The problem isn't hierarchy or authoritarianism (though the latter is a symptom of it), but the distribution of power in any organization (or society), regardless of its goals. The point is simple: shying away from a clear power structure results only in an unfair and unmanageable distribution of power. Companies like GitHub, that believe in "self-organizations" would often fall into this trap once they grow large enough. Julie Ann Horvath's story at GitHub demonstrates how events unfold when the power structure isn't explicit.
I have a hard time coming to terms with people talking in definite terms regarding subjective issues, this is such a case. This is speculation fueled by your subjective views.
Yes, as a person with libertarian socialist views I do have a bias towards the non-hierachical ideal of organizations. But I wouldn't jump on the opportunity to argue my point - in definite terms - based on individual cases.
I think there's a couple of things that need to be said here:
* What do we mean by structureless? Even the most bottom-up anarchistic organization would have a clear structure (e.g. a syndicalist union) but no people with long periods of unchallenged authority like traditional managers usually have.
* We are fooling ourselves if we compare a organization with bottom-up social organization with participation as the goal, with a modern company with profit and growth as the goal. As such; "regardless of its goals" is just too unnuanced.
* I know that the role of unions in the states is almost non-existant, especially in our industry, but where I live and work, Sweden, the issues at Github may have been addressed with help of the employee's union.
So I think that individual cases is not enough to challenge the whole premise of "self-organizations". People of questionable nature will exist in all kinds of organisations, and a fast growing organization will have many challenges to keep a good culture and weed out potential trouble.
It's just too easy to jump on the bandwagon of "we need managers, people can't handle the freedom". That sort of sentiment is also what's been the view of the totalitarian organizational structure of large businesses for as long as one can remember - so it's not hard to get unquestioning support for, especially as it serves a lot of peoples self-interest (namely people that's climbing the proverbial ladder).
Finally; there is a large organizational gap between the totalitarian corporate structure and the most bottom-up anarchistic ideal. My views leans to the latter, but I realize that what's most aligned to the goals of a profit driven company may be somewhat further to the structure of the former. Furthermore I think this article is pretty much in complicance with what I would expect of an organization based on anarchist principles - highly organized, but strictly bottom-up. Apart from maybe a bit too much focus on peoples inherent need, according to her, to seek power.
I think you're putting words in my mouth. I wasn't arguing in favor of managers but against an unclear power structure – which is what the article is saying.
Also, I don't like the use of the word "freedom" in this context, as in "people can't handle the freedom". Lack of organization does not imply freedom, and strict organization does not imply lack thereof. While anarchism appeals to me as well sometimes, I do not for one second believe that it brings more individual freedom. Are people in The Walking Dead more free than us? Diffuse power structures breed just as much oppression as tyrannical ones. An individual can as easily be abused by a group with no clear leaders as by a tyrant. And this isn't theoretical: historical and sociological examples support this (e.g. bullying in schools). Clear organizations nurture freedom just as often as they suppress it. The adoption of strict(er) government regulation in the US to suppress the unchecked power of the free-market robber barons in the early 1900s clearly increased individual freedom in the US for the majority of people (while curtailing the industrialists' "freedom" to exploit the populace).
Fair enough, I may have interpreted things a bit freely. Sorry about that.
I don't know a thing about The Walking Dead, but I guess you mean the freedom while being alive in post-apocalyptic society which is of course a fair point - even though a bit strange and could be interpreted to mean textbook anarchy.
A significant part of anarchist idea is to increase individual freedom as much as possible so I don't really follow you that it wouldn't bring more of it. Practice can of course always differ from theory and ideal, but as you seem to discard it out of hand I'd like to know a bit more why you do that.
This is a bit anecdotal but I recently read somewhere that the lack of rules on the school playground made bullying less common rather than the opposite.
I agree that clear organizations can nurture freedom as well but I don't agree with you that "diffuse power structures" inherently becomes oppressive. I think people with doubious motives or personalities can cause trouble in both kinds of organizations.
> A significant part of anarchist idea is to increase individual freedom as much as possible
Anarchists are no more pro-freedom than progressives. Anarchists simply argue that lack of hierarchy is the best way to achieve freedom, while progressives argue that strong, democratic, regulatory institutions is the best way to achieve individual freedom. Actually, the whole point of democratic institutions is to place boundaries on people with dubious motives or personalities, as those will always abound.
Also, there is debate on the meaning of freedom, because most kind of freedom mean that some individuals are free to restrict others' freedom (for example, if you're free to contaminate a river, you're denying the freedom of those who rely on it for their water to live a healthy life). Progressivism tries to give this ability only to people that are democratically elected.
Yeah, I have no problem with that and I wouldn't want to dive into a discussion of what "true" freedom is as it is not objective to start with. You said it yourself: "X simply argue that Y is the best way to achieve freedom".
I agree that's true, but I think that's more or less the problem this essay is tackling also (which I guess is why it ended up here). There is a pretty long history of anti-authoritarian political movements running into the problem that the first step of abolishing formal titles and declaring that your group has a flat hierarchy with collective leadership is... not enough to remove the actual existence of authority. If anything it can sometimes be worse because now there is a boss but it's not explicit, and you have to be "in the know" to even know who calls the shots. While at least with a President or CEO or Supreme Leader the actual boss is labeled, and everyone has fair notice of who he/she is. So the problem is what to do about that: abandon the flat-hierarchy idea, or try to push it further into a really-flat-in-practice organization?
> So the problem is what to do about that: abandon the flat-hierarchy idea, or try to push it further into a really-flat-in-practice organization?
Given that "really flat in practice" only works for societies like ants, I would tend to argue in most cases for the former, if only because it's more in keeping with what's actually going to happen anyways.
Even at places like Valve, the whole idea isn't to be flat, as much as it's to allow for the "best" sub-teams to arise naturally instead of management forming broken org. structures. But when you use annealing to form your teams you don't just form teams, you form all sorts of other unintended (and possibly harmful) cliques as well. And once you get above Dunbar's Number or thereabouts it becomes impossible to keep pointed in the right direction.
That's definitely not the argument Freeman was making in the OP though, right?
She ends with some suggestions for how to structure an organization to be actually non-hiearchical and with equal sharing of power, instead of assuming structureless will get you there.
What have we learned from trying these things and similar in the 30 years since she wrote the essay? On what basis, what sort of research or experience, do you conclude with certainty that 'really flat' (do you mean egalitarian, democratic, non-hieararchical, non-authoritarian in general?) organizations are only possible for 'societies' (do you mean 'species'?) 'like ants'?
Of course, she wasn't talking about businesses at all. "Even at places like Valve" have no real interest in an egalitarian sharing of power, they have an interest in efficiency and profit, and whatever organizational structure can give them that best. An entirely different context than Freeman was interested in, Freeman was interested in building a radical social movement, and was concerned about an equal democratic sharing of power and privilege -- and what sorts of devices or structures can give them that the best. Which may or may not be accomplished via 'really flat' organization, that's part of the discussion.
> On what basis, what sort of research or experience, do you conclude with certainty that 'really flat' (do you mean egalitarian, democratic, non-hieararchical, non-authoritarian in general?) organizations are only possible for 'societies' (do you mean 'species'?) 'like ants'?
I mean "societies", as if you look into how their colonies work it is very much a collective society.
But the thing that underpins its operation is the fact that it is structured on flat classes. Workers do work. Soldiers defend the colony. Queens lay eggs, and it is understood that in the normal scheme of business that workers will never be queens and queens will not be on the front lines fighting the nearby Nation of Termitistan. But except for the queen the soldiers and workers are all almost completely interchangeable within their class.
Humans, needless to say, are not completely interchangeable. Maximizing the overall contribution from each individual for a collective goal requires different org. structures, especially given the high need for communications and information exchange.
Many groups try to solve this by designing the org. structure first and then finding the "right people" to fill the right positions in that org. structure. That style has seen successes and failures.
Others try to start with the "right people" and then evolve the right org. structure. But this reacts more to the needs of the group than to the abilities of the people, and doesn't scale to boot.
Then you have groups like Valve that try to enforce a flat org. structure and you end up instead evolving informal org. structures as before (since being flat implies being interchangeable). Is that really better? Is it more equal when you end up being in the wrong clique at the Valve cafeteria?
