4 ms·

I'm all for the ideological sentiment behind this setup and approach. In many ways, this is 'the right way' when you're a small and close-knit team. And that's

I'm all for the ideological sentiment behind this setup and approach. In many ways, this is 'the right way' when you're a small and close-knit team. And that's the major caveat: this really only works at the very early stages. In my experience (5 years at a startup that has gone from 30 to now 300 people) and with a heavy bent toward pragmatism, simply put, this doesn't scale. If growth of the team is imperative for growth of the business (which in most cases, it is), then the shape of the team will change and the culture of the business will evolve away from openness and flexibility out of necessity. You will get silos, whether you want them or not. If you know you want to scale, not prep'ing for that is akin to burying one's head in the proverbial sand. Be transparent, but configure for partitioning. Be flexible, but prepare to have some deadlines start to appear. Keep prioritisation as simple as possible, but assume that it will get more complex and you will need people who can/want to manage that. When you move from planning the next few sprints to strategising the next few years, you have to start anticipating problems before they arise across many fronts, not just the tech. It doesn't mean spending an inordinate amount of time and money on getting that TechCrunch article, but when knowing your runway ends in 6 months, it would be extremely shortsighted not to be laying the groundwork for an investment round by everyone just going heads-down on product development.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
The 3000 employee company I was at had more transparency than the 30 person company I was at. Almost anything can scale, with the right leadership and incentives. That part is exceedingly hard to get right. Generally I find from experience that the culture mirrors the leadership more than anything. A leader who cannot delegate, trust, or make decisions as a group builds silos, intentionally or unintentionally. Leaders who are humble, defer to others, trust but verify, and are open and transparent themselves are more than capable of building similar orgs. Be ever vigilant in eliminating cognitive dissonance, for it is the culture killer.
- simonhamp 5y ago
  The reality being that there are very few people like this who can genuinely do this. Again, pragmatism
  - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
    Not really. It's simple. Set it to solve these problems. Actually caring is half the battle. If you're suggesting that there are very few people who can genuinely care, then I don't know what to tell you beyond: I'm truly sorry? I hope you work with less terrible people in the future.
- jollybean 5y ago
  'Silos' are necessary and they are part of the building blocks of an organization. Like Modules w/ encapsulation, assignment of responsibilities, hiding inner workings that don't need to be exposed. Making them work together is the key, and we want to make sure everyone has the big picture, but they are not inherently bad, they are inherently good.
  - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
    Silos are absolutely not necessary, this is simply not true. Dividing up work and responsibilities doesn't necessitate silos, which by definition restrict or prevent communication, but can also be achieved by -- big surprise here -- communicating. This is called collaboration. It's a powerful tool. Give people trust and agency and you'd be surprised, by the sounds of it, at what they can accomplish. The only leaders who promote silos are paranoid egotistical sociopaths, at least to some degree
    - jollybean 5y ago
      This is glib and naive. Google, Stripe, AirBnB - and every other company is made up mostly of 'Silos'. Some communicate better than others. 'Give people trust and agency' has nothing to do with 'Silos' I can only imagine what kind of Twitter/Fast Company 'pop business management' one would have to be consuming to conflate these issues. And FYI people get as much 'trust and agency' as their competency, skill, maturity, and the situational context implies, it's not an inherent quality of any social system. Comments about 'egotistical sociopaths' is stupidly offensive.
      - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
        I get the impression that your definition of "Silo" isn't the industry norm I've experienced. The classic example is Apple. But you mention three companies that are managed very differently, both from Apple and each other ( and yes, I have first hand experience -- do you?) so I don't really get what it is you're trying to express. If I were interested in hiring you, my impression at this point would be that you've only experienced toxic cultures and fraternity style leadership where the only thing executives care about is their own career, and be concerned that you perhaps fall into that category. The common quality in the best leaders that I've worked with is trust, real trust, down to the most junior IC. I've seen 3000 people orgs have a tighter social web, where press leaks don't happen, where teams aren't worried about getting stabbed in the back by other teams, than in 10 person or 30 person or 100 person orgs. There is nothing in the industry that necessitates keeping our plans secret from one another when all our business cards share a common logo. Instead of being controlled by fear -- of distraction, sabotage, whatever -- be liberated by the trust that bad actors will be weeded out swiftly.
rmbyrro 5y ago
Why do you consider it an "ideological sentiment"? The author is speaking from seemingly years of first hand experience. It's anecdotal, sure,but doesn't seem fair to label as an ideolog.
- simonhamp 5y ago
  I don't believe this is labelling anything - I'm simply saying that I agree with the fundamental principles of the ideology behind this piece. Not decrying anyones first-hand experience, just stating that my first-hand experience is slightly different.
  - rmbyrro 5y ago
    Fair enough that your experience doesn't coincide. But I understand an ideolog as something that doesn't value that much experiences or practical elements. And I perceive it's more often than not used as a derrogatory term. I understand that was not your intention. Still, I judged the article as giving a lot of value to the experiences leading to the conclusions. Anecdotal, sure, but still I wouldn't say it's a good example of an ideolog...
jollybean 5y ago
I think just one thing that would help immensely with transparency is just informing silos of what other silos are doing, and how. The dev team kept in the lurch on a every little marketing program and tactic, and visa versa, is not helpful. Making mid-level managers explain their stuff to a wider audience I think is super helpful. This way, people have an idea of the direction they are headed, and what it is that they are trying to do. Honestly, I think that's 80% of inter group 'transparency'. The other things, like salary transparency etc. is a bit more complicated but I generally don't think it's necessary.
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  What is accomplished by preventing information from flowing freely? > The dev team kept in the lurch on a every little marketing program and tactic, and visa versa, is not helpful. Maybe. Is it harmful? If so, Why? > Making mid-level managers explain their stuff to a wider audience I think is super helpful. Why is this a manager's responsibility? Why not, as a mid-level manager, ask folks from your teams to explain their stuff to a wider audience? That's what transparency is really all about.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago

The 3000 employee company I was at had more transparency than the 30 person company I was at. Almost anything can scale, with the right leadership and incentives. That part is exceedingly hard to get right. Generally I find from experience that the culture mirrors the leadership more than anything. A leader who cannot delegate, trust, or make decisions as a group builds silos, intentionally or unintentionally. Leaders who are humble, defer to others, trust but verify, and are open and transparent themselves are more than capable of building similar orgs. Be ever vigilant in eliminating cognitive dissonance, for it is the culture killer.

simonhamp 5y ago
The reality being that there are very few people like this who can genuinely do this. Again, pragmatism
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  Not really. It's simple. Set it to solve these problems. Actually caring is half the battle. If you're suggesting that there are very few people who can genuinely care, then I don't know what to tell you beyond: I'm truly sorry? I hope you work with less terrible people in the future.
jollybean 5y ago
'Silos' are necessary and they are part of the building blocks of an organization. Like Modules w/ encapsulation, assignment of responsibilities, hiding inner workings that don't need to be exposed. Making them work together is the key, and we want to make sure everyone has the big picture, but they are not inherently bad, they are inherently good.
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  Silos are absolutely not necessary, this is simply not true. Dividing up work and responsibilities doesn't necessitate silos, which by definition restrict or prevent communication, but can also be achieved by -- big surprise here -- communicating. This is called collaboration. It's a powerful tool. Give people trust and agency and you'd be surprised, by the sounds of it, at what they can accomplish. The only leaders who promote silos are paranoid egotistical sociopaths, at least to some degree
  - jollybean 5y ago
    This is glib and naive. Google, Stripe, AirBnB - and every other company is made up mostly of 'Silos'. Some communicate better than others. 'Give people trust and agency' has nothing to do with 'Silos' I can only imagine what kind of Twitter/Fast Company 'pop business management' one would have to be consuming to conflate these issues. And FYI people get as much 'trust and agency' as their competency, skill, maturity, and the situational context implies, it's not an inherent quality of any social system. Comments about 'egotistical sociopaths' is stupidly offensive.
    - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
      I get the impression that your definition of "Silo" isn't the industry norm I've experienced. The classic example is Apple. But you mention three companies that are managed very differently, both from Apple and each other ( and yes, I have first hand experience -- do you?) so I don't really get what it is you're trying to express. If I were interested in hiring you, my impression at this point would be that you've only experienced toxic cultures and fraternity style leadership where the only thing executives care about is their own career, and be concerned that you perhaps fall into that category. The common quality in the best leaders that I've worked with is trust, real trust, down to the most junior IC. I've seen 3000 people orgs have a tighter social web, where press leaks don't happen, where teams aren't worried about getting stabbed in the back by other teams, than in 10 person or 30 person or 100 person orgs. There is nothing in the industry that necessitates keeping our plans secret from one another when all our business cards share a common logo. Instead of being controlled by fear -- of distraction, sabotage, whatever -- be liberated by the trust that bad actors will be weeded out swiftly.

rmbyrro 5y ago

Why do you consider it an "ideological sentiment"? The author is speaking from seemingly years of first hand experience. It's anecdotal, sure,but doesn't seem fair to label as an ideolog.

simonhamp 5y ago
I don't believe this is labelling anything - I'm simply saying that I agree with the fundamental principles of the ideology behind this piece. Not decrying anyones first-hand experience, just stating that my first-hand experience is slightly different.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  Fair enough that your experience doesn't coincide. But I understand an ideolog as something that doesn't value that much experiences or practical elements. And I perceive it's more often than not used as a derrogatory term. I understand that was not your intention. Still, I judged the article as giving a lot of value to the experiences leading to the conclusions. Anecdotal, sure, but still I wouldn't say it's a good example of an ideolog...

jollybean 5y ago

I think just one thing that would help immensely with transparency is just informing silos of what other silos are doing, and how. The dev team kept in the lurch on a every little marketing program and tactic, and visa versa, is not helpful. Making mid-level managers explain their stuff to a wider audience I think is super helpful. This way, people have an idea of the direction they are headed, and what it is that they are trying to do. Honestly, I think that's 80% of inter group 'transparency'. The other things, like salary transparency etc. is a bit more complicated but I generally don't think it's necessary.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
What is accomplished by preventing information from flowing freely? > The dev team kept in the lurch on a every little marketing program and tactic, and visa versa, is not helpful. Maybe. Is it harmful? If so, Why? > Making mid-level managers explain their stuff to a wider audience I think is super helpful. Why is this a manager's responsibility? Why not, as a mid-level manager, ask folks from your teams to explain their stuff to a wider audience? That's what transparency is really all about.