The challenge for society going forward is to recognize this and to not reflexively try to remove all authority and hierarchy.

OSS does well with the BDFL model ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life ). The people who practice it best use their authority to set tone and agenda and then step back to let people own their participation. They step back in only when they have to.

In universities today the idea of a "safe space" is in vogue. We might recognize that safe spaces require some sort of protection. It can come from campus police, in online communities it can come from people who are charged with that role, and in companies it can come from managers and executives.

Not all overt power is abused.

There are two aspects to the BDFL model: 1) a BD, 2) FL. There are several OSS projects with a BD, but who is not FL. For example, I co-founded the Biopython project, which has rotated through several leaders.

Jo Freeman encourages several principles, one of which is:

> Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's "property" and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently the individual does not have time to learn her job well and acquire the sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.

This is an argument against a BDFL. Note that even in Python development, van Rossum does not always have the final say. Mark Shannon was the "BDFL-Delegate" for the type hints PEP 484.

The main point of the essay is not that overt power is inherently abuse, but rather describes methods to limit abuse of both overt and implicit power. Emphasis mine in the following:

> If the movement is to grow beyond these elementary stages of development, it will have to disabuse itself of some of its prejudices about organization and structure. There is nothing inherently bad about either of these. They can be and often are misused, but to reject them out of hand because they are misused is to deny ourselves the necessary tools to further development.

The point is that we can decide not to fix what isn't broken. Rotation of leadership is a great solution if you have a problem that calls for it. If you don't, then it's not worth it.

Society going forward is not going to need producers. Most of the jobs are going the way of the dodo along with the concept of management, etc. Going forward, we need better political structures that don't need to feed egos of sociopaths. Corporations by their very nature are tyrannical dictatorships. Human society should be more about humanism and less about sociopaths and production and consumption.

> Corporations by their very nature are tyrannical dictatorships.

How so? A boss can only ask for so much before people leave.

(And yes, bad management of the economy can make it hard to find a new job. That's a wider political problem.)

BDFL is actually very primitive model - it is really very much alike some ancient kingdom system - it only works because it is counterbalanced by forking.

Why the implicit dis against primitive things? They work.

A clear structure does not relieve us from social power or political power or information power. It may be that A is the manager of B, but right now, concerning you B has more power over you than A, so you better follow B's wishes instead of A's. It may even be that you are both people's manager and still better follow their desires at this point in time.

It does not relieve us entirely from social or political pressures, but formal lines of authority can serve as a bulwark against capricious turns of political luck. In an organization with formally defined management responsibilities, you know who to escalate to when you get conflicting requirements. If A has formal authority over the group, and tells you that you should be focusing on, say, improving the build system, but then you get a request from B (who is influential, but does not have formal authority) asking for help improving the UI, you always have the option of asking A. At the very least, if you don't ask A, you know you're taking a political risk by completing B's request before you complete A's. In a holocracy, you can take on massive political risks without realizing it, simply by misjudging the political dynamics of a group that you're new to.

I don't dispute that informal power structures exist even in organizations whose hierarchies are formally defined. However, a formal hierarchy serves as a baseline, and one can measure the level of political risk they're taking by noticing how much their actions are diverging from the formal hierarchy. If I bypass the chain of command, so to speak, and bring my concerns directly to a high-level executive, I can roughly judge who I'm going to be offending by taking that step. How does one do that in a holocracy? How do I even know who the "high-level executives" are? The holocracy literature completely hand-waves this aspect of the organization. Holocracy advocates say that you shouldn't worry; with time it becomes clear who the influencers are and who one should talk to for various matters. I don't agree with that at all. As anyone who remembers attending a public high school can tell you, humans will naturally form cliques, and it's not always obvious who the influencers are for a given clique. Moreover, as Paul Graham points out, hackers are much less interested in social dynamics (i.e. "politics" and "drama") than average people, and so are much more likely to make political miscalculations in a holocracy. It is for this reason that I consider holocracy to be a form of organization that is inherently hostile to hackers. It's a form of organization that seems custom-designed to hit us where we're weakest.

So the difference between our opinions is basically that you think formal power is most important and informal power only a nuance to that, and I think informal power is most important and formal power only a nuance to that.

For me it's good to know that people still exist who can believe in the first. I also started out like that but the little experience I could gather from this world taught me otherwise.

I think what the GP is saying is that navigating through the office politics is like crossing a minefield; formal structure at least shows you where most of the mines are located; holocracy means you have no clue, no map.

Yes and I think the map is too old and outdated and lacks detail.

At least the map gives you excuses---ie harder to get fired for doing what your boss tells you. Your detractors will have to make up another charge.

That's true. It's harder to get fired following the map. Haven't thought about that, since it's not my preference. Thanks for the reminder. Now it makes sense to think that way.

Unclear and diffuse structure probably does insulate decision makers against legal action, blame, and other kinds of sanction though. It's the managerial equivalent of firing rockets from the roof of a hospital.

Perhaps I misunderstood Holocracy when I looked into it but I thought it was about being able to modify the structure of the organisation in real-time, so it had just the right amount of structure.

http://wiki.holacracy.org/index.php?title=FAQ says > Is there no hierarchy in Holacracy? Yes and no. There is no management hierarchy as we’re used to it, and no hierarchy of people/managers. However it’s not a structureless" structure either. Holacracy uses a totally different type of hierarchy: a holarchy of roles, and not a hierarchy of people/managers.

I guess being given tasks from more than one Holacracy role can lead to not knowing which to prioritise? Is that a fair representation of what you said?

Is this something you've witnessed first hand or heard about or is it just a hypothetical?

You're right Flenser. In fact there is typically more structure in a company running with Holacracy vs. a traditional management hierarchy. Or maybe more accurately, the structure is clearer and more explicit with Holacracy at play.

I wrote a post about this: "Holacracy vs. Hierarchy vs. Flat Orgs" https://blog.holacracy.org/holacracy-vs-hierarchy-vs-flat-or...

Thanks Olivier, interesting read. I particularly liked the second chart. I hadn't appreciated that holacracy had less hierarchy of people than flat orgs.

I had never had heard of Holacracy. But, this also commonly occurs in traditional organizational structures: the multiple bosses pattern. It results from a lot of different types of system dynamics, and although it inefficiently organizes resources, it seems innately baked into Human behavior.