consumers of their services on a open market than it was for them to work together in a firm under managers. I think Coase's answer seems more obvious now thanks to the Internet. Back when he published it was pretty counterintuitive for a lot of people.

These days, I think hierarchy is required only where private information needs to be shared with the specialists in a carefully choreagraphed way. If we don't have to worry about who knows what when, then the specialists can synch up and deliver to customers just fine without managers. But if there's some super important private information that can only be shared in sequence with particular specialists in order to maximize a good result, then no hierarchy is a mess.

In other words, human hierarchy now is almost entirely derived from the architecture of private information.

Absolutely. Worked twice at companies that lost their CEOs for months. Things ticked along very nicely, thank you.

There are many forms of governance, and the autocracy is only one form.

To my knowledge the temporary absence of the CEO is absorbable in the short term because the CEO is primarily concerned with things like strategy & the future, not the immediate day-to-day operations.

You can keep ticking for a long time without direction or strategy. All the parts will seem to be moving. But you won't be getting anywhere.