How "don't use the B-word" applies in lattice-structure management.
July 14, 2011 7:20 AM Subscribe
No hierarchy, no supervisors, no managers, no bosses. How does the philosophy that "authoritarians cannot impose commitments, only commands" translate into a successful company?
W.L. Gore makes regular appearances on the Best Employers To Work For lists by going against the traditional ladder-structure management in favor of innovative lattice-structure.
W.L. Gore makes regular appearances on the Best Employers To Work For lists by going against the traditional ladder-structure management in favor of innovative lattice-structure.
it's a common misconception that companies are successful because of what they do. It's not uncommon to see companies on lists of "best companies" go bankrupt a few years later. The true causes of success are usually a lot more mundane and elegant than what makes the headlines.
posted by rebent at 7:55 AM on July 14, 2011
posted by rebent at 7:55 AM on July 14, 2011
I work for a university that is a lattice structure organization. In practice, it means that no one has any authority to make a decision*, but everyone has to check with someone else when faced with a question.
(* except for the people who control the money).
posted by procrastination at 7:58 AM on July 14, 2011 [7 favorites]
(* except for the people who control the money).
posted by procrastination at 7:58 AM on July 14, 2011 [7 favorites]
"Success" can be measured on many yardsticks, only one of which has a dollar sign on it.
posted by DU at 7:58 AM on July 14, 2011
posted by DU at 7:58 AM on July 14, 2011
I enjoyed the experience of reading a piece on a propertarian organization, while at every paragraph anarchistic principles were winking and nodding at me. The way I see it, this "innovative lattice structure" really isn't that innovative at all, considering political thinkers have been working on this idea since the 19th century; not that I'm not glad to see it thriving even in a capitalist environment.
posted by Kickdrum at 8:02 AM on July 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Kickdrum at 8:02 AM on July 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
That pdf is really difficult to read, they sure do dodge around the topic, and sentences like "Lattice ways work is done." sure don't help. In typical business language form, they say nothing at all, in a very positive, long winded, powerpoint friendly way.
I don't see how this is breaking down hierarchy. At all. It's also not eliminating managers, supervisors or bosses.
This seems to be built around three points:
1) Diverse career paths. What does that even mean? Jobs leading to other jobs, but not necessarily more managerial, or ladder climbing jobs. Are we still going to make more money as we advance sideways?
2) Work from ANYWHERE. Although not coming to the office is appealing, I'd rather not be on call, without getting paid to be on call. Work from anywhere sounds a lot like work from everywhere, all the time.
3) Participatory decision making. But the power and money are still at the top.
Anybody have a better summary? I'm still sorting this out.
This link is at least a bit more concise.
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:06 AM on July 14, 2011 [4 favorites]
I don't see how this is breaking down hierarchy. At all. It's also not eliminating managers, supervisors or bosses.
This seems to be built around three points:
1) Diverse career paths. What does that even mean? Jobs leading to other jobs, but not necessarily more managerial, or ladder climbing jobs. Are we still going to make more money as we advance sideways?
2) Work from ANYWHERE. Although not coming to the office is appealing, I'd rather not be on call, without getting paid to be on call. Work from anywhere sounds a lot like work from everywhere, all the time.
3) Participatory decision making. But the power and money are still at the top.
Anybody have a better summary? I'm still sorting this out.
This link is at least a bit more concise.
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:06 AM on July 14, 2011 [4 favorites]
I work for a university that is a lattice structure organization. In practice, it means that no one has any authority to make a decision*, but everyone has to check with someone else when faced with a question.
Mine too...and that's why every.single.project is three years late and six million over budget.
posted by spicynuts at 8:38 AM on July 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Mine too...and that's why every.single.project is three years late and six million over budget.
posted by spicynuts at 8:38 AM on July 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
After preview, Stagger Lee FUCKING NAILS IT. Exactly.
posted by spicynuts at 8:40 AM on July 14, 2011
posted by spicynuts at 8:40 AM on July 14, 2011
This does seem to be the kind of model that universities are organized around. Collegiate.
But we all still know who the bosses are, and there's nothing dispersed about the power and the money.
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:40 AM on July 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
But we all still know who the bosses are, and there's nothing dispersed about the power and the money.
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:40 AM on July 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
This is not the case at my university. This is the most top-down, regressive, conservative organization I've ever worked at. I only wish it was like this.
posted by the dief at 9:36 AM on July 14, 2011
posted by the dief at 9:36 AM on July 14, 2011
rebent: The true causes of success are usually a lot more mundane and elegant than what makes the headlines.
Could you give an example?
posted by stebulus at 10:20 AM on July 14, 2011
Could you give an example?
posted by stebulus at 10:20 AM on July 14, 2011
Essentially, I think the best places to work for do have some hierarchical structure. But the people in power while not being assholes and willing to view things on a case by case basis are also willing to make the hard choices, fire people and be responsible.
That "be responsible" is important throughout the organization from head honcho to janitor. You have something like that you can avoid nebulous lattice networking and arc conservative assholiness.
posted by edgeways at 11:35 AM on July 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
That "be responsible" is important throughout the organization from head honcho to janitor. You have something like that you can avoid nebulous lattice networking and arc conservative assholiness.
posted by edgeways at 11:35 AM on July 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Stebulus: Could you give an example?
Like, being in the right place at the right time, winning lucrative government contracts, having people who don't give a fuck order from your company because they went to school with you, exploiting third world and first world working people, fancy marketing, etc.
And, also, just having a gosh darn good product.
posted by rebent at 11:38 AM on July 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
Like, being in the right place at the right time, winning lucrative government contracts, having people who don't give a fuck order from your company because they went to school with you, exploiting third world and first world working people, fancy marketing, etc.
And, also, just having a gosh darn good product.
posted by rebent at 11:38 AM on July 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
No hierarchy, no supervisors, no managers, no bosses.
Not really. The article says: "At Gore, everyone’s your boss." The company is organized in the same way that social norms are enforced. No single authority is required, it happens at a peer-to-peer level.
posted by AlsoMike at 12:21 PM on July 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Not really. The article says: "At Gore, everyone’s your boss." The company is organized in the same way that social norms are enforced. No single authority is required, it happens at a peer-to-peer level.
posted by AlsoMike at 12:21 PM on July 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
I work for a company of about 120 people that's very much like this. Five original owner/partners, no official middle management, teams with no official titles and a lot of fluidity in people's roles and latitude in what they can do. The chaos is frustrating sometimes, but we rub along and the freedom is very much worth it. I had been thinking about how we are suffering growing pains and that the semi-anarchist mode of operation can't last, but maybe it can. It would be nice if it did.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:56 PM on July 14, 2011
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:56 PM on July 14, 2011
Like, being in the right place at the right time, [...] etc.
Ok, I'm with you on those.
And, also, just having a gosh darn good product.
Uh, sure. But... well, let me recap.
Article: Gore has invented so many good products because they are organized for innovation! OMG lattice structure! *swoon*
You: Pshaw, companies aren't successful for reasons like that!
Me: Why are they successful, then?
You: Because they have good products!
Me: ...
posted by stebulus at 2:28 PM on July 14, 2011
Ok, I'm with you on those.
And, also, just having a gosh darn good product.
Uh, sure. But... well, let me recap.
Article: Gore has invented so many good products because they are organized for innovation! OMG lattice structure! *swoon*
You: Pshaw, companies aren't successful for reasons like that!
Me: Why are they successful, then?
You: Because they have good products!
Me: ...
posted by stebulus at 2:28 PM on July 14, 2011
Interesting. I work a lot with alternate forms of organizing and use a lot of distributed approaches to work I do as a consultant. Lots of companies and organizations would love to work this way but what holds them back is the latent control and power issues which many have alluded to in this thread. "we are self organizing!" is sometimes an excuse to avoid discussing the status issues that are at play. A really honest reckoning of these issues is important to make distributed structures work. Trust is a big part of it..
Hierarchy has its place for sure. I often liken it to an irrigation system. When it works well it ensures that resources flow o all parts of the organization in a way that is slow and considered. Its greatest asset is that it slows things down, brings in accountability and a considered flow of resources. But that very strength c an sometimes frustrate innovation and rapid responses to changing conditions. Just look at the military. Very structured in peace time and down time, but free flowing in combat as a response to the complex and chaoic challenges of war. Striking that balance is important, and timing is everything.
posted by salishsea at 3:01 PM on July 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Hierarchy has its place for sure. I often liken it to an irrigation system. When it works well it ensures that resources flow o all parts of the organization in a way that is slow and considered. Its greatest asset is that it slows things down, brings in accountability and a considered flow of resources. But that very strength c an sometimes frustrate innovation and rapid responses to changing conditions. Just look at the military. Very structured in peace time and down time, but free flowing in combat as a response to the complex and chaoic challenges of war. Striking that balance is important, and timing is everything.
posted by salishsea at 3:01 PM on July 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
I've never worked for a company with this kind of structure, but I've worked with a hell of a lot of companies with bad products and a handful of companies with good products.
In every single instance of a "good product", the reason for the good product was a single, obsessed project owner who came up with the idea and either built it himself or had a very small team build it for him, with limited or no oversight from other managers or departments, no committee meetings, no consensus, no confusion about who's responsible for what, just single-minded dictatorial focus.
(The catch, of course, is that many of the worst products also followed this exact same model, and it's not always easy to tell which you're dealing with until it's too late.)
Typically it would take the rest of the company a couple years to realize that they'd stumbled onto a good thing, then an interdepartmental turf war would break out as all the other managers tried to latch onto it and take some or all of the credit, and the product would gradually degrade to the lowest common denominator.
This "lattice structure" sounds, in theory, like it could encourage that kind of small-team skunkwork mentality. It also sounds like it could just as easily be the perfect system for endless nobody's-in-charge design-by-committee diffusion of responsibility.
Mostly it sounds like the ideal environment for those managers who really excel at office politics, the ones who talk a great game in meetings but aren't so good at getting things done; the ones who turn up out of nowhere once a project is almost finished and somehow wind up getting most of the credit for building it.
posted by ook at 3:18 PM on July 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
In every single instance of a "good product", the reason for the good product was a single, obsessed project owner who came up with the idea and either built it himself or had a very small team build it for him, with limited or no oversight from other managers or departments, no committee meetings, no consensus, no confusion about who's responsible for what, just single-minded dictatorial focus.
(The catch, of course, is that many of the worst products also followed this exact same model, and it's not always easy to tell which you're dealing with until it's too late.)
Typically it would take the rest of the company a couple years to realize that they'd stumbled onto a good thing, then an interdepartmental turf war would break out as all the other managers tried to latch onto it and take some or all of the credit, and the product would gradually degrade to the lowest common denominator.
This "lattice structure" sounds, in theory, like it could encourage that kind of small-team skunkwork mentality. It also sounds like it could just as easily be the perfect system for endless nobody's-in-charge design-by-committee diffusion of responsibility.
Mostly it sounds like the ideal environment for those managers who really excel at office politics, the ones who talk a great game in meetings but aren't so good at getting things done; the ones who turn up out of nowhere once a project is almost finished and somehow wind up getting most of the credit for building it.
posted by ook at 3:18 PM on July 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
What this really sounds most like is an implementation of the Network form of organization, described for instance in this MeFi thread, particularly this RAND paper Tribes, Institutions, Markets, Networks: A Framework About Societal Evolution. If so, I'm all for it.
posted by scalefree at 1:58 PM on July 18, 2011
posted by scalefree at 1:58 PM on July 18, 2011
« Older The Hole | Blasphroggy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by three blind mice at 7:51 AM on July 14, 2011