[jlukic]

In situations with clear org structure the final decision between product disagreements can always be handled by the chain of command. When two product people disagree on a feature, the one higher up the org chart can then make the final call. Feelings are saved because roles are clearly defined, and those with greater product knowledge have the authority they need to "make the call", making the product better overall.

For those stuck lower in the org chart, they can rest assured knowing the more good ideas they contribute, the quicker they will rise up the ranks in decision-making authority. When job mobility is also meritocratic and has efficient review processes, those middle managers should be correctly rewarded or punished for making good or bad calls.

The problem arises for confrontation more frequently in startups because org-structure is often very loose. It's seen as "undemocratic" to force an issue because of seniority, even if someone may have more experience in a topic. Startups generally the traditional business hierarchy as being inefficient for decision making, because many institutions also fail to properly reward decision-making, or punish bad managers.

[jbattle]

We've worked at different companies. I've seen the opposite. In smaller organizations there's more of a ... for lack of a better word ... team spirit. Conflicts rarely devolve to a zero-sum faceoff and people are more likely to be interested in the same goal (i.e. moving the product forward). The bigger the organization, the more muddy the waters. Cryptic territorial fights, all up and down the chain, become a shade coloring a great many decisions.

Passing decisions up the chain of command doesn't really sidestep the issues in the article though - cause you still have to decide when to escalate something from "hey, what about this?" to "hey, you are wrong". If anything that's a more drastic step now that you are bringing an issue to An Authority Figure.

I do agree that a lot of problems fester because of a lack of clarity about RACI-matrix. That can happen in any size organization, definitely worse in smaller ones.

[Bartweiss]

> The bigger the organization, the more muddy the waters. Cryptic territorial fights, all up and down the chain, become a shade coloring a great many decisions.

I heard a story recently of a fairly simple decision that put two territorial groups in conflict. It escalated to the person at the split between branches, who made the decision.

Which is fine, except that the arguing parties didn't overlap one or two levels up. A question of "who wins over this one task at one site" landed on the desk of a senior VP overseeing dozens of sites after wasting the time of a half dozen managers who escalated it and fought with each other. At a conservative guess, it cost $2,000 in salary just to decide who would do the task.

I think people undervalue how much benefit startups get just from having fewer disagreements that Need An Adult. Passing decisions down from the top is fine, but pushing conflicts up and back down is ridiculously expensive in time, money, and goodwill.

[lostcolony]

And the best part was the person making the decision was completely non-technical, and unaware of the actual considerations. Their decision was likely based on as much valid insight as a coin flip. Had a coin flip been agreed upon earlier, not only would the results likely have been the same, but morale would have been better, and costs would have been lowered.

Not necessarily advocating for a coin flip approach, just, you know your company is unhealthy when decisions can be made equally well if not better via random chance as by allowing your process to handle them.

[Bartweiss]

Hah, this was actually my thought when I first heard it.

Anywhere in that entire chain, two equal-power managers could have said "this really isn't a big deal, I'll flip you for it". It would have saved time and money, and probably produced less resentment than the 'intelligent' decision.

We already know the average stock picker is at 'random chance' levels of quality - I wonder how many other parts of corporate life could be replaced with a dartboard?

[ajross]

That's not really responsive to the point of the article though. The goal isn't actually to "arrive at a decision". Any manager can do that. A military-style chain of command with autocratic power exerted feudally at each level is like the simplest possible form of organization.

The point is to avoid getting to a situation where a manager needs to step in and make that call in the first place, because despite its simplicity autocratic control (especially in creative fields!) is a pretty craptastic way to run a company.

Your point that "feelings are saved because roles are clearly defined" just doesn't work in practice. And anyone who's ever been overruled by a boss can tell you that.

[jlukic]

I still think when handled correctly seniority is the best incentive to reward correct decision making. The problem arises in the (quite frequent) circumstance where people who get to positions of power aren’t there because they have the best guidance / deepest expertise. This is an issue with implementation, not a fault of heirarchy.

I think I’m the domain of the article, design, the guy who is creative director / dept head generally is a good candidate for arbitrating a design or product dispute in companies that promote leaders effectively.