6 ms·

While I hope this continues to work out for Treehouse, I'm not sure I agree with Ryan's problem statement: "In my experience, managers’ responsibilities were …

by r0h1n 13y ago

While I hope this continues to work out for Treehouse, I'm not sure I agree with Ryan's problem statement: "In my experience, managers’ responsibilities were … - Communicating messages from top to bottom - Settling disputes - Managing careers - Keeping their teams motivated and happy - Shielding their teams from things they didn’t think they needed to know" I think that's a pretty narrow definition of management, esp. things like "communicating messages from top to bottom". While I don't disagree with the fact that a significant component of management, esp. large parts of middle management, can be done away with, I don't think any reasonably complex and growing organization can do away with management altogether. A great manager (who may also play a part as an individual contributor) can channel & amplify an organization's creativity and innovation. S/he will also ensure there is an alignment b/w the organization's high level strategies and the individual contributions being made. Much as we'd like to think that tech workers are unusually self-motivated or that online tools can fully substitute people management, in my experience neither are the complete truth. Further reading: - How Google Sold Its Engineers on Management: http://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on-management http://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on-mana... - The Flattened Firm—Not as Advertised: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7000.html http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7000.html - Be a Minimally Invasive Manager: http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/be-a-minimally-invasive-manager/ http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/be-a-minimally-invasive-manager... Fair disclosure: I'm an MBA...biases, warts and all.

snambi 13y ago
Hey, he is the founder/ceo, so he should know what his managers did. It may be different from bosses in other companies. But, it sounds roughly correct.
- dworin 13y ago
  Knowing what his managers did is one thing, knowing what his managers should have been doing is another. The problem is that there's a difference between what's on his list and what the best managers do, and what an organization needs from managers. Which might be why he was having the problems in the first place.
  - ryancarson 13y ago
    The funny thing is that in the four companies I worked for as an employee, I never once heard those who were being managed say they really valued and benefitted from their Manager and we had plenty of great managers. The founders always thought there was value, but the folks on the bottom rarely did. That doesn't mean the Managers were value-less, just that the perception of their value changes depending on who's talking. In my limited experience, the folks who are actually doing the work on the front lines usually have a better grasp on reality so I'll defer to them.
falcolas 13y ago
> I think that's a pretty narrow definition of management, esp. things like "communicating messages from top to bottom". I agree. In my opinion, the biggest and hardest part of management is to take a direction provided from above and turn it into actionable points for those below. Distinctly different from directing communication. A CEO typically says "we need to increase sales in X vertical". It's up to his VPs to turn that into "focus our software's next features on X's needs", "hire more sales people devoted to X", and "target our marketing more on X". Then the managers look at "focus our software's next features on X's needs" and turn that into "identify X's needs", "create a set of features", and "execute on developing those features based on employee's strengths". Expecting an employee to turn the "increase sales" message into "develop this feature" is a bit too much to expect, not to mention nearly impossible to scale. Also, expecting the CEO to transform their own directions into individual actionable tasks is going to eat into time they could better spend on other tasks (like talking to customers, speaking at conferences, determining new direction, etc).
- rpedela 13y ago
  Expecting all employees to do that? Not going to happen. Expecting some employees to do that? Why not? Don't all managers/executives/founders start at the bottom?
  - cbhl 13y ago
    Well, it is definitely reasonable to expect some employees to turn the "increase sales" message into "develop this feature"... and the argument is that those employees are (probably) managers. (Or rock stars, if you buy into that.)
    - eitally 13y ago
      Or technical product owners, who in lots of companies, especially large ones, are "promoted" into management roles simply because they are directing traffic and coordinating activities of the technical staff "beneath" them (The folks also contributing to the product they govern). There are a lot of ways to deal with this that don't involve flattening the whole org.
lmg643 13y ago
I love the Treehouse article. 90% of the employees voted for it. The 10% who did not were the managers. :) I wonder if any managers voted for it; or it any employees voted against it. I would be curious to hear from the displaced Treehouse managers as to what they think about the move. Maybe they were already doing fiefdom building and things that are orthogonal to the founder's vision. I would also love to hear a follow up a year from now from an anonymous employee or two as to how it worked out. nb. I did read the article from HBR on Google and managers - while I found it compelling, I also had to wonder whether HBS needs articles like that in their publication to ease the conscience of their students and alumni about the value of their degree and their utility to the companies they work for.
- solidspace 13y ago
  I was one of those Treehouse managers and I voted for it. Still very happy that I did. :)
  - lmg643 13y ago
    what were the pros / cons from your perspective?
  - thoughtpalette 13y ago
    What does your role at the company pivot into?
    - solidspace 13y ago
      It's really not as different as everyone is assuming. Fewer meetings, which is good. :) I wasn't demoted, everyone else was promoted, in a way. Anyone can be a leader. So I'm still leading, it's just on smaller teams and on more focused projects that change more frequently. I'm better able to apply my talents where they're needed from day to day.
      - thoughtpalette 13y ago
        Sounds like a challenging and rewarding transition :}
imjared 13y ago
> A great manager (who may also play a part as an individual contributor) can channel & amplify an organization's creativity and innovation. S/he will also ensure there is an alignment b/w the organization's high level strategies and the individual contributions being made. Yep, this. I work in a place that after a merger got rid of the creative director and replaced it with an "everyone is senior" approach. While it's nice on paper, we have no accountability, no one to set or drive standards, and no review process other than client sign-off. I think we would benefit greatly from a Director or VP or some sort of management that could authoritatively say "this is what we're doing and this is how we're doing it".
Avshalom 13y ago
well for those of us who didn't go for an MBA ensure there is alignment... sounds a lot like messages from top to bottom and channel an organizations... sounds a lot like keeping their teams happy. I'm sure the distinction is important to you but not so much to the rest of us.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  That's a fair criticism :)
jaggederest 13y ago
> ensure there is an alignment b/w the organization's high level strategies and the individual contributions being made In my experience, that's something that managers say to justify their existence that has no real contribution to the work being done ;) It's all euphemisms for command-and-control, which isn't generally necessary.
- alttab 13y ago
  Statistically, management is generally necessarry for anything but small organizations.
MrZongle2 13y ago
I think your point about great managers is sound. Treehouse's move may prevent them from building up a cadre of terrible managers, but at the cost of vision and focus.
VladRussian2 13y ago
>A great manager (who may also play a part as an individual contributor) can channel & amplify an organization's creativity and innovation. S/he will also ensure there is an alignment b/w the organization's high level strategies and the individual contributions being made. in non-MBA speak it is called "foreman".

by r0h1n 13y ago

snambi 13y ago

Hey, he is the founder/ceo, so he should know what his managers did. It may be different from bosses in other companies. But, it sounds roughly correct.

dworin 13y ago
Knowing what his managers did is one thing, knowing what his managers should have been doing is another. The problem is that there's a difference between what's on his list and what the best managers do, and what an organization needs from managers. Which might be why he was having the problems in the first place.
- ryancarson 13y ago
  The funny thing is that in the four companies I worked for as an employee, I never once heard those who were being managed say they really valued and benefitted from their Manager and we had plenty of great managers. The founders always thought there was value, but the folks on the bottom rarely did. That doesn't mean the Managers were value-less, just that the perception of their value changes depending on who's talking. In my limited experience, the folks who are actually doing the work on the front lines usually have a better grasp on reality so I'll defer to them.

falcolas 13y ago

> I think that's a pretty narrow definition of management, esp. things like "communicating messages from top to bottom". I agree. In my opinion, the biggest and hardest part of management is to take a direction provided from above and turn it into actionable points for those below. Distinctly different from directing communication. A CEO typically says "we need to increase sales in X vertical". It's up to his VPs to turn that into "focus our software's next features on X's needs", "hire more sales people devoted to X", and "target our marketing more on X". Then the managers look at "focus our software's next features on X's needs" and turn that into "identify X's needs", "create a set of features", and "execute on developing those features based on employee's strengths". Expecting an employee to turn the "increase sales" message into "develop this feature" is a bit too much to expect, not to mention nearly impossible to scale. Also, expecting the CEO to transform their own directions into individual actionable tasks is going to eat into time they could better spend on other tasks (like talking to customers, speaking at conferences, determining new direction, etc).

rpedela 13y ago
Expecting all employees to do that? Not going to happen. Expecting some employees to do that? Why not? Don't all managers/executives/founders start at the bottom?
- cbhl 13y ago
  Well, it is definitely reasonable to expect some employees to turn the "increase sales" message into "develop this feature"... and the argument is that those employees are (probably) managers. (Or rock stars, if you buy into that.)
  - eitally 13y ago
    Or technical product owners, who in lots of companies, especially large ones, are "promoted" into management roles simply because they are directing traffic and coordinating activities of the technical staff "beneath" them (The folks also contributing to the product they govern). There are a lot of ways to deal with this that don't involve flattening the whole org.

lmg643 13y ago

I love the Treehouse article. 90% of the employees voted for it. The 10% who did not were the managers. :) I wonder if any managers voted for it; or it any employees voted against it. I would be curious to hear from the displaced Treehouse managers as to what they think about the move. Maybe they were already doing fiefdom building and things that are orthogonal to the founder's vision. I would also love to hear a follow up a year from now from an anonymous employee or two as to how it worked out. nb. I did read the article from HBR on Google and managers - while I found it compelling, I also had to wonder whether HBS needs articles like that in their publication to ease the conscience of their students and alumni about the value of their degree and their utility to the companies they work for.

solidspace 13y ago
I was one of those Treehouse managers and I voted for it. Still very happy that I did. :)
- lmg643 13y ago
  what were the pros / cons from your perspective?
- thoughtpalette 13y ago
  What does your role at the company pivot into?
  - solidspace 13y ago
    It's really not as different as everyone is assuming. Fewer meetings, which is good. :) I wasn't demoted, everyone else was promoted, in a way. Anyone can be a leader. So I'm still leading, it's just on smaller teams and on more focused projects that change more frequently. I'm better able to apply my talents where they're needed from day to day.
    - thoughtpalette 13y ago
      Sounds like a challenging and rewarding transition :}

imjared 13y ago

> A great manager (who may also play a part as an individual contributor) can channel & amplify an organization's creativity and innovation. S/he will also ensure there is an alignment b/w the organization's high level strategies and the individual contributions being made. Yep, this. I work in a place that after a merger got rid of the creative director and replaced it with an "everyone is senior" approach. While it's nice on paper, we have no accountability, no one to set or drive standards, and no review process other than client sign-off. I think we would benefit greatly from a Director or VP or some sort of management that could authoritatively say "this is what we're doing and this is how we're doing it".

Avshalom 13y ago

well for those of us who didn't go for an MBA ensure there is alignment... sounds a lot like messages from top to bottom and channel an organizations... sounds a lot like keeping their teams happy. I'm sure the distinction is important to you but not so much to the rest of us.

r0h1n 13y ago
That's a fair criticism :)

jaggederest 13y ago

> ensure there is an alignment b/w the organization's high level strategies and the individual contributions being made In my experience, that's something that managers say to justify their existence that has no real contribution to the work being done ;) It's all euphemisms for command-and-control, which isn't generally necessary.

alttab 13y ago
Statistically, management is generally necessarry for anything but small organizations.

MrZongle2 13y ago

I think your point about great managers is sound. Treehouse's move may prevent them from building up a cadre of terrible managers, but at the cost of vision and focus.

VladRussian2 13y ago