If the goal of society is to put equality above all else then i take your point.
I think horizontal hierarchies are generally better in an organization in terms of motivating people to contribute and give them a sense of equity.
But idk how you avoid the fact that people do have bad ideas, or well intentioned ideas that could start a cascade of delays in project planning for example. People focusing on the excellence at different levels of work is important right? But having a chain of command to maintain vision, timelines, budgets, stakeholders seems to depend on hierarchy.
I think the main rebuttal to that argument is what stops that from happening in a hierarchy? If anything having one makes that more likely, since someone in charge can have a bad idea and no one below them has any real power to stop it. There’s a reason “incompetent boss/manager” is such a common trope. Having a horizontal structure where consensus is prioritized actually helps prevent those sorts of issues, since people who are the most knowledgeable and involved in the process are the ones making those decisions. It’s why group brainstorming sessions are so common, bouncing ideas off of other people involved in a project is extremely useful to help filter or improve bad ideas and build on good ones. Horizontal groups are sort of the natural state that you fall into when collaborating with people when there isn’t an existing rigidly enforced hierarchy between the members.
Idk that kind of sounds like getting rid of circles from society to stop people from driving their cars.
Its a matter of “how much time can each employee spend on one task/project”
Crowdsourcing decision-making can be a good way to make decisions. But complex, time-sensitive, specialized problems need to be handled with many hours of expertise in many different fields like data analytics (essentially predicting the future). Maybe the more specialization thats required, the less laymen input is effective in contributing. People spend their lives interpreting data, and can make fast data-driven decisions that produce the results. From theres it all Game Theory between organizations and its not that crazy that they refuse to concede the competitive edge and let someone else dominate the market. It seems like it would be hard to enforce not making certain decisions data driven.
Getting input from employees that are understanding of the subtleties is probably appreciated but even experts can be unfamiliar with the cadence of the project schedule which is why Change Control is a thing to ensure changes are not delaying or raising costs, or work the changes in with minimal distruption.
If “bosses” arent doing their job then they wont be able to explain to their bosses whats going on for them to make decisions effectively. People at the top dont like incompetency even if they themselves are. Yes bad decisions can come from the top and power corrupts.
I think its clear our government has failed us on many levels but i think banning the abstract structure “hierarchy” is some weak meme shit.
They seem to depend on hierarchies but there are decision making processes that do not depend on hierarchies even tho they might resemble them on first glance. You can have a council that makes decisions on a consensual basis, sends revocable delegates to upper level councils. This might seem like representatives as in modern parliaments but the revocable part is important. If they can be called back at any point and the position is temporal from the start, this changes everything. Also decisions should be on the lowest possible level and everything must be voluntary.
If the goal of society is to put equality above all else then i take your point.
I think horizontal hierarchies are generally better in an organization in terms of motivating people to contribute and give them a sense of equity.
But idk how you avoid the fact that people do have bad ideas, or well intentioned ideas that could start a cascade of delays in project planning for example. People focusing on the excellence at different levels of work is important right? But having a chain of command to maintain vision, timelines, budgets, stakeholders seems to depend on hierarchy.
I think the main rebuttal to that argument is what stops that from happening in a hierarchy? If anything having one makes that more likely, since someone in charge can have a bad idea and no one below them has any real power to stop it. There’s a reason “incompetent boss/manager” is such a common trope. Having a horizontal structure where consensus is prioritized actually helps prevent those sorts of issues, since people who are the most knowledgeable and involved in the process are the ones making those decisions. It’s why group brainstorming sessions are so common, bouncing ideas off of other people involved in a project is extremely useful to help filter or improve bad ideas and build on good ones. Horizontal groups are sort of the natural state that you fall into when collaborating with people when there isn’t an existing rigidly enforced hierarchy between the members.
Idk that kind of sounds like getting rid of circles from society to stop people from driving their cars.
Its a matter of “how much time can each employee spend on one task/project”
Crowdsourcing decision-making can be a good way to make decisions. But complex, time-sensitive, specialized problems need to be handled with many hours of expertise in many different fields like data analytics (essentially predicting the future). Maybe the more specialization thats required, the less laymen input is effective in contributing. People spend their lives interpreting data, and can make fast data-driven decisions that produce the results. From theres it all Game Theory between organizations and its not that crazy that they refuse to concede the competitive edge and let someone else dominate the market. It seems like it would be hard to enforce not making certain decisions data driven.
Getting input from employees that are understanding of the subtleties is probably appreciated but even experts can be unfamiliar with the cadence of the project schedule which is why Change Control is a thing to ensure changes are not delaying or raising costs, or work the changes in with minimal distruption.
If “bosses” arent doing their job then they wont be able to explain to their bosses whats going on for them to make decisions effectively. People at the top dont like incompetency even if they themselves are. Yes bad decisions can come from the top and power corrupts.
I think its clear our government has failed us on many levels but i think banning the abstract structure “hierarchy” is some weak meme shit.
Hierarchies have given us the GenAI bubble so it doesn’t look like they are doing great at rational decision making either.
Hierarchies are not inherently good or bad.
They help where they help and they oppress where they oppress.
They seem to depend on hierarchies but there are decision making processes that do not depend on hierarchies even tho they might resemble them on first glance. You can have a council that makes decisions on a consensual basis, sends revocable delegates to upper level councils. This might seem like representatives as in modern parliaments but the revocable part is important. If they can be called back at any point and the position is temporal from the start, this changes everything. Also decisions should be on the lowest possible level and everything must be voluntary.
Just confirming, this is a hierarchy. Certainly in your comment a better designed hierarchy, but still a hierarchy