The Issues With Structurelessness

In recent years we’ve seen a renaissance of organisations that aim to void themselves of any structure. There’s been a slew of companies that set out on the premise of having no managers.

Some companies have been very vocal about it and instead they had everyone be a manager. This likely contributed to creating a generation of startups built on the same premise, including my own when it started out.

We’ve seen the rise and evolution of Holacracy. Zappos was its most famous insurgent, adopting it via decree from the CEO. Holacracy as a system isn’t structureless per se. It’s also not without hierarchy. Broadly speaking, it’s a process system that happens in a hierarchical system of different groups (circles).

It just so happens that holacratic organisations tend to exhibit similar symptoms as other structureless organisations. From this essay over at Fortune on Zappos’ adoption of Holacracy and the bumps in the road, this part is referring to the results of a workplace survey after Zappos adopted it:

Two questions that generated particularly dismal results: Do employees think management has “a clear view of where the organization is going and how to get there”? And do managers “avoid playing favorites”?

Regardless of how these organisations systems have come to be, they tend to share a set of symptoms that tend to come up when an organisation has no structure:

1. Decisions take a long time to make or are never made at all. It’s unclear how decisions are being made (due to the lack of structure)
2. Rather than default to action, structureless organisation fall back to conversation and discussion.
3. Nobody feels responsible to make certain decisions or even to propose them.
4. There’s a general lack of direction for the company and its products.
5. Or, as I’ve seen happen in tech-focused company times over, new features don’t get shipped.

The tech world in particular has seen this resurgence. As a relatively young industry we still seem prone to ideas contrarian to things that other industries have spent decades learning.

Fifty years ago, in 1970, Jo Freeman published an essay called “The Tyranny of Structurelessness.” (PDF version) In the essay she analyses the women’s movement of that time, a generally structureless body of people with sub-groups across the country. It’s a read worth your time.

She posits that whenever an organisation claims to be without structure, there’s still a structure that emerges. It exists without anyone acknowledging that it does. According to Jo

“the idea of ‘structurelessness’ does not prevent for formation of informal structures, but only informal ones.”

She outlines the issues that emerge when an organisation is striving to have no structure:

1. There’s a group of people that has an element of power in the organisation. They can make decisions that others can’t make. That power is not endowed to them in any way. They have it because this group is well-connected with each other and enjoys a level of influence that other folks don’t have.
   
   Structurelessness can sometimes be paired with the idea of a meritocracy where the best idea wins. But as the “rules of how decisions are made are only known to a few” the meritocracy is an illusion. Whether or not you can make a decision depends on whether you’re a part of the group.
2. The group cannot be defined as being the group in power as there is no structure. As such they cannot be held accountable for their actions. That would void the idea of a structureless organisation where it is assumed that everyone can do what they think they should do.
3. Given that this group has certain powers they can lead an organisation from the shadows and without having to fear influence from outside of their group. Officially they don’t exist so nobody has any leverage to identify or influence them.
4. The group has no interest in changing that status quo, like admitting they have certain powers or that they could be held accountable. That would mean they’d admit that such a power exist and would therefore void the idea of structurelessness.
5. The organisation lacks direction and therefore a general purpose.
6. Some folks emerge as “stars” (as Jo calls them) from within the group. They tend to be asked for advice or a comment (from the outside) more than others are. They emerge by virtue of their perceived status. For instance, someone can be considered a leader because they are vocal on many topics, because they lead meetings, or because they have a persona created such that they are assumed to be leaders.
7. The structure tends to alienate people who don’t have influence and don’t have access to any kind of ladder to gain more influence over time.

Structureless organisations tend to also postulate that they’re a meritocracy, a place where (supposedly) the best ideas win. It’s presumed that as this is effectively an economy for ideas that everyone has access to it and can contribute equally. But as we can surmise from the structures and symptoms emerging in structureless organisations, this is not so.

Instead groups with the most influence and the stars with the loudest voices tend to push ideas. Everyone else is bound to whether they can get support for their ideas from these folks. Meritocracies err on the side of being exclusive rather than being the inclusive places they claim to be.

As there are no leverage point for anyone without power to enact change or make decision, there’s only one option for the folks without it. They can try to find enough like-minded people to create their own group. This can enable them to make decisions at a certain level. They could even try to counteract the decisions and direction coming from one of the other groups that already exist.

In an ideal organisation the people in it work collaboratively in decision making and pushing the organisation forward. But as there is no clear direction for a structureless organisation and no way to create on, the people in it default to infighting and undermining each other while trying to gain power and influence.

Structurelessness tends to be favoured by those holding the power. They can move around the organisation, make decisions where others can’t, without being held accountable for it. They tend to be the ones who have the most interest in the system continuing in the structureless state as they have the most to gain from it.

What’s the solution to structurelessness then? According to Jo, and this mirrors with my own experiences and observations, the solution is to create formal structures.

1. Formalising a structure, e.g. by creating and assigning roles and responsibilities and holding the people assigned responsible for them. One outcome here can certainly be that the shadow structure that’s existed is now formalised and made to be the official structure of the organisation. At least this step would be admitting that there is a structure after all.
2. Establish processes for joint decision making that allow different people to provide their perspectives. This creates a formal decision making process where there was only an informal one before. It creates fairness in the organisation as it is at clear how decisions are made and who makes them. People will know who to go to and how to approach them when they need a decision to be made.
3. Distribute authority broadly, to the largest number of people that makes sense. This doesn’t mean you have to transfer every decision to a committee of twelve people or to strive for consensus-based decision making. It rather means that different levels of decision making authority should be assigned to different people in that group. That way, responsibility can be ensured and it’s ensured that no one person holds all that responsibility alone.

All this doesn’t mean that an organisation has to adopt all the practices that it disagreed with in the first place. It can pick the ones that make sense for what the organisation needs.

It turns out the solution to structurelessness’ problems then, is rather simple: add more structure. Unfortunately for most people within structureless organisations, that kind of change can only come from the people having the power.