4 ms·

Is there an alternative to heavy bureaucracy like this once a company reaches a certain size? What other mechanisms exist for combatting nepotism, feeling too

Is there an alternative to heavy bureaucracy like this once a company reaches a certain size? What other mechanisms exist for combatting nepotism, feeling too abstracted from the mission etc in a larger company? Does a company like SpaceX with lots of people working towards big clear goals and where comp isn’t in the set of top reasons for choosing to work there use a levelling framework like this? I work in a company of 10 where we all have strong drive towards the company goals. I’m worried that we will lose this as we grow but I can’t see any clear alternatives. I wonder whether you could build a company that operates like a loosely-coupled network of smaller teams with internal accounting so that teams are compensated based on some kind of internal team valuation (similar to how startup valuations are set by the ‘market’). Probably a terrible idea!

qbasic_forever 5y ago
The military--a completely flat structure of promotion based primarily on tenure and time-served, not necessarily ability or award/recognition. Before you blow it off as worthless there is some potential merit to it as it cuts out nepotism, cronyism, and other kinds of corruption that push unqualified people up the ranks.
- void_mint 5y ago
  > and other kinds of corruption that push unqualified people up the ranks. If the metric used for promotion is time served, in what way is that stopping unqualified people from being pushed up the ranks?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The military--a completely flat structure of promotion based primarily on tenure and time-served, not necessarily ability or award/recognition. That's...not how the military works at all. I suppose it might appear approximately that way if you look only at the officer corps and, within that corps, only at survivors of the up-or-out policy. But, while their are minimum time bounds, subjective assessment of fitness (i.e., demonstrated ability) is the main key to selection for promotion.
- khuey 5y ago
  In the military it's also paired with an up-or-out system that discharges (what are judged to be) mediocre officers.
- lcw 5y ago
  The military is not that much different from the private sector. The first few ranks are as you say, but after that you can be fast tracked by nepotism, and cronyism.
hytdstd 5y ago
This is impossible to avoid if you want to raise money. Investors and board members insist on this stuff.
- dannyw 5y ago
  fortunately not every company needs to raise money; nor is raising money even arguably a good thing if your objective isn't to maximise money.
laurent92 5y ago
> Is there an alternative to heavy bureaucracy like this once a company reaches a certain size? Richard Brandson famously limited each of his companies to 50 employees. I’d like to hear how it went.
Griffinsauce 5y ago
> Is there an alternative to heavy bureaucracy like this once a company reaches a certain size? > What other mechanisms exist for combatting nepotism, feeling too abstracted from the mission etc in a larger company? Assuming that this solves those things at all, I'm not so sure.
tcmb 5y ago
Small self-organized teams, a la Frederic Laloux's 'Reinventing Organizations'. https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/ https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/
afarrell 5y ago
One alternative is an opaque hierarchy where it is difficult to find the goals or team missions documented anywhere. It lets senior management avoid uncomfortable conversations about power relations while also creating a lack of clarity for individual contributors about what their subteam’s mission even is. https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
- jonathankoren 5y ago
  I literally had a interview with a company that insisted on ICs not having levels, while having levels for management. The director was wrapping up and said that the company took growth seriously and specifically mentioned promotions as a reward, to which I immediately pointed out that doesn’t exist for ICs. He then stammered some claptrap about ICs need to find warm fuzzies for themselves, and not worry about recognition. Lolz
pm90 5y ago
It’s a hard problem. Honestly, I think it’s something you can just ask your team about and see what they say. The people that work with you now might help you discover what it is about the job that they love and is keeping them here and try to build on that.

qbasic_forever 5y ago

The military--a completely flat structure of promotion based primarily on tenure and time-served, not necessarily ability or award/recognition. Before you blow it off as worthless there is some potential merit to it as it cuts out nepotism, cronyism, and other kinds of corruption that push unqualified people up the ranks.

void_mint 5y ago
> and other kinds of corruption that push unqualified people up the ranks. If the metric used for promotion is time served, in what way is that stopping unqualified people from being pushed up the ranks?
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The military--a completely flat structure of promotion based primarily on tenure and time-served, not necessarily ability or award/recognition. That's...not how the military works at all. I suppose it might appear approximately that way if you look only at the officer corps and, within that corps, only at survivors of the up-or-out policy. But, while their are minimum time bounds, subjective assessment of fitness (i.e., demonstrated ability) is the main key to selection for promotion.
khuey 5y ago
In the military it's also paired with an up-or-out system that discharges (what are judged to be) mediocre officers.
lcw 5y ago
The military is not that much different from the private sector. The first few ranks are as you say, but after that you can be fast tracked by nepotism, and cronyism.

hytdstd 5y ago

This is impossible to avoid if you want to raise money. Investors and board members insist on this stuff.

dannyw 5y ago
fortunately not every company needs to raise money; nor is raising money even arguably a good thing if your objective isn't to maximise money.

laurent92 5y ago

> Is there an alternative to heavy bureaucracy like this once a company reaches a certain size? Richard Brandson famously limited each of his companies to 50 employees. I’d like to hear how it went.

Griffinsauce 5y ago

> Is there an alternative to heavy bureaucracy like this once a company reaches a certain size? > What other mechanisms exist for combatting nepotism, feeling too abstracted from the mission etc in a larger company? Assuming that this solves those things at all, I'm not so sure.

tcmb 5y ago

Small self-organized teams, a la Frederic Laloux's 'Reinventing Organizations'. https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/ https://www.reinventingorganizations.com/

afarrell 5y ago

One alternative is an opaque hierarchy where it is difficult to find the goals or team missions documented anywhere. It lets senior management avoid uncomfortable conversations about power relations while also creating a lack of clarity for individual contributors about what their subteam’s mission even is. https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

jonathankoren 5y ago
I literally had a interview with a company that insisted on ICs not having levels, while having levels for management. The director was wrapping up and said that the company took growth seriously and specifically mentioned promotions as a reward, to which I immediately pointed out that doesn’t exist for ICs. He then stammered some claptrap about ICs need to find warm fuzzies for themselves, and not worry about recognition. Lolz

pm90 5y ago

It’s a hard problem. Honestly, I think it’s something you can just ask your team about and see what they say. The people that work with you now might help you discover what it is about the job that they love and is keeping them here and try to build on that.