Thread by @al94781

“Patterns of Anarchy” is a collection of writings published in 1966. I came to it because a) Christopher Alexander quotes from it in “A Pattern Language” and b) because as a consultant and developer I’m interested in different patterns of organising. goodreads.com/book/show/1663…

Edited by L. Krimerman and L. Perry, the book brings together thinkers from across the anarchist spectrum and considers definitions of anarchism, anarchist critiques of socialism, it's philosophical foundations, and more.

There’s a lot in it, especially if like me, you don’t know much about anarchism beyond “A Homage to Catalonia”.

As this is going to be a long thread, I’m not going to waste time on a definition of "Anarchy". Trust me when I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia’s because it's probably not what you thought it was: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

What interested me most about this book was the section “Constructive Anarchism: Alternative Communities and Programs”. (pp.312) This covers the *how* of anarchist organisation.

I’m going to share some of the most interesting quotes from my perspective as a student of socio-technical organisation design. Sometimes I’ll add some commentary.

PART 1: What Anarchism thinks is wrong with how we organise now.

(And the "now" in the book still very much applies today.)

“Organisation is, after all, only a means to an end. When it becomes an end in itself, it kills the spirit and the vital initiative of its members ... " Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker (pp.352)

"... and sets up that dominion by mediocrity which is the characteristic of all but bureaucracies.” Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker (pp.352)

“Work, not wages ... Packed in that one right little phrase is all the dynamite of revolution. Men [sic] wanted work more than they wanted bread, and they wanted to be responsible for their work, which meant ownership.” The Long Loneliness by Dorothy Day (pp.376)

Do these all sound familiar? To me it sounds a lot like many software development organisations (including many that I help) are aiming for. In fact, the parallels with @DanielPink 's "Drive" are striking.

PART 2: How “traditional” organisations are structured
Next up are anarchist descriptions of how organisations are "traditionally" (i.e. almost always) structured. Paul Goodman kicks us off with a description that fits as well today as it did when he penned it.

“In a centralised system, the function to be performed is the goal of the organisation rather than of any persons (except as they identify with the organisation)." On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 379)

"The persons are personnel. Authority is top-down. Information is gathered from below in the field, is processed to be usable by those above." On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 379)

"Decisions are made in headquarters, and policy, schedule and standard procedure are transmitted downwards by chain of command.” On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 379)

“The enterprise as a whole is divided into departments of operation to which personnel are assigned with distinct roles, to give standard performance.” On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 379)

“This is the system in Mr. Goldwater’s department store, in the Federal Government and in the State Governments, in most elementary and higher education, in the CIO, in hospitals, in neighbourhood renewal..." On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp 379)

" ... in network broadcasting, and in deals that chain-groceries make with farmers.” On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 379)

He goes on with some history:
“The system was designed for disciplining armies, for bureaucratic record-keeping, and tax-collection, and for certain kinds of mass production. It has now pervaded every field.” On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp 379)

Now, at this point you're perhaps thinking this is _way_ too extreme a claim to make? Well, Drucker tells us virtually the same thing in “Management as Social Function and Liberal Art” published in (1988). (Check it out. I'll wait.)

PART 3: Meeting the same needs with different structures
While we've Drucker on our minds, lets stay outside Patterns of Anarchy for a minute more.

In the following quote we can see that Peter Drucker was as vehement as anyone in arguing that there are spaces for many _other_ types of organisational structure:

“From the very beginning more than a century ago, the study of organisation has rested on one assumption: There is--or there must be--one right organisation.  ..." Peter Drucker, Management Challenges for the 21st Century (1999)

"... What is presented as the ‘one right organisation’ has changed more than once. But the search [...] has continued, and continues today.” Peter Drucker, Management Challenges for the 21st Century (1999)

So perhaps we're not on the lunatic fringe considering these ideas. They don't come much more Western-Capitalist-Establishment than Drucker.

And also, what about the elephant in the industry?: “Open source is only one way people are restructuring what they do along new organisational lines and atop different motivational ground.” from Drive by Daniel Pink (pp.23)

There's definitely mileage in investigating this...

So what can Anarchist thinking offer us?

Back to "Patterns of Anarchy" again for some more history...

goodreads.com/book/show/1663…

“[Anarchy's] roots go back to an earlier tradition which had been almost completely displaced in the course of the last century ...” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.394)

“... by the introduction of work techniques based on task segmentation, differential status, and payment and extrinsic hierarchical control.” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.394)

If those were (from the anarchist point of view) the motivating forces behind where we are now, what alternatives does anarchism offer?

These essays give a very clear-sighted view of the actual needs served by any type of organisation, as well as how their particular approach of decentralism might address them. First we can challenge a common misconception. C. Ward answers this from the Anarchist perspective:

“You may think in describing anarchism as a theory of organisation I am propounding a deliberate paradox: ‘anarchy’ you may consider to be, by definition, the _opposite_ of organisation. In fact, however, ‘anarchy’ means the absence of government, the absence of _authority_. ..."

"... Can there be social organisation without authority, without government? The anarchists claim that there can be, and they also claim that it is desirable that there should be.” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.386)

“Anyone can see that there are at least two kinds of organisation. There is the kind which is forced on you, the kind which is run from above, and there is the kind which is run from below ...” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.386)

“... [the kind] which can’t _force_ you to do anything, and which you are free to join or free to leave alone.” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.386)

Paul Goodman provides more details.

“The [anarchist] principle of decentralism is that people are engaged in the function they perform; the organisation is how they co-operate. ..." On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 379-80)

"... Authority is delegated away from the top as much as possible, and there are many centres of decision and policy-making. Information is conveyed and discussed in face-to-face contacts between field and headquarters. ..." Goodman (pp. 379-80)

"... And each person becomes aware of the whole operation. He [sic] works at it in his own way according to his capacities. Groups arrange their own schedules.” On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 379-80)

“Historically, this system of organisation has yielded most of the values of civilisation, but it is thought to be entirely unworkable under modern conditions and the very sound of it is strange.” On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 380)

PART 4: What are the specific aspects and elements of an Anarchist way of organising?

C Ward has the most to share with us here.

“I once [...] attempted to enunciate four principles behind an anarchist theory of organisation: that they should be (1) voluntary (2) functional (3) temporary, and (4) small.” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.387)

“They should be voluntary for obvious reasons. They should be functional and temporary precisely because permanence is one of those factors which harden the arteries of an organisation ...” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.387)

“... giving it a vested interest in its own survival, in serving the interests of office-holders rather than its function.” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.387)

But what about when the numbers of members in an organisation increase?

C Ward again...

“It is from this final point [(4) small] that our difficulties arise. ...” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.388)

“If we take it for granted that a small group can function anarchically, we are still faced with the problem of all those social functions for which organisation is necessary, but which require it on a much bigger scale.” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.388)

”Let us find ways in which the large-scale functions can be broken down into functions capable of being organised by small functional groups and then link these groups in a federal manner.” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.388)

Does that sound familiar? Does that call to mind many of the ways in which we organise now? Both in our software and human / organisational architectures? Does it sound like a argument _for_ decoupled architectures and flow-aligned teams? I am convinced.

PART 5: Trust Before Laloux and Teal?

How far might we push things? The thinkers have form in this area too.

First up are some other excerpts from Paul Goodman’s writing as he begins to discuss trust:

“the say of a neighborhood in its destiny can be meaningful only if the neighborhood has begun to be conscious of itself as a community. ...” On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 382)

“... For this, mere ‘consent’ or ‘participation’ is not enough; there must be a measure of real initiating and deciding, grounded in acquaintance and trust.” On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 382)

Now we’re I’m getting into Laloux and Trust Orgs territory. (Reinventing Organisations, 2014) goodreads.com/book/show/2078…. On reflection, I don't remember Laloux crediting Anarchism in any way at all (though I need to go back and check)

Back to C Ward again...

“Another anarchist theory of organisations is what we might call the theory of spontaneous order ...” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.389)

“... that given a common need, a collection of people will, by trial and error, by improvisation and experiment, evolve order out of chaos ...” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.389)

“... this order being more durable and more closely related to their needs than any kind of external imposed order.” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.389)

”As the anarchist Michael Bakunin put it a hundred years ago, ‘I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his [sic] turn. ....” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.391)

”... Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority , but a continual exchange of mutual temporary, and above all voluntary authority and subordination.” Anarchism as a Theory of Organisation by C Ward (pp.391)

PART 6: For certain types of personality only?

Finally comes a question which I’ve never seen touched on in the recent organisation literature: does this way of organising need a special type of person to “work”?

(It does not however touch on the related topics of “would everyone want to be involved in such a type of organisation?” and “how might this type of organisation be subverted by those with motivations/goals antagonistic to those of the group?” Also matters which interest me.)

“The moral question is not whether men are ‘good enough’ for a type of social organisation ...” On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 383)

“... but wether the type of organisation is good enough to develop the potentialities off intelligence, grace, and freedom in men [sic].” On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 383)

There’s even a great call to action (and some uncharacteristic-for-anarchists gradualism) at the end:

“we ought to develop a political maxim: to decentralise where, how and how much is expedient. But where, how and how much are empirical questions; they require research and experiment.” On Some Prima-Facie Objections to Decentralism by Paul Goodman (pp. 385)

This sounds like the “experiment with removing bureaucracy” at Netflix that Patty McCord describes in Powerful, (goodreads.com/book/show/3641…) as well as the experimental approach to org structure in BOSSanova. (goodreads.com/book/show/3891…)

That's it! A monster thread for a monster topic from a monster of a book. If you've any thoughts on it all I'd love to hear them. I think this is an area we're only just beginning to consider, and the more contributions on the topic the better.