2 ms·
"Organizations without managers" of any significant size invariably develop a shadow hierarchy where some people do the work of managers and end up in meetings
by eropple 5y ago
"Organizations without managers" of any significant size invariably develop a shadow hierarchy where some people do the work of managers and end up in meetings of people who are Not Managers, except that they're, surprise--actually managers, without the title.
I consulted for quite a while and have worked at my share of companies and I have never seen implicit shadow hierarchies result in healthy dynamics in and across teams.
- YPPH 5y agoWell put. I can see those shadow hierarchies exploding when somebody who is de facto manager eventually (and inevitably) has their de facto authority challenged. A transparent hierarchy is not only more workable, but it seems to me to be a lot fairer.
- refsab 5y agoI'm guessing he means something like this https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers Or any of these https://www.happy.co.uk/blogs/16-companies-that-don-t-have-managers/ https://www.happy.co.uk/blogs/16-companies-that-don-t-have-m...
- eropple 5y agoI understood what he meant. Of the two on that list I know about directly, I know that both Valve and Zappos happily built exactly that shadow hierarchy and that it became (or has become) very difficult for new folks to gain traction even for just doing "their job", let alone to grow in their careers.