The thing about flat structures and group dynamics is that if nobody is appointed to be team lead, then an informal leader will be chosen.
This is a well researched fact. The flat structure without a leader normally leads to a official goal of the group (finishing the task) and an unspoken unofficial goal that the unofficial leader is setting by example and retoric.
Everyone needs someone to follow on a team, someone who sets the standard, leads the way and defend the team - even in the most flat structured companies I have encountered this has been true.
If you want a methodology/way to run the team as fair and autonomous as possible, read Daniel Pink's book Drive - it explains what is needed to make people happy in their work.
If you do not want to figure your method out by yourself, steal my method called TimeBlock, it empowers the employees and gives them Purpose, Autonomy and Mastery (ping me if you want one on one help with it)
I completely agree with this. From running small organizations and teams and then later my own businesses, I've learned that "no management" and an "anything goes" mentality enables dominant personalities within the group and the dominant power structures in society to replicate itself within your organization. That's how you end up with all guy teams cracking jokes about hookers while they're working and thinking that's acceptable. Not good. I always want to set the culture myself, so that it's thoughtful and purposeful.
It sounds like you're concerned not just about getting things done but about making sure that duties and compensation is fair. I'd lay out a range for compensation and clearly outline duties for each position. The younger your company is, the more wiggle room you need in duties because things change quickly. But spelling things out and communicating them clearly to folks gives them an opportunity to tell you if they think the duties to compensation ratio is unfair or let you know that duties have crept up more than they can handle.
And I'd set up regular reviews and check ins. (Like, once every other month).
I'm all about that structure. No structure = no expectations = no way for people to succeed within their jobs.
I just want to add to this - as a manager you need to take initiative and designate a leader when conflict arises
I had several months of constant arguing with a coworker about what amounted to mostly style issue (I found his adherence to the style-guide overly OCD and a giant waste of time)
However once the "boss" over ruled me and it was decided he's follow a stricter standard the issue was out of my hands, I was no longer responsible for the delays in deployment and to be honest I no longer really cared for the extra work.
You need to be clear about the chain of responsibility here. When it's two coworkers arguing it's just a matter of opinion.
PS: Don't underestimate you manager especially if they're experienced. The will have a lot fo insight if they are good. A lot of people are saying "Don't make it flat!!", but as long as you keep your boss in the loop - whatever organizational structure you bring you're still being "flat".
This is a well researched fact. The flat structure without a leader normally leads to a official goal of the group (finishing the task) and an unspoken unofficial goal that the unofficial leader is setting by example and retoric.
Everyone needs someone to follow on a team, someone who sets the standard, leads the way and defend the team - even in the most flat structured companies I have encountered this has been true.
If you want a methodology/way to run the team as fair and autonomous as possible, read Daniel Pink's book Drive - it explains what is needed to make people happy in their work.
If you do not want to figure your method out by yourself, steal my method called TimeBlock, it empowers the employees and gives them Purpose, Autonomy and Mastery (ping me if you want one on one help with it)