4 ms·

As I'm making my first hires this month, I've been thinking very heavily about future org structure - and oddly enough I've called it the "machine" too. My mac

As I'm making my first hires this month, I've been thinking very heavily about future org structure - and oddly enough I've called it the "machine" too. My machine has custom components that perform different functions but connect together (which parallels your machines pretty well). Each of those machines can be subdivided to an extent. I think it's an interesting approach in that I could practically design draw a schematic to describe how it all comes together. Every company would probably need a custom-built machine - there's no general one-size-fits-all approach in this way of thinking about it. We'll see how it goes

throwaway2016a 10y ago
> I'm making my first hires this month Early-stage business advice is cheap and sometime barely worth the bytes it's stored in, but... Speaking as someone who has done a few startups. Until you get to 50+ employees you probably don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about the org structure. Keep it relatively flat (CXOs -> VPs -> Everyone Else) It is less cognitive load on you and empowers individuals to help form the company culture and workflow. Edit: I don't really agree with the premise of this article. I think it is critically important at early stages that everyone (engineering, marketing, sales, customer service, etc) are exposed to every part of the business. If a customer sends customer service a great review, engineering should see it. If a customer has an issue, engineering should be involved in making the customer happy. And the other way around, customer service should have a say in how the product is built... heck, the administrative assistant that answers the phone should even have an avenue for their feedback to be heard. Of course someone needs to ultimately make the decision but everyone should have a voice and feel vested in the company success.
- jaymzcampbell 10y ago
  > If a customer sends customer service a great review, engineering should see it. If a customer has an issue, engineering should be involved in making the customer happy. And the other way around... 100% agree with this sentiment. I have tended to work at small (<30 headcount) companies and the better ones fully adopted this mindset. The less good ones tried to insist on closed doors and "you only need to know X" - which ultimately led to complete apathy to other departments problems or successes.
- mathattack 10y ago
  My read was the article was about focus, not building information silos. When everyone reports to the CEO, the org suffers.
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    Depends on the size of the company... if the company is three people that seems perfectly reasonable.

throwaway2016a 10y ago

> I'm making my first hires this month Early-stage business advice is cheap and sometime barely worth the bytes it's stored in, but... Speaking as someone who has done a few startups. Until you get to 50+ employees you probably don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about the org structure. Keep it relatively flat (CXOs -> VPs -> Everyone Else) It is less cognitive load on you and empowers individuals to help form the company culture and workflow. Edit: I don't really agree with the premise of this article. I think it is critically important at early stages that everyone (engineering, marketing, sales, customer service, etc) are exposed to every part of the business. If a customer sends customer service a great review, engineering should see it. If a customer has an issue, engineering should be involved in making the customer happy. And the other way around, customer service should have a say in how the product is built... heck, the administrative assistant that answers the phone should even have an avenue for their feedback to be heard. Of course someone needs to ultimately make the decision but everyone should have a voice and feel vested in the company success.

jaymzcampbell 10y ago
> If a customer sends customer service a great review, engineering should see it. If a customer has an issue, engineering should be involved in making the customer happy. And the other way around... 100% agree with this sentiment. I have tended to work at small (<30 headcount) companies and the better ones fully adopted this mindset. The less good ones tried to insist on closed doors and "you only need to know X" - which ultimately led to complete apathy to other departments problems or successes.
mathattack 10y ago
My read was the article was about focus, not building information silos. When everyone reports to the CEO, the org suffers.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  Depends on the size of the company... if the company is three people that seems perfectly reasonable.