Companies with no structure have a structure

Mar 16, 2015 14:25

A bunch of interesting links I came across in this discussion of companies with a flat structure. Including two about how Valve's "no structure" basically means that control lies in the hands of people who don't have to take responsibility - because technically they have none. here and hereA nice reminder that when there's no formal structure, you ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 10

jusummerhayes March 16 2015, 14:47:59 UTC
Thanks for sharing Andrew. I was aware of Valve but I hadn't come across the Jo Freeman article. I'll have a proper read later today.

Reply


xenophanean March 16 2015, 14:55:11 UTC
In the tiniest organisations, I think clear division of responsibility is more important than top-down power structures, as companies get larger though, it does look necessary to have some management layers, just so that responsibilities are taken properly, and everyone knows who to ask about what.

I think it is useful to let management structures grow organically to some extent in smaller companies, however, you should effectively re-factor your management structure once you know who's good at what, to make those assumed responsibilities official and well-defined.

Reply

soon_lee March 16 2015, 18:25:16 UTC
I think I am agreeing with you: Structurelessness doesn't scale.

Reply


notlosers March 16 2015, 17:46:09 UTC
Structure is enormously important. I've come to see structurelessness as a kind of Libertarian argument: lack of regulation is attractive, but ultimately illogical and espoused by people who value individuals over community.

Of course, it has to be the right kind of structure, and process for process's sake is inefficient in itself. But a company needs to be just as designed and engineered as the product it makes.

Reply


elfy March 16 2015, 20:41:36 UTC
This is not the same thing, but reminds me that I get a headache when I hear anarchists talk about a society without "rulers" or rules. I remember I once found a website by an in the anarchist scene probably known person, but what he wrote made me cringe in the worst ways.

Reply

andrewducker March 16 2015, 22:08:47 UTC
Yeah, the idea that if we didn't have rulers we'd be in a paradise, rather than a swift transition to feudalism seems...very silly to me.

Reply

elfy March 16 2015, 22:15:06 UTC
This exactly.
Man, this website ... wish I could find it again. The guy had such absurd ideas...

Reply

apostle_of_eris March 18 2015, 19:48:14 UTC
Leaders aren't important. If we didn't have followers, we'd be a whole lot closer to "paradise".

Reply


momentsmusicaux March 17 2015, 09:29:12 UTC
That Valve still haven't finished HL2ep3 is proof enough that their structure can't be all that good ;)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up