[nod]

This is not a fully correct conclusion. I feel a need to call out the conflation of "non-hierarchical" with "structurelessness"/"without a formal structure".

There are at least 3 things that the typical org hierarchy provides:

1. The dominance hierarchy, the power structure that says who can give orders to (and/or fire people for refusal to comply with orders) whom.

2. Decision-making governance. There has to be a way to get decisions made, including what people work on.

3. Conflict resolution. How does conflict get managed and escalated.

It is not true that the necessary opposite of hierarchy is anarchy - you can't just destroy the org chart and expect nothing to replace it. The org chart typically provides all 3, but the proponents of flat/innovative org structures are usually trying to dismantle just #1 the dominance hierarchy. I totally agree that it "doesn't work" if replacements for #2 and #3 aren't implemented at the same time. Approaches like Holacracy/Sociocracy are actually quite structured! They attempt to make decision-making and conflict-resolution explicit and effective, even while trying to remove the "violence inherent in the system" of bosses/bossing.

[JamesBarney]

My personal problem with removing "violence inherent in the system" of bosses/bossing is that all organizations need a way to fire people or they become overrun with parasites. And if we know we know "0 people who can fire you" doesn't work that only leads to systems where the number of people who can fire you is >=1. And I'd much prefer to have one person I need to make happy than n.

The other issue is it's great when responsibility and power align. I've worked on too many projects that failed because someone who wasn't directly responsible for the success or failure of the application had input and decision making authority.

[stevens32]

>all organizations need a way to fire people or they become overrun with parasites.

Feels like this is just generalized personal experience but are there any studies that show this? Is the threat of getting fired really the only thing motivating people to not be a parasite? That seems like a horrendously dark view of human ambition

[cameldrv]

Different people are different. Some people will work hard based on internal motivation, others will slack. Being around a bunch of slackers is demotivating, and it tends to cause high performers to quit or stop working as hard. You then have an organization of slackers.

[pintxo]

I read the parent post as, the "parasite" will be fired and therefore no longer be a problem.

[wahern]

> It is not true that the necessary opposite of hierarchy is anarchy - you can't just destroy the org chart and expect nothing to replace it.

In the context of political anarchism, I think you're making the exact same mistake as the original author. In politics anarchy doesn't imply lack of structure. Rather, anarchy is a category of organizational systems much like you outline above; they include #2 and #3, but exclude #1.

"Chaos" and "chaotic" are better words for describing lack of directed structure.