4 ms·

'Silos' are necessary and they are part of the building blocks of an organization. Like Modules w/ encapsulation, assignment of responsibilities, hiding inner w

'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.

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.