Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by otis_inf 3907 days ago
Hierarchy is not only there for 'telling X to do ABC', but also to make clear who takes responsibility. If there's no leader, who's responsible for decisions taken? A random person who happens to be in a team who did something which turned out to be very stupid? All of them? No one? When a decision is made by X, the people who execute it didn't decide on it, X did, which means X takes responsibility, not the people who execute the decision.

Another aspect which is overlooked in the article is: to get things done, you have to make unpopular decisions sometimes: i.e. cut features to make a deadline, to ship a version, to stop adding stuff and work towards a release. No-one wants to make those, they're called 'unpopular' for a reason. But you have to make them to avoid a state where things aren't ready and never will be. There's a difference between 'being able to ship' and 'being able to ship a usable product'.

Funny that they refer to Valve with the text:

> At the video-game maker Valve, new employees are told not to expect instructions, because even the managing director “isn’t your manager,” says the employee handbook. “You have the power to green-light projects. You have the power to ship products.” And so they do.

I'd like to mention 'Half Life 3'. ;)

5 comments

>If there's no leader, who's responsible for decisions taken? A random person who happens to be in a team who did something which turned out to be very stupid?

Blame-shifting doesn't always happen, but when it does, it almost universally goes down the hierarchy, not up.

Almost universally? Got any examples that show this almost universal attribute? Off the top of my head, from the past couple of months alone, I can think of the VW CEO, Ellen Page (reddit's former CEO) who were ousted from their companies for decisions that didn't go over well.
We should probably put a “*” by Pao since, as far as I know, we’re not sure if she was actually responsible for the decision that ostensibly got her ousted.
When there's a big enough controversy, the CEO will usually be one of the first heads to roll even as there are larger investigations going on (BP/Deepwater Horizon is a great example of this).
(Volkswagen)
You think the Volkswagen CEO resignation was a result of blame shifting?
Well, it seems like the situation with Ellen Pao might very well have been a case of the blame traveling down the hierarchy:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3df50e/why_do...

In one notably hierarchical organization, the US Navy, blame certainly travels up. Captains who have been off-watch and sound asleep when a subordinate did something wrong can find their careers ended.
This is also the primary reason why their customer service is so terrible. Nobody wants to do this 'unpopular' job. They'd rather work on their on stuff.
I also wonder at requiring that new hires spend at least one week in the call centre during their induction. They might not know what they need at that point!
I often wonder how quickly Valve would have abandoned that handbook if they didn't receive the guaranteed revenue stream from Steam.
Also, I wonder: didn't Valve used to have a normal hierarchy years ago? You know, back when they used to ship stuff? I'm genuinely curious to find out if that's the case. If that's true, then it seems that Valve only "stalled" after adopting this company structure.
But it's also possible to argue that that guaranteed revenue stream would not have come about if they hadn't had the structure they did.
Holacracy is all about distributing authority out to the furthest nodes of the company. "Decisions are made locally." Employees take up well defined roles, and AIUI are generally responsible for both making decisions and implementing them. Of course there are also meetings, I'm sure in practice many decisions are made with consensus.

> to get things done, you have to make unpopular decisions sometimes

...but I have no idea how this works in Holacracy.

Absolutely agree, it is against human nature. Everyone has a boss, whether they think of them as a boss or not, is something entirely different.
Counter-argument: the justification given for Holacracy is that generally in life groupings of people aren't structured in that way. The example they give is that in a city there are no bosses, everyone choses a career, looks for work, finds accomodation, etc, independently. The mayor isn't your boss. This is of course the foundation of capitalism: free agents.
"Boss" is often too restrictive as a word. You can call it "leaders", "spiritual guides", "representatives", whatever, but they exist in a hierarchy.

Even though the individual is the indivisible element of a society, we as individuals inevitably take part in different organisations (financial, political, religious). In each of these more or less spontaneous organisations we assume a role and in some of these roles we will make decisions for several people.

The mayor is the elected leader, chosen by a majority, to make these decisions for us in a certain scope. You can't challenge his decisions on your own. If you don't like them, you either try to have someone else elected the next time or move elsewhere.

If you are catholic, the pope is also not our "boss", but boy does he have the power, legitimacy and support to influence a lot of people in arguably one of the most successful organisations to ever exist.

Don't get hung up on the "boss" word.

> This is of course the foundation of capitalism: free agents.

Exercise for the reader: If Holacracy is taking a pure free market as its model, why not just dissolve the company?

Hint: look up Ronald Coase.

Except there's no market. Free agency is a more general concept than free markets. Assumably, cooperation rather than competition.
Cooperation is one of the pillars of markets, because markets are based on exchange. A buyer and seller cooperate to make an exchange.

Coase's question was: why don't we see the free market structure that linear algebra predicts? Why do firms exist?

His answer was fairly insightful. Markets impose search and transaction costs. To buy something from a market, you must search it for a seller and come to terms.

Inside a firm, that search cost may well be zero. Need HR services? Call HR. No need to look for a provider, negotiate a contract and so on. Need IT? Ring the support department. No need to weigh the virtues of IBM vs HP vs the corner store.

But sometimes it's the other way around. Need pens? In some companies the process is so onerous that you'll just go to the local store and buy your own.

That boundary moves around (consider the impact of IT, for example), but it's always there. If search and transaction costs fall to zero, the firm would in theory become unnecessary.

Comparing a market -- or a city -- to a firm is a mistake, because they are different structures emerging from different pressures on the same free agents.

Can you add a source for the "human nature" argument?
I could point to the 20.000 years of human history and challenge you to find the opposite: a single completely flat organisation/enterprise with more than one individual, that for a non trivial amount of time exhibited progress, growth and financial success. I can't think of one.
Challenge me, to come up with something, why? You were the one doing the assertion, so you should be prepared to be challenged and answer, not challenging back.

You said that a given notion/idea is against human nature; the burden of proof is yours. Do you have any scientific support for that claim? What definition of "human nature" are you following? Even relating to the very limited historical accounts you were trying to assess, how can you be sure it's "human nature", not "human culture"?

I'm sure you're thorough and rigorous in your field of expertise, and don't accept "claims" blindly. I'm just asking for the same standards in other subjects. No need to be frivolous just because the subject is human behaviour.

I was expressing my opinion, as it should be clear from my comment and the challenge to find a counter-example to my argument is called proof by contradiction.
There's nothing in your statement "it is against human nature" that would imply that it was just an expression of your opinion. You stated it as clearly as possible, yet you have no basis for this. It's very sad to see the standards drop so low when the discussion regards human behaviour; it borders on religious faith. People believe X regarding human behaviour in the same way other people believe in baby jesus.

> the challenge to find a counter-example to my argument is called proof by contradiction.

I don't think "proof by contradiction" means what you are "expecting", really. Look it up. You'll see why and how fallible it would be as a method for human and social sciences.

E.O. Wilson. Read all of his books, they are AMAZING. Especially the stuff about cross species cooperation. http://www.newsweek.com/biologist-eo-wilson-why-humans-ants-... You can listen/watch to these talks he did as well. http://www.c-span.org/video/?322464-1/book-discussion-meanin... and http://www.c-span.org/video/?305870-1/book-discussion-social...
I've read "On Human Nature" (not any of the others, though). I'd say that there's nothing there which would imply that ideas proposed in the link shared by the OP are "against human nature".
Even gangs and cartels self-organize into hierarchies.