Horizontal / Flat Management Structures, Workplace Democracies

Isbjørn · 04-07-2016, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

If there are ten people in your group you increase who you have to report to from one person to nine people. You'll have nine bosses. One day you'll find out you are doing 80% of the work will all the other are doing 20% and you'll resent it. Going in you thought everyone is equal and everything is done equally. And one day when you go into work, and look around at your flat organization, you'll realize that is not the case. Pareto principle will bitch slap you in the face and you'll hate your life and hate your job and resent all the rest because the amount of effort you put into it.

You won't be having nine bosses, you'll be participating in a democracy. And you most likely won't be doing 80% of the work, because tasks will be assigned at regular, democratic meetings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_32_116

If you want a true productive round table discussion, as suggested in the illustration above, I'd suggest the first thing to do is ban laptops and mobile phones from the room, and force people to actually talk and to look at each other as they talk. Maybe let them have a pen and paper if anyone wants/needs to take notes on what was discussed.

The illustration is just, well, an illustration. On a real meeting, there should be a set of democratically-decided rules that everyone will have to follow - for instance, no phones, no interruptions, etc. - and an elected leader for the meeting, who will make sure that everyone speaks in turn and keeps track of the order.

bob_32_116 · 04-07-2016, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isbjørn

The illustration is just, well, an illustration. On a real meeting, there should be a set of democratically-decided rules that everyone will have to follow - for instance, no phones, no interruptions, etc. - and an elected leader for the meeting, who will make sure that everyone speaks in turn and keeps track of the order.

Yes!

And also - this sounds boring but it's necessary - you need someone to take minutes. not so much to have the minutes themselves, as to have people aware that suggestions are being recorded, which makes it more likely they will be acted on.

I've been to many meetings of the "Let's get together and talk about these issues" variety at which actions or solutions to a problem are proposed, they are more or less agreed on verbally by those present - and then after the meeting nothing happens. Or, worse, something happens that is in contradiction with what was agreed. Two questions need to be asked repeatedly: "What action are we going to take?" and "Who is going to take that action?" - and if it's decided that Jimmy Jones is going to do such and such, and Jimmy Jones sees that this is going in the minutes, it's much more likely that jimmy Jones will actually do it, rather than forgetting about it and making the meeting a pointless exercise.

Isbjørn · 04-07-2016, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_32_116

Yes!

And also - this sounds boring but it's necessary - you need someone to take minutes. not so much to have the minutes themselves, as to have people aware that suggestions are being recorded, which makes it more likely they will be acted on.

I've been to many meetings of the "Let's get together and talk about these issues" variety at which actions or solutions to a problem are proposed, they are more or less agreed on verbally by those present - and then after the meeting nothing happens. Or, worse, something happens that is in contradiction with what was agreed. Two questions need to be asked repeatedly: "What action are we going to take?" and "Who is going to take that action?" - and if it's decided that Jimmy Jones is going to do such and such, and Jimmy Jones sees that this is going in the minutes, it's much more likely that jimmy Jones will actually do it, rather than forgetting about it and making the meeting a pointless exercise.

Exactly. With proper procedures, grassroots decision-making in workplaces can function just as well as hierarchies.

The Batlord · 04-07-2016, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_32_116

Yes!

And also - this sounds boring but it's necessary - you need someone to take minutes. not so much to have the minutes themselves, as to have people aware that suggestions are being recorded, which makes it more likely they will be acted on.

I've been to many meetings of the "Let's get together and talk about these issues" variety at which actions or solutions to a problem are proposed, they are more or less agreed on verbally by those present - and then after the meeting nothing happens. Or, worse, something happens that is in contradiction with what was agreed. Two questions need to be asked repeatedly: "What action are we going to take?" and "Who is going to take that action?" - and if it's decided that Jimmy Jones is going to do such and such, and Jimmy Jones sees that this is going in the minutes, it's much more likely that jimmy Jones will actually do it, rather than forgetting about it and making the meeting a pointless exercise.

I wouldn't trust Jim Jones with my goldfish.

bob_32_116 · 04-07-2016, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I wouldn't trust Jim Jones with my goldfish.

I think you could. I got mine back, more or less intact.

The Batlord · 04-07-2016, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob_32_116

I think you could. I got mine back, more or less intact.

He poured Kool-Aid in the fish tank. Not cool, bro.

**Frownland** · 04-07-2016, 03:11 PM

Like prepared kool aid or just the powder?

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerspaceboy

I'm with you on your points 100%, Frown. And many examples of flat-ter hierarchies (e.g. tiers of management each directing their own branch of cooperative/collectives) are able to support each of the benefits you've cited.

Definitely. I think it would be a more effective model for those benefits to come about as well, which would be a good selling point for your boss to have a better understanding of the system and possibly the willingness to transition into it.

The Batlord · 04-07-2016, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Like prepared kool aid or just the powder?

Cyanide is its own powder.

innerspaceboy · 04-07-2016, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Definitely. I think it would be a more effective model for those benefits to come about as well, which would be a good selling point for your boss to have a better understanding of the system and possibly the willingness to transition into it.

Point well made. The company at present is effectively just myself. I regularly meet with our CEO who also owns a printing company in the same office and I act as their prepress department when I'm not creating paperless workflow automation, developing apps, managing clients' social media marketing, or other facets of the app co.

There is one other employee acting as a CSR taking in all ink-on-paper orders. The rest of our operation is fully-automated - everything from pricing to document imposition for press output. It's really a good system.

But as my projects grow our business I may need to bring on a few additional team members. I'll likely be in control of directing our workflow at that stage and depending on the work to be done it may be an opportunity to introduce collaborative methodologies into our operation.

I've been named as the CEO's successor, but I'll have to see how I feel when that time comes. As an INTJ, I feel much more comfortable being the brains behind the scenes than the guy running the show.

Neapolitan · 04-07-2016, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isbjørn

The illustration is just, well, an illustration. On a real meeting, there should be a set of democratically-decided rules that everyone will have to follow - for instance, no phones, no interruptions, etc. - and an elected leader for the meeting, who will make sure that everyone speaks in turn and keeps track of the order.

It's strange that the first thing the flat group wants to do is structure itself like a hierarchy or tall organization by having a leader.