5 ms·

I'm always skeptical when companies say they have "no managers" and are a completely flat organization with 100+ employees. I don't pretend to fully understand

by canistr 13y ago

I'm always skeptical when companies say they have "no managers" and are a completely flat organization with 100+ employees. I don't pretend to fully understand organizational theory, but I take it that at some point, there will be someone doing the "management" work. Whether that's someone with the title of ninja/hacker/product guy/project manager/director/CEO/BDFL

mpyne 13y ago
If nothing else Dunbar's number will creep in somewhere. And of course the whole reason we don't use flat hierarchies unless the company is really small is because of the explosive growth in the company communications graph. People could form ad hoc teams to reduce the exponential growth (instead of having such teams pushed on them by management), but then it's not a flat hierarchy anymore. Instead it's a self-organizing construct which may or may not be better than actually designing a proper org. structure.
bct 13y ago
Somebody needs to do the management work, but they don't need to be "higher" in the org chart than the people they're working with. The best managers I've had are more like facilitators than bosses.
ben_straub 13y ago
(Disclaimer: Hubber.) Here's the thing about "management work": it turns out you don't necessarily need management to do it. Setting priorities? This can be done through consensus. Making sure schedules are met? Don't have schedules. (1) Hiring? Have everybody do it. Giving out raises? Set up a deterministic system and forget about it. Giving feedback? Everybody can do this. Running meetings? Don't have meetings. Communicating with the other parts of the company? We have technology for this. 1) EDIT: forgot my footnote. Of course, we're in sort of a fortunate situation here, and not every company can just not have a schedule.
- cpeterso 13y ago
  > Making sure schedules are met? Don't have schedules. (1) Did you forgot a footnote (1)? I'm curious to read more.
  - ben_straub 13y ago
    Heh. Whoops. Thanks. :*)
- techscruggs 13y ago
  What is your deterministic system for determining salary?
  - ben_straub 13y ago
    Note that I didn't say salary, I said raises. ;) Every other job I've had uses some sort of stressful review as part of the salary process. You get a good review, your raise is bigger; bad review, smaller raise. This seems like it works, but it actually doesn't. What's the goal of a review? To provide feedback. Shouldn't you be interested in feedback so you can get better, not just so you can get paid more? If so, shouldn't you be getting it all the time, instead of twice a year? What's the goal of a raise? To keep you from being effectively paid less (because the cost of living keeps going up), and to make sure you feel satisfied with how much money you're making. There's nothing in there about making sure some people feel less appreciated than others. So pick a percentage number, preferably one that's above COLA, and just give everybody that. If that's not enough, your base salary isn't enough. Note that none of these goals overlap. Feedback and salary don't really have common goals. If you're trying to get people to do better work by dangling the salary carrot, you're taking away intrinsic motivation – see DHH on mixing open-source and money, he did a good job with this topic – and you'll end up with less performance and motivation, not more.
    - PeterisP 13y ago
      The main goal of raises isn't cost of living adjustments, but as a part of career progression. If you're staying in a stable role and productivity, then you need COLA. If you're improving, in time you become significantly more valuable both to the company and to outside market, so you deserve much larger compensation than back in the years when you were a fresh-out-of college newbie.
      - M2Ys4U 13y ago
        I don't think his reply runs contrary to your post, if you include the last part of that sentence: > To keep you from being effectively paid less (because the cost of living keeps going up), and to make sure you feel satisfied with how much money you're making.
- lttlrck 13y ago
  Works well until sh*t hits the fan and you need to cull teams or have a very angry customer. The buck really does need to stop somewhere, it cannot be distributed.
brown9-2 13y ago
I'm skeptical when people claim that their lack of managers mean they don't have a hierarchy. If there isn't an official hierarchy there will still be an unofficial one in some way - founders and early employees with more esteem/authority, etc.
- ben_straub 13y ago
  Spot on. What you're describing is leadership, which is pretty deeply wired into human nature. We don't try to avoid this; rather, we want to recognize it as a discipline, and help people become better at it. Authority, however, is totally different. It's the power to make someone do something they don't want to, and we try our darnedest to avoid that kind of situation. (Also note that "having authority" is different from "being authoritative".)

by canistr 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

If nothing else Dunbar's number will creep in somewhere. And of course the whole reason we don't use flat hierarchies unless the company is really small is because of the explosive growth in the company communications graph. People could form ad hoc teams to reduce the exponential growth (instead of having such teams pushed on them by management), but then it's not a flat hierarchy anymore. Instead it's a self-organizing construct which may or may not be better than actually designing a proper org. structure.

bct 13y ago

Somebody needs to do the management work, but they don't need to be "higher" in the org chart than the people they're working with. The best managers I've had are more like facilitators than bosses.

ben_straub 13y ago

(Disclaimer: Hubber.) Here's the thing about "management work": it turns out you don't necessarily need management to do it. Setting priorities? This can be done through consensus. Making sure schedules are met? Don't have schedules. (1) Hiring? Have everybody do it. Giving out raises? Set up a deterministic system and forget about it. Giving feedback? Everybody can do this. Running meetings? Don't have meetings. Communicating with the other parts of the company? We have technology for this. 1) EDIT: forgot my footnote. Of course, we're in sort of a fortunate situation here, and not every company can just not have a schedule.

cpeterso 13y ago
> Making sure schedules are met? Don't have schedules. (1) Did you forgot a footnote (1)? I'm curious to read more.
- ben_straub 13y ago
  Heh. Whoops. Thanks. :*)
techscruggs 13y ago
What is your deterministic system for determining salary?
- ben_straub 13y ago
  Note that I didn't say salary, I said raises. ;) Every other job I've had uses some sort of stressful review as part of the salary process. You get a good review, your raise is bigger; bad review, smaller raise. This seems like it works, but it actually doesn't. What's the goal of a review? To provide feedback. Shouldn't you be interested in feedback so you can get better, not just so you can get paid more? If so, shouldn't you be getting it all the time, instead of twice a year? What's the goal of a raise? To keep you from being effectively paid less (because the cost of living keeps going up), and to make sure you feel satisfied with how much money you're making. There's nothing in there about making sure some people feel less appreciated than others. So pick a percentage number, preferably one that's above COLA, and just give everybody that. If that's not enough, your base salary isn't enough. Note that none of these goals overlap. Feedback and salary don't really have common goals. If you're trying to get people to do better work by dangling the salary carrot, you're taking away intrinsic motivation – see DHH on mixing open-source and money, he did a good job with this topic – and you'll end up with less performance and motivation, not more.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    The main goal of raises isn't cost of living adjustments, but as a part of career progression. If you're staying in a stable role and productivity, then you need COLA. If you're improving, in time you become significantly more valuable both to the company and to outside market, so you deserve much larger compensation than back in the years when you were a fresh-out-of college newbie.
    - M2Ys4U 13y ago
      I don't think his reply runs contrary to your post, if you include the last part of that sentence: > To keep you from being effectively paid less (because the cost of living keeps going up), and to make sure you feel satisfied with how much money you're making.
lttlrck 13y ago
Works well until sh*t hits the fan and you need to cull teams or have a very angry customer. The buck really does need to stop somewhere, it cannot be distributed.

brown9-2 13y ago

I'm skeptical when people claim that their lack of managers mean they don't have a hierarchy. If there isn't an official hierarchy there will still be an unofficial one in some way - founders and early employees with more esteem/authority, etc.

ben_straub 13y ago
Spot on. What you're describing is leadership, which is pretty deeply wired into human nature. We don't try to avoid this; rather, we want to recognize it as a discipline, and help people become better at it. Authority, however, is totally different. It's the power to make someone do something they don't want to, and we try our darnedest to avoid that kind of situation. (Also note that "having authority" is different from "being authoritative".)