Hierarchy and Equality
Jan 23, 2007, 2:54p - Organization
It begins as a child. From the moment of birth, we're told what to do and what not to do. As we age, what our parents and teachers tell us to do diminishes in weight, and we question why we should do as they request. The funny thing is, they usually don't have a very good reason why, and the ... more »
Read comments (5) - Comment
omar
- Jan 23, 2007, 8:25p
my father would say that we could do whatever we want, but taking his advice would short-circuit our paths and land them at the right place. ie, why go the long way when i can show you the short way?
of course, i always countered that
1) part of the reason we take the "long way" is because of the learning that occurs in the process
and 2) how do you know the proposed landing spot is the right one?
i once wrote a report, way back when, about children's freedoms in the victorian era (at least i think it was that era). anyway, they were shouldered with responsibility and decision-making at a much younger age (though this was likely for more prudent reasons than equality).
i took a class, again way back when (but less when.. er less way) on literary theory, and for a while we read about foucault's characterization of power and knowledge. here's the first link i found on the subject, which might interest you. it's a bit heavy-going, but worth it when you start to understand what he's saying. i need a refresher too, and will read.
http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory54.htm
joe
- Jan 23, 2007, 8:45p
totally stupid
nikhil
- Jan 23, 2007, 11:57p
joe, care to elaborate?
SB
- Jan 24, 2007, 2:59p
Interesting thoughts.
Inherent need for some degree of hierarchy exists beyond the human race.
Whenever multiple entities *may not be the right term as it primarily refers to living creatures in this context* coexist, even if they start in a horizontal line (at the same level in every sense), after a certain period of time some of them will stand out thus leading to a pyramid like structure.
This comes from an ingrained need to compete, acquire more etc and is one of the cornerstones of our civilized existence.
Lastly, "helping" kids with independent thinking, not give a sense of hierarchy , even if there is one, etc are much talked about parenting challenges.
Harpoon
- Jan 25, 2007, 3:23p
I would like to challenge some of Nikhils assumptions, however i agree for the most part that heirarchy sucks alot.
Firstly, parent-child isn't so much heirarchical as it is "authoritative". Parent-child relationships, are more frequently and ideally "authoritarian" rather than authoritative. However the latter does take place which tends to be disadvantageous to both parent and child, and can be attributed to lapse in parenting skill, capacity to love or care, or impaired mental capacity.
Furthermore, no parent fully dictates every single action and decision for a child, in truth, they only really have the time to prevent the child from doing things which could harm him/her or everyone. Soon a parent begins to realize their role is largely as facilitator, not as decision maker. Facilitating involves helping an unorganized person or group or inexperienced member to handle resources and responsibility, which is a more fair and accurate description of parent-child relationships, which should also be true about the majority of career and political worlds. Anyone / group who behaves as a complete psychopath, usually gets kicked out, or voted off the island. It is often times very difficult to get this information spread wide enough and timely enough in practice. So much to anti-heirarchists dismay, heirarchy is marginally beneficial to all. Also consider, each member of said organization of equality may actually not WANT responsibility over resources, decision making capacity, because it may beyond their unique function or skill to daydream. So hierarchy while it may not be equal or fair, or is in some cases counter productive when lunatics are in control, largely does offer some natural benefit to all.
I think there is some truth to entities organizing themselves heirarchically but as with many natural tendencies in society may be to longer term detriment of civilization, which is an abstract concept not physical. Ownership and allegiances create power struggles, ideals create factions and divide us, cause wars. When tradition is devalued, society declines or becomes despondent and overthrows civilization. The process produces haves vs have-nots every time, at least the illusion it can work is usually to the credit of a smaller percentage of "owners". When groups get fundamental on each other's asses it becomes chaos. Western civilizations mind you never guarantee equality or fairness, instead they promote justice and freedom. Equality is in fact opposed to that, you can't have equality and freedom.
The funny thing is ownership means very little, in society unless it is perceived to be so. So we are free to reject the notion that ownership allows others to rule us. That is, if each of us believes we are truly equal. As an owner, if I think i am "more equal" than you, as long as you know I am wrong about that, then you are doing okay. Given this kind of personal freedom, and the low cost to participate in traditional heirarchy, most are fine with it over anarchy or equiarchy.
Hierarchy almost always has the side-effect - either attracts or produces psychopaths, which happens obviously in government and corporations (not usually in families unless maybe you have 10000 children, or a parent suffering from inferiority complex). Another potential solution to the problem of inequality, might be in independent reporting. If decision makers at each level, were made proactively aware of the potential harm that their decisions make, or, of better ideas that can contribute, then it would correct the tendency for leaders to resort to despotism (if they have a conscience). By proactive I mean this would need to be a stated part of their responsibility, which they get held accountable to perhaps in a democratic way by those lower down in the order. This should in fact be a part of the facilitator role, listening, and when that fails to happen, it is automatic and public demotion followed by humiliation and desecration of their ancestry
Organizational Elephantitis
Apr 12, 2006, 8:22a - Organization
As organizations grow in size, things slow down. There's no question about this. People who have been in any org for a long time get tired of doing the same thing over and over again, and energetic newcomers have fewer oppportunities to have a big impact. Oldies have fewer incentives to work hard, and newbies may not have the sense ... more »
Read comments (2) - Comment
omar
- Apr 13, 2006, 11:24p
as my friend halldor said on my blog when i started to go all HR/business organization styles on it, maybe you should get an MBA (he also pointed out that there are another bazillion things that could be done... as i'm sure you're aware)
as for push power down, i thougt you meant something completely different.. ie: the company has done what it set out to do, and can no longer do much else effectively. set up an endowment, let it do what it's doing, and actually *shut down* the company in all growth respects.
radical.
Prasanna Iyer
- Apr 27, 2006, 12:46p
A “for good” organization is one that focusing on improving the lives of people. For an organization to steadfastly commit to this mission, it should not charge people for its services.
I believe Google is successful in many ways (financial growth, employee satisfaction, brand name, public goodwill) because the satisfied Google users or fans are not the sources of its revenue. People using Google’s search or maps or desktop etc., do not pay for those services. Therefore, here there is a relationship that is built purely on superior service. The absence of financial motivation in the relationship with customers is also the reason why Google is able to thrive on innovation and focus on constantly improving its service.
On the other hand, when the user has to pay for services, the user tries to buy the most value for money (whatever gets the work done) and not the most superior service. Therefore there is a clear threshold to innovation and the service quality. For example, if Google started charging for its online search facility, say with the following pricing structure –
1 – 50 results / search – Free
1 – 100 results / search - $10 per month
1 – 1000 results / search - $100 per month and so on.
In this situation, Google’s motivation would be to provide better quality as price increases, and certainly not to improve the lives of all people.
The challenge would be to apply Google's business model to other services.
A Great Organization
Mar 20, 2006, 8:16a - Organization
Lately, I've been spending some time thinking about what it takes to make a great organization. By "organization", I mean a group of individuals who come together to achieve a shared goal; I'm not trying to figure out the best way to organize my CD collection :).
If you want to create long-lasting change in the world, I believe that ... more »
Read comments (3) - Comment
Alvaro
- Apr 15, 2006, 2:44p
I think you undermine your proposed benchmarks by saying specifically, "funded by a lucrative business model." It seems like you're referring to a commercially driven organization, but then at the end of your post you say "corporation, government, non-profit, etc" and I don't believe that non-profits should be judged by how "lucrative" they are per se.
This comment is really just a technicality, nothing serious. Otherwise, the rest of the benchmarks sound really interesting, if obvious (and even foo-foo).
I'm curious to know if you had a specific organization in mind when you created this list.
Nikhil
- Apr 18, 2006, 9:33a
Hey Alvaro,
Hope you're doing well. What are you up to these days? Still working in DC?
Thanks for leaving a comment on my blog.
I've been thinking about how to build a great organization a) as I've watched Google increase 10x in size and b) because I have ambitions to start and build an organization in the future.
I agree that the point about having a lucrative business model may be contentious. However, I've observed much greater success in organizations that have a healthy business model than those that don't. Google is a prime example of this - it's able to fund a bunch of great products that wouldn't be able to pay for themselves on their own (e.g. Maps). The US government is perhaps the king here - it has the most ingenious, lucrative business model: take a cut of every transaction. The budget for this coming year is $2.7T, based on, i think, ~$2.1T in revenue. This enormous revenue source is critical for it to fund whatever it wants, be it multiple wars, international aid, universal health care, or whatever.
In contrast, I've observed that non-profits are generally no where nearly as effective at achieving their goals as organizations with lucrative business models. Of course, they frequently take on more difficult goals, but I don't think that's the critical difference.
However, I also believe that corporations, while they do a lot of good, also do a lot of bad because they are focused on generating profits.
I'm hopeful that there will develop a next generation of organizations that is neither "for-profit" or "not-for-profit" or "government", but actually just "for-good". I'm not sure how exactly such an organization sustain itself and what the mechanics would be, but I'm hopeful that a) someone has already developed such a notion, or b) I can work to develop and implement such an organization.
Thoughts?
Charles
- Nov 4, 2006, 2:08a
you must also study the dysfunctions of organization. Max Weber is the great pioneer of this study, and many others have continued his work.
|