10 ms·

The Skill of Org Design

337 points by impostervt 5y ago

Ahan515 5y ago
Wow, MPI gets Nobel prizes in a row!
j16sdiz 5y ago
In the press release: >> “This concept for catalysis is as simple as it is ingenious, and the fact is that many people have wondered why we didn’t think of it earlier,” says Johan Åqvist, who is chair of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry.
warpech 5y ago
That's a very intresting topic for a growing startup. I tried to find books about org design for startups but couldn't find any. My conclusion was that it's because "it depends" is only reasonable advice. But maybe there are some books that you recommend?
- jannyfer 5y ago
  I haven't read the full book, but I found "Situational Leadership" a very helpful concept that would have taken me years to learn if I went through trial & error.
- joekinley 5y ago
  I can strongly recommend The E-Myth Revisited by Michael E. Gerber. I read it years ago, and it helped me plenty to understand basic organizational setup
- jmpz 5y ago
  I found Team Topologies to be a good resource on this. https://teamtopologies.com/book https://teamtopologies.com/book
  - peterbell_nyc 5y ago
    +1 for Team Topologies!
- andrewingram 5y ago
  Alongside the other suggestions, "Org Design for Design Orgs" is a book that got me interested in the topic. Whilst it's focused on how to structure and scale design teams, a lot of it is transferable to other disciplines.
- wmorein 5y ago
  Not a book but an article based on some experience. This reads a bit more definitive than I actually feel about the subject but I do tend to think that this design is actually best for software/services startups. https://riverin.substack.com/p/the-canonical-startup-org-structure https://riverin.substack.com/p/the-canonical-startup-org-str... There are a couple links to other articles and book on the subject in there too.
- michael-ax 5y ago
  ask your suppliers and customers?
chewyshine 5y ago
Notice how there are no clear criteria for evaluation in this space? No math. No models. Just loose concepts strung together with words and sprinkled with calls to authority (e.g., Andy Grove) to add credibility. No evidence. No science. As an organizational "scientist" it's amazing to me that organizations are ubiquitous and yet we know so little about how to construct good ones. Software design is in a better state IMO but not by much. Here's a simple question that should be answerable in any approach to org design. What's the optimal *span of control* for management at each level in the organizational hierarchy? If you can't answer this question, you can't "design" an organization.
- afarrell 5y ago
  Before demanding that, first come up with metrics for the optimal attributes of a marriage. What is the optimal number of loads of laundry to do each month? The proper number of silly dances to invent? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
  - korla 5y ago
    When you can't measure what's important, what you can measure becomes important.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      The more drawn out / harmful form is: when you mandate that only the measureable is valid, and something is hard (or impossible) to measure, everyone comes up with reasons it's not important.
  - brutusborn 5y ago
    Thanks for the link. I think there can be a useful middle ground, where "fuzzy" descriptions are used with models to explain strategies that are developed organically. I empathise with the OP on the lack of modelling in this space. I think it shows a lack of maturity of the field since good, simple models are usually used to produce fundamental understanding in a field.
KingOfCoders 5y ago
I have two principles: If possible do not split responsibilty between teams. Give responsibilities (e.g. security) as a hole without splitting. Think about what discussion you want to have in the leadership meetings, then decide who needs to sit at the table.
divan 5y ago
Such a great read. I'm trying to build a non profit org in a country with almost no culture of non profits and with zero experience in org design. Most of articles or podcasts on running non profits seems to be all the same – define vision/mission/strategy, plan budget, motivate people, do effective communication etc. But this article is the first I found that actually provides some framework of thinking about the org design to me. Very refreshing. What should I read/watch/listen next (except links mentioned in the article)? Maybe even something specific to creating/growing non profits?
- xivzgrev 5y ago
  The author emphasizes context a lot. After you’ve read resources here, maybe get intros to entrepreneurs in your area who successfully built larger companies, and how they iterated. What was the context they operated in, and what’s relevant to your context?
- rawgabbit 5y ago
  As a contrarian, I think the author's advice is actually wrong. Organizations do not exist in a vacuum. They are not an end in itself. The purpose of an organization is to fulfill a mission. The organization should be designed to execute its mission in the most cost effective and transparent manner. With Non-profits, your customers are your donors. Who is funding you (sales)? What do they want (features & results)? How do you show that you are spending their money wisely (metrics & governance)? The organization is nothing more than people put in place to solidify and execute those needs.
  - bsedlm 5y ago
    > The organization should be designed to execute its mission in the most cost effective and transparent manner. I argue that this describes a specific type of organization in a specific environment (context). namely a business organization in a capitalist market. There exist other types of organizations. (However I may be blurring the line between organization and institution)
mirchiseth 5y ago
This 2016 longish post on Functional vs Unit Orgs by Steven Sinofsky is pretty good on different types of organizations. He shares examples from Apple, Google and his days at Microsoft being a senior leader. Even mentions another HN thread https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/functional-versus-unit-organizations-6b82bfbaa57#.a4reg9rg0 https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/functional-versus-unit...
xivzgrev 5y ago
This article reminded me of a group I founded in college. I also was motivated to ensure it lived on, which it has. 4 things worked there 1) it was a group to help people get jobs, which is an ongoing market need 2) it demonstrated success quickly and provided a template for that success, so people were motivated to invest in keeping it going 3) we made early cultural decisions that selected the right kind of people 4) we set out clear 5 year goals, and had every president update the 5 year plan and their own 1 year plan.
nzmsv 5y ago
I was nodding along and then had to stop and think. Are Amazon and Netflix actually good organizational examples to emulate?
- tacostakohashi 5y ago
  They are if you want your founder (s) to become billionaires.
ashika 5y ago
people will seemingly hop aboard anything that gives them authority over other people. i am reminded of that scientology grade chart that leaked a while back[1]. the end result of each training was usually the ability to give the training to others. so while all orgs obviously want to remain on a positive tipping point with the general membership rising to serve hierarchical functions over time, scientology teachings seem to exist mainly an opportunity to advance relative to other scientology members. [1] http://scientologymyths.info/definitions/gradechart.gif http://scientologymyths.info/definitions/gradechart.gif
dr_dshiv 5y ago
I’m really impressed with this article and the others linked. The bits on professional services and thinking backwards were extremely helpful!
allenu 5y ago
"When running the Vietnam office, we had many other business-related problems to deal with; building consensus wasn’t something that I always had the time to do. So the way I ran certain org changes was to: 1. Get a sense for team receptivity for that org change, balanced against the necessity of the org change. If I sensed that the team would be resistant to the change, I would: 2. Figure out how much I had left in the ‘credibility/trust’ bank, and if I wanted to burn that capital. 3. If possible, find a smaller, more reversible version of the org change to introduce first. 4. Use disasters to my full advantage (people are usually more receptive to trying new ways of doing things in the wake of something painful). 5. Strategically allow certain things to blow up so that I could exploit the pain to introduce org change, as per 4) above. 6. Or build consensus; consensus was always the best, if most time consuming, option." This is useful, and incredibly candid, information about what actions are taken to shape organizations, especially point 5. It's great to see it written out like this.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Confirms my experience so far. it does raise the question so what alternatives managers (I'll not go as far as calling them leaders) or organizations with no capital in the trust are left with. Seeing at it from that perspective shades a different light on some of the re-orgs I went through, especially those everybody wondered why disaster X was avoided despite being visible from miles away.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
blueyes 5y ago
I want to put in a plug for Cedric. He is consistently one of the smartest writers about tech online. His writings about naturalistic decision making have changed the way I think about a lot of things in business. https://commoncog.com/blog/the-tacit-knowledge-series/ https://commoncog.com/blog/the-tacit-knowledge-series/
benjohnson1707 5y ago
You might want to look into the works of Elliot Jacques, who came up with apparently rigorous concepts about hierarchy and management since the 70s. Wrote a bunch of books. Interesting stuff, I find.

337 points by impostervt 5y ago

Wow, MPI gets Nobel prizes in a row!

In the press release: >> “This concept for catalysis is as simple as it is ingenious, and the fact is that many people have wondered why we didn’t think of it earlier,” says Johan Åqvist, who is chair of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry.

warpech 5y ago

That's a very intresting topic for a growing startup. I tried to find books about org design for startups but couldn't find any. My conclusion was that it's because "it depends" is only reasonable advice. But maybe there are some books that you recommend?

jannyfer 5y ago
I haven't read the full book, but I found "Situational Leadership" a very helpful concept that would have taken me years to learn if I went through trial & error.
joekinley 5y ago
I can strongly recommend The E-Myth Revisited by Michael E. Gerber. I read it years ago, and it helped me plenty to understand basic organizational setup
jmpz 5y ago
I found Team Topologies to be a good resource on this. https://teamtopologies.com/book https://teamtopologies.com/book
- peterbell_nyc 5y ago
  +1 for Team Topologies!
andrewingram 5y ago
Alongside the other suggestions, "Org Design for Design Orgs" is a book that got me interested in the topic. Whilst it's focused on how to structure and scale design teams, a lot of it is transferable to other disciplines.
wmorein 5y ago
Not a book but an article based on some experience. This reads a bit more definitive than I actually feel about the subject but I do tend to think that this design is actually best for software/services startups. https://riverin.substack.com/p/the-canonical-startup-org-structure https://riverin.substack.com/p/the-canonical-startup-org-str... There are a couple links to other articles and book on the subject in there too.
michael-ax 5y ago
ask your suppliers and customers?

chewyshine 5y ago

Notice how there are no clear criteria for evaluation in this space? No math. No models. Just loose concepts strung together with words and sprinkled with calls to authority (e.g., Andy Grove) to add credibility. No evidence. No science. As an organizational "scientist" it's amazing to me that organizations are ubiquitous and yet we know so little about how to construct good ones. Software design is in a better state IMO but not by much. Here's a simple question that should be answerable in any approach to org design. What's the optimal *span of control* for management at each level in the organizational hierarchy? If you can't answer this question, you can't "design" an organization.

afarrell 5y ago
Before demanding that, first come up with metrics for the optimal attributes of a marriage. What is the optimal number of loads of laundry to do each month? The proper number of silly dances to invent? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
- korla 5y ago
  When you can't measure what's important, what you can measure becomes important.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    The more drawn out / harmful form is: when you mandate that only the measureable is valid, and something is hard (or impossible) to measure, everyone comes up with reasons it's not important.
- brutusborn 5y ago
  Thanks for the link. I think there can be a useful middle ground, where "fuzzy" descriptions are used with models to explain strategies that are developed organically. I empathise with the OP on the lack of modelling in this space. I think it shows a lack of maturity of the field since good, simple models are usually used to produce fundamental understanding in a field.

KingOfCoders 5y ago

I have two principles: If possible do not split responsibilty between teams. Give responsibilities (e.g. security) as a hole without splitting. Think about what discussion you want to have in the leadership meetings, then decide who needs to sit at the table.

divan 5y ago

Such a great read. I'm trying to build a non profit org in a country with almost no culture of non profits and with zero experience in org design. Most of articles or podcasts on running non profits seems to be all the same – define vision/mission/strategy, plan budget, motivate people, do effective communication etc. But this article is the first I found that actually provides some framework of thinking about the org design to me. Very refreshing. What should I read/watch/listen next (except links mentioned in the article)? Maybe even something specific to creating/growing non profits?

xivzgrev 5y ago
The author emphasizes context a lot. After you’ve read resources here, maybe get intros to entrepreneurs in your area who successfully built larger companies, and how they iterated. What was the context they operated in, and what’s relevant to your context?
rawgabbit 5y ago
As a contrarian, I think the author's advice is actually wrong. Organizations do not exist in a vacuum. They are not an end in itself. The purpose of an organization is to fulfill a mission. The organization should be designed to execute its mission in the most cost effective and transparent manner. With Non-profits, your customers are your donors. Who is funding you (sales)? What do they want (features & results)? How do you show that you are spending their money wisely (metrics & governance)? The organization is nothing more than people put in place to solidify and execute those needs.
- bsedlm 5y ago
  > The organization should be designed to execute its mission in the most cost effective and transparent manner. I argue that this describes a specific type of organization in a specific environment (context). namely a business organization in a capitalist market. There exist other types of organizations. (However I may be blurring the line between organization and institution)

mirchiseth 5y ago

This 2016 longish post on Functional vs Unit Orgs by Steven Sinofsky is pretty good on different types of organizations. He shares examples from Apple, Google and his days at Microsoft being a senior leader. Even mentions another HN thread https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/functional-versus-unit-organizations-6b82bfbaa57#.a4reg9rg0 https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/functional-versus-unit...

xivzgrev 5y ago

This article reminded me of a group I founded in college. I also was motivated to ensure it lived on, which it has. 4 things worked there 1) it was a group to help people get jobs, which is an ongoing market need 2) it demonstrated success quickly and provided a template for that success, so people were motivated to invest in keeping it going 3) we made early cultural decisions that selected the right kind of people 4) we set out clear 5 year goals, and had every president update the 5 year plan and their own 1 year plan.

nzmsv 5y ago

I was nodding along and then had to stop and think. Are Amazon and Netflix actually good organizational examples to emulate?

tacostakohashi 5y ago
They are if you want your founder (s) to become billionaires.

ashika 5y ago

people will seemingly hop aboard anything that gives them authority over other people. i am reminded of that scientology grade chart that leaked a while back[1]. the end result of each training was usually the ability to give the training to others. so while all orgs obviously want to remain on a positive tipping point with the general membership rising to serve hierarchical functions over time, scientology teachings seem to exist mainly an opportunity to advance relative to other scientology members. [1] http://scientologymyths.info/definitions/gradechart.gif http://scientologymyths.info/definitions/gradechart.gif

dr_dshiv 5y ago

I’m really impressed with this article and the others linked. The bits on professional services and thinking backwards were extremely helpful!

allenu 5y ago

"When running the Vietnam office, we had many other business-related problems to deal with; building consensus wasn’t something that I always had the time to do. So the way I ran certain org changes was to: 1. Get a sense for team receptivity for that org change, balanced against the necessity of the org change. If I sensed that the team would be resistant to the change, I would: 2. Figure out how much I had left in the ‘credibility/trust’ bank, and if I wanted to burn that capital. 3. If possible, find a smaller, more reversible version of the org change to introduce first. 4. Use disasters to my full advantage (people are usually more receptive to trying new ways of doing things in the wake of something painful). 5. Strategically allow certain things to blow up so that I could exploit the pain to introduce org change, as per 4) above. 6. Or build consensus; consensus was always the best, if most time consuming, option." This is useful, and incredibly candid, information about what actions are taken to shape organizations, especially point 5. It's great to see it written out like this.

hef19898 5y ago
Confirms my experience so far. it does raise the question so what alternatives managers (I'll not go as far as calling them leaders) or organizations with no capital in the trust are left with. Seeing at it from that perspective shades a different light on some of the re-orgs I went through, especially those everybody wondered why disaster X was avoided despite being visible from miles away.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

blueyes 5y ago

I want to put in a plug for Cedric. He is consistently one of the smartest writers about tech online. His writings about naturalistic decision making have changed the way I think about a lot of things in business. https://commoncog.com/blog/the-tacit-knowledge-series/ https://commoncog.com/blog/the-tacit-knowledge-series/

benjohnson1707 5y ago

You might want to look into the works of Elliot Jacques, who came up with apparently rigorous concepts about hierarchy and management since the 70s. Wrote a bunch of books. Interesting stuff, I find.