4 ms·

Giving managers titles that don't have the word "manager" in them doesn't mean that there aren't managers. Describing their responsibilities as being "mentor"-l

Giving managers titles that don't have the word "manager" in them doesn't mean that there aren't managers. Describing their responsibilities as being "mentor"-like rather than "managerial" doesn't mean they aren't, in fact, managing. The headline is rather explicitly stating that Medium is building a company with "no managers," and then the article goes on to describe some rather transparently bad attempts at euphemistically calling "managers" something other than "manager." I think the commenters you're referring to can be forgiven because of that.

rouxbot 12y ago
The article doesn't do a great job conveying how Medium is actually structured. I can only speak to how it was a year and a half ago (when I left), but the difference between a system like Holacracy and a standard hierarchical organization is that a person in Holacracy might hold roles in many circles at the same time and those roles are relatively fluid. The whole point in a role is to define who has decision-making authority over some given thing and/or what that role is responsible for. Lead links come about when a role becomes too big for a single person and turns into a circle which has its own members. The lead link is there to represent the circle to the parent circle and to determine who is filling what roles. Other than that, the circle is largely self governing (roles, responsibilities, etc are all decided in regular governance meetings as a circle, not by the lead link). There are definitely decision makers at the company, but they're not managing people per se, they just have authority over some area of the company. The whole people side is entirely independent and generally lives outside of Holacracy.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  What you've described is a manager/supervisor->director->VP->SVP/C-Suite chain, but with different terms, (possibly) shorter tenure, and with a perhaps slightly more democratic allocation procedure. It's a management structure, just billed as something else.
  - rouxbot 12y ago
    Management of work, not management of people, that's the key thing. Yes there's a hierarchy of responsibilities, but individual people live many places in that hierarchy which is what makes it different.
- amirmc 12y ago
  My impression from your comment is that there's still a chain of command, but different terminologies and durations. My prediction from this arrangement would be that - in time - you see the same people becoming 'decsion-makers' or 'lead-links' over and over again. In fact, one incentive might be to ensure that your own 'circle' continues to expand. The main benefit I see is that incompetent links/managers wont last long, but it doesn't hinder the machiavellians (it's just another system to game). Of course, this is the first time I've come across the concept of Holocracy so maybe something else mitigates the above.

rouxbot 12y ago

The article doesn't do a great job conveying how Medium is actually structured. I can only speak to how it was a year and a half ago (when I left), but the difference between a system like Holacracy and a standard hierarchical organization is that a person in Holacracy might hold roles in many circles at the same time and those roles are relatively fluid. The whole point in a role is to define who has decision-making authority over some given thing and/or what that role is responsible for. Lead links come about when a role becomes too big for a single person and turns into a circle which has its own members. The lead link is there to represent the circle to the parent circle and to determine who is filling what roles. Other than that, the circle is largely self governing (roles, responsibilities, etc are all decided in regular governance meetings as a circle, not by the lead link). There are definitely decision makers at the company, but they're not managing people per se, they just have authority over some area of the company. The whole people side is entirely independent and generally lives outside of Holacracy.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago
What you've described is a manager/supervisor->director->VP->SVP/C-Suite chain, but with different terms, (possibly) shorter tenure, and with a perhaps slightly more democratic allocation procedure. It's a management structure, just billed as something else.
- rouxbot 12y ago
  Management of work, not management of people, that's the key thing. Yes there's a hierarchy of responsibilities, but individual people live many places in that hierarchy which is what makes it different.
amirmc 12y ago
My impression from your comment is that there's still a chain of command, but different terminologies and durations. My prediction from this arrangement would be that - in time - you see the same people becoming 'decsion-makers' or 'lead-links' over and over again. In fact, one incentive might be to ensure that your own 'circle' continues to expand. The main benefit I see is that incompetent links/managers wont last long, but it doesn't hinder the machiavellians (it's just another system to game). Of course, this is the first time I've come across the concept of Holocracy so maybe something else mitigates the above.