7 ms·

Democratized management could become a major recruiting advantage

62 points by snowmaker 11y ago

CamTin 11y ago
Comparing "no management", "flat structure", "holocracy" to the trend for the tech elite to get free food from the cafeteria is really misleading. Food actually can be provided to someone at zero cost (though of course Google isn't feeding everybody just to be nice). Management can't be just done away with. Did somebody hire you? He's your boss. Can somebody fire you? He's your boss. Can they tell you to show up at work at certain times, or prevent you from taking the afternoon off to take your kid to the doctor? He's your boss. Can someone control whether or not you get a raise? They're your boss. Most importantly: Does somebody extract the excess value from the of the labor you provide, and claim the right to do so by more efficiently organizing the workplace so as to produce value most efficiently? That's what management is. These functions don't have to be performed by specific people with CO titles, but they do need to be done. A cooperative can perform them in a slightly different way, a partnership by slightly different rules, a privately-held VC-backed corporation by others, and publicly-traded multinationals by yet others. I have a hard time believing that Silicon Valley is about to see a wave of startups organized in a cooperative structure. The entire culture and infrastructure is built like a factory farm to raise little companies into behemoths by pumping them full of steroids, hormones, and venture capital. I doubt most worker-run companies would make the same kinds of ethical and business decisions that VCs do, and I really* don't see VCs changing the MO to one where they just sign checks and then let the workers decide what to do with them democratically. That said, if tech talent remains scarce, and therefore in a position to continue demanding the kind of humane treatment all workers would like, that talent may just be able to drive a change--but it won't happen in California. My guess would be that this may drive engineers to the Midwest, with its lower cost of real estate and already-entrenched culture of cooperatives (in agriculture and some industries) and worker-led structures like labor unions. Places like Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, or maybe even college towns like Madison and Ann Arbor (where housing cooperatives are very prevalent and widely-accepted) would be where I would look for this kind of change first. Current "'Silicon $foo' where $foo != 'Valley'" type cities (St. Louis, Austin, etc) may be a good bet too. In short, Dylan was right, and ultimately, you gotta serve somebody.
- netcan 11y ago
  I'm not overly convinced by the current "no management" things either. But, I pretty much disagree with you from this on. I think this outlook is either very semantic or are overlooking how much human organisations vary geographically and historically. We have had tribes, clans, nations, hoards, navies, divinely mandated empires, amateur field hockey teams, political parties, a diverse range of associations wherein people wear uncomfortable clothes and vow celibacy... An "organisation" is just a group of people a memoplex of human culture. We have had all sorts. A limited liability company is just one of these. We are going to keep inventing more of them. I don't think it's far fetched to expect that one or two of them will produce camera drones, video games, or medicines. If you think these are all the same, because the abbot is the manager or something along these lines, that's what I mean by very semantic. Otherwise, change is always possible.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    The parent commentor's point was about access to capital. Yes, there are lots of ways to structure groups of humans. But in today's world only the VC-funded startup gets a relatively unaccountable huge upfront cash injection to build a unicorn.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Well, the EU is preparing to invest 315 billion euros, and they chose a software startup to illustrate the kind of business they want to invest in. By the way, for reference, VCs invested $48 billion (~= 44 billion €) in 2014, which was the top year since 2000. http://europa.eu/workingforyou/en/content/eu-launches-€-315-billion-investment-offensive-boost-jobs-and-growth http://europa.eu/workingforyou/en/content/eu-launches-€-315-...
- solve 11y ago
  > Did somebody hire you? He's your boss. Can somebody fire you? He's your boss. Can they tell you to show up at work at certain times, or prevent you from taking the afternoon off to take your kid to the doctor? He's your boss. Can someone control whether or not you get a raise? They're your boss. What are you talking about? In the flat-managed places I've worked in, a group a peers periodically voted on everyone else's performance. If you had to leave the office for something, you announced it (but never asked permission for it ) on the group mailing list. > Does somebody extract the excess value from the of the labor you provide, and claim the right to do so by more efficiently organizing the workplace so as to produce value most efficiently? The one I'm talking about was a publicly traded company, so no. The technical "owner" of the company had little to no say in the management. Maybe this place was not the typical employer. It was in a field where talent is extremely valued. The employees ruled. If you ask me, it's quite a bit harder to brown-nose 20 of your peers, than just one boss. The dynamics were vastly different than a non-flat, 1-boss system.
codewithcheese 11y ago
Comparing free food as a recruiting advantage to democratized management is a huge stretch. Everyone likes free food... not everyone likes arriving at a new company and being told to look around and go do something useful.
- snowmaker 11y ago
  Interestingly, not everyone likes free food! At least, in the company-provided sense. I've had many engineers tell me that they find the emphasis on free food these days to be patronizing, as if engineers were not capable of obtaining their own food. Some of the disadvantages of free food: - You are pressured to eat whatever the company provides. What if you prefer something else? - You are socially pressured to eat with your coworkers every single day - It's a transparent attempt to get people to spend more hours in the office, in return for food that is worth only a few dollars; not nearly as much as their time. - It removes the natural opportunity for a break around lunchtime to go outside and get something to eat. Anyway, your point is still valid that free food is less controversial than democratized management ... by a long shot :). But I thought that it was interesting how the culture around company-provided food is changing.
  - codewithcheese 11y ago
    Yeah nice points I had not thought of; thanks :)
  - CHY872 11y ago
    Remember that free food is not seen as a fringe benefit, so it can increase compensation by a fair amount due to the reduced tax burden. That's one of the reasons why it's so offered - it's a very cost effective way to increase compensation.
    - walshemj 11y ago
      Until the IRS clamps down a tax break for well paid upper middle class is an easy target.
bkraz 11y ago
It's very easy to verify that a company provides free lunches. It could take months or years of employment to determine that a company's "flat management" structure actually exists in a form that agrees with employees expectations of the designation. They are not the same kind of perk, at all. Flat management may not even be a perk! Good management is a perk. I worked at Valve for several years, and my experience was quite different from what the popular handbook described. It wasn't an especially bad experience, but it wasn't nearly as good as the lore makes it out to be. As you might expect, without written rules or hierarchy, the scene is dominated by social forces. If you put a bunch of people in a room, tell them that there is no hierarchy, then compel them to complete a difficult task, natural human interaction will create a pecking order among other very ugly control systems. Without some rational thought (ie written and mutually-agreed rules and laws), things can turn into Lord of the Flies pretty quickly. It's true that no one tells anyone else what to do at Valve. It's also true that people get fired without warning. Think of it more like the wild west than anything else. Sure, you can be very successful there, but the chaos level might be too high for some folks (me). Check out glassdoor for other anecdotes.
- potatoyogurt 11y ago
  Relevant reading: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm This is a 1970s article about power structures in the women's liberation movement, which also tried to embrace structureless, "flat" leadership. What you're describing isn't new, it's a lesson that's been relearned many times. I'm not entirely sure that trading explicit power for implicit power is a good thing. It can definitely build a more collaborative atmosphere when done right, but it also can be very disorienting and opaque for new or less savvy people.
  - richmarr 11y ago
    For reference, another approach to 'flat' leadership is the Consensus approach used by the Quakers and Occupy movement, amongst others. Discussed recently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617665
  - 11y ago
skewart 11y ago
It's not quite accurate to equate 'democratized management' with 'no management'. Anarchized management might be a better term for the kind of wild west bossless system at Valve. (I mean anarchy as an organizational system, not a casual pejorative term). The author does make a good point that organizational structure and decision-making is an area ripe for innovation and improvement. And it does indeed seem to be one where new companies have a distinct advantage over existing ones. A lot of the things people dislike in traditional management hierarchies are also things that are ultimately bad for the company overall and its shareholders - excessive politics, slow decision-making, etc.
lordnacho 11y ago
One thing that needs to be thought about is ownership. Long story, but currently we have an equity culture where the owners appoint a board, who appoint management. You have some variation between Anglo and Germanic types but pretty similar, still with roots in the industrial system with factories and machines and mostly commodity human capital. Now of course there are companies who have adapted this to fit modern labour types in various ways. But is there a better way?
dang 11y ago
> What are you talking about? Please don't degrade HN threads with uncivil jabs. Apart from that sour note, this comment is excellent, and I hope you post more about that experience. Edit: detached from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908463 and marked off-topic.
- solve 11y ago
  I'm genuinely confused as to what experience he's talking about, as it sounds like the complete opposite from what I've experienced. I do know that different companies may have implemented their flat structure in completely different ways though, so that's why I ask. The question was actually not a rhetorical jab :) But thanks, I'll keep that in mind.
  - dang 11y ago
    Thanks. It's hard to read intent, but that's partly why phrases that typically carry an acerbic or sarcastic payload are best avoided here. I feel bad for taking a substantive subthread off-topic so I will detach this digression from its parent and demote it.
dbg31415 11y ago
MANY people in a company aren't good at leading. Not really sure why anyone would think democracy was a good way to run a company. Find people who are GOOD at leading, make them leaders. If you have bad leaders, of course that's a bad thing, but "WE DON'T LIKE BOSSES" is a horrible way to tell if someone is good or bad at leading, it's just teenage angst.
- tajen 11y ago
  I've never understood why people equate management to leadership. For me leadership is that you're so awed by the excellence and ideas of your manager that you follow him. But whereever I see a manager act, I see authority and no leadership. What did I miss? I reckon there is leadership when a boss is driving a corporate all-hands. But when you're in a 1-on-1 with your team lead, and he tells you that your performance is too low, there is no leadership involved. It's only driving and authority. No convincing, no leadership. The TL is here to review the tasks, the sprint backlog, remove hurdles for you, potentially check everyone's preferences or career advancement. Can someone point me to a situation where a team lead isn't acting using authority but using leadership? Is there any time I could choose that he's wrong and do something else than he says?
  - dbg31415 11y ago
    If your team lead is telling you that your performance is low... one of a few things is happening: * You aren't a team player, and he doesn't like you. He doesn't like spending time with you, he wants you to quit. This is a personality issue. Possibly he's at fault, but more than likely you are. Ask yourself, "Do I make the jobs of other people easier or harder? Do I make my team lead's job easier or harder?" Be honest. Remember, missing a deadline is often something he can smooth over. If you were really irreplaceable you wouldn't be having reviews with your team lead -- watch your attitude. (I'm putting this first because it's a hot market and so many devs have attitude problems / entitlement problems as a result.) Personality is 85% of your success, technical skills the other 15%. * He has to give someone a bad rating (and he doesn't like you / you are the low man). Stack ranking sucks, but it's very real. You are being graded on a curve at work, even if you're a solid performer you're being compared to the others on your team. Always do what you can to show your worth. Never let others speak or you, or present your ideas. Get the credit for what you do. * You deserve it. Be honest. * He's a douche. But chances are he is a douche because he doesn't have insight (because you didn't do your work in a way he could see it, or your attitude sucks). It's rare for team leads to want people off their team, they usually aren't promoted because they were bad at their job / not ambitious. As long as you know what his ambitions are... and align yourself with them... you can have a great relationship with your boss. Don't jump to the conclusion that your boss is a douche. Do your best, and try to understand what's going on here. 99% of the time your boss wants you to succeed and you're your own worst enemy in the workplace.
kabdib 11y ago
Free food is easy. It's "just money". Low on money? Cut back to soda and snacks from Costco. A flat organization is something else entirely. The Valve way is simple, but not easy. You need to be able to put a huge amount of trust in people. You can't be shy about getting rid of people who aren't working out. It's not "managerless nirvana," it's different, and it's unclear if it's really what you want in a focused company like a start-up, where you have a financial fuse and little luxury to experiment. (I read the Zappos manifesto. It was full bull-goose batshit crazy; basically unreadable psychobabble power-blended with scientology-class buzzwords. It looked like they didn't want employees, they wanted bio-robots capable of running some funky version of Python. Hoo boy).
Sebguer 11y ago
This article's a good counterpoint: https://pando.com/2015/07/03/holacracy-dunces/ https://pando.com/2015/07/03/holacracy-dunces/
- darknomad23 11y ago
  Any easy way to read pando articles without subscribing?
jacques_chester 11y ago
> The things is: engineers don’t like bosses. I don't like being told how to do my job. But I don't want to do everyone else's, either. On an engagement I don't have to think about what feature to develop next. That's up to my product manager, working with a designer. I sometimes venture an opinion, but it's just, like, my opinion man. And they don't have to worry about the minutiae of code. That's my job as an engineer. They can ask questions and make suggestions, but it's up to my peers and I to decide the engineering questions. The problem isn't with clearcut roles. Clear separation of responsibility is great. The problem is trust. And trust problems are not solved by throwing everyone into the same deep end.

62 points by snowmaker 11y ago

Comparing "no management", "flat structure", "holocracy" to the trend for the tech elite to get free food from the cafeteria is really misleading. Food actually can be provided to someone at zero cost (though of course Google isn't feeding everybody just to be nice). Management can't be just done away with. Did somebody hire you? He's your boss. Can somebody fire you? He's your boss. Can they tell you to show up at work at certain times, or prevent you from taking the afternoon off to take your kid to the doctor? He's your boss. Can someone control whether or not you get a raise? They're your boss. Most importantly: Does somebody extract the excess value from the of the labor you provide, and claim the right to do so by more efficiently organizing the workplace so as to produce value most efficiently? That's what management is. These functions don't have to be performed by specific people with CO titles, but they do need to be done. A cooperative can perform them in a slightly different way, a partnership by slightly different rules, a privately-held VC-backed corporation by others, and publicly-traded multinationals by yet others. I have a hard time believing that Silicon Valley is about to see a wave of startups organized in a cooperative structure. The entire culture and infrastructure is built like a factory farm to raise little companies into behemoths by pumping them full of steroids, hormones, and venture capital. I doubt most worker-run companies would make the same kinds of ethical and business decisions that VCs do, and I really* don't see VCs changing the MO to one where they just sign checks and then let the workers decide what to do with them democratically. That said, if tech talent remains scarce, and therefore in a position to continue demanding the kind of humane treatment all workers would like, that talent may just be able to drive a change--but it won't happen in California. My guess would be that this may drive engineers to the Midwest, with its lower cost of real estate and already-entrenched culture of cooperatives (in agriculture and some industries) and worker-led structures like labor unions. Places like Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, or maybe even college towns like Madison and Ann Arbor (where housing cooperatives are very prevalent and widely-accepted) would be where I would look for this kind of change first. Current "'Silicon $foo' where $foo != 'Valley'" type cities (St. Louis, Austin, etc) may be a good bet too. In short, Dylan was right, and ultimately, you gotta serve somebody.

netcan 11y ago
I'm not overly convinced by the current "no management" things either. But, I pretty much disagree with you from this on. I think this outlook is either very semantic or are overlooking how much human organisations vary geographically and historically. We have had tribes, clans, nations, hoards, navies, divinely mandated empires, amateur field hockey teams, political parties, a diverse range of associations wherein people wear uncomfortable clothes and vow celibacy... An "organisation" is just a group of people a memoplex of human culture. We have had all sorts. A limited liability company is just one of these. We are going to keep inventing more of them. I don't think it's far fetched to expect that one or two of them will produce camera drones, video games, or medicines. If you think these are all the same, because the abbot is the manager or something along these lines, that's what I mean by very semantic. Otherwise, change is always possible.
- pjc50 11y ago
  The parent commentor's point was about access to capital. Yes, there are lots of ways to structure groups of humans. But in today's world only the VC-funded startup gets a relatively unaccountable huge upfront cash injection to build a unicorn.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Well, the EU is preparing to invest 315 billion euros, and they chose a software startup to illustrate the kind of business they want to invest in. By the way, for reference, VCs invested $48 billion (~= 44 billion €) in 2014, which was the top year since 2000. http://europa.eu/workingforyou/en/content/eu-launches-€-315-billion-investment-offensive-boost-jobs-and-growth http://europa.eu/workingforyou/en/content/eu-launches-€-315-...
solve 11y ago
> Did somebody hire you? He's your boss. Can somebody fire you? He's your boss. Can they tell you to show up at work at certain times, or prevent you from taking the afternoon off to take your kid to the doctor? He's your boss. Can someone control whether or not you get a raise? They're your boss. What are you talking about? In the flat-managed places I've worked in, a group a peers periodically voted on everyone else's performance. If you had to leave the office for something, you announced it (but never asked permission for it ) on the group mailing list. > Does somebody extract the excess value from the of the labor you provide, and claim the right to do so by more efficiently organizing the workplace so as to produce value most efficiently? The one I'm talking about was a publicly traded company, so no. The technical "owner" of the company had little to no say in the management. Maybe this place was not the typical employer. It was in a field where talent is extremely valued. The employees ruled. If you ask me, it's quite a bit harder to brown-nose 20 of your peers, than just one boss. The dynamics were vastly different than a non-flat, 1-boss system.

codewithcheese 11y ago

Comparing free food as a recruiting advantage to democratized management is a huge stretch. Everyone likes free food... not everyone likes arriving at a new company and being told to look around and go do something useful.

snowmaker 11y ago
Interestingly, not everyone likes free food! At least, in the company-provided sense. I've had many engineers tell me that they find the emphasis on free food these days to be patronizing, as if engineers were not capable of obtaining their own food. Some of the disadvantages of free food: - You are pressured to eat whatever the company provides. What if you prefer something else? - You are socially pressured to eat with your coworkers every single day - It's a transparent attempt to get people to spend more hours in the office, in return for food that is worth only a few dollars; not nearly as much as their time. - It removes the natural opportunity for a break around lunchtime to go outside and get something to eat. Anyway, your point is still valid that free food is less controversial than democratized management ... by a long shot :). But I thought that it was interesting how the culture around company-provided food is changing.
- codewithcheese 11y ago
  Yeah nice points I had not thought of; thanks :)
- CHY872 11y ago
  Remember that free food is not seen as a fringe benefit, so it can increase compensation by a fair amount due to the reduced tax burden. That's one of the reasons why it's so offered - it's a very cost effective way to increase compensation.
  - walshemj 11y ago
    Until the IRS clamps down a tax break for well paid upper middle class is an easy target.

bkraz 11y ago

It's very easy to verify that a company provides free lunches. It could take months or years of employment to determine that a company's "flat management" structure actually exists in a form that agrees with employees expectations of the designation. They are not the same kind of perk, at all. Flat management may not even be a perk! Good management is a perk. I worked at Valve for several years, and my experience was quite different from what the popular handbook described. It wasn't an especially bad experience, but it wasn't nearly as good as the lore makes it out to be. As you might expect, without written rules or hierarchy, the scene is dominated by social forces. If you put a bunch of people in a room, tell them that there is no hierarchy, then compel them to complete a difficult task, natural human interaction will create a pecking order among other very ugly control systems. Without some rational thought (ie written and mutually-agreed rules and laws), things can turn into Lord of the Flies pretty quickly. It's true that no one tells anyone else what to do at Valve. It's also true that people get fired without warning. Think of it more like the wild west than anything else. Sure, you can be very successful there, but the chaos level might be too high for some folks (me). Check out glassdoor for other anecdotes.

potatoyogurt 11y ago
Relevant reading: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm This is a 1970s article about power structures in the women's liberation movement, which also tried to embrace structureless, "flat" leadership. What you're describing isn't new, it's a lesson that's been relearned many times. I'm not entirely sure that trading explicit power for implicit power is a good thing. It can definitely build a more collaborative atmosphere when done right, but it also can be very disorienting and opaque for new or less savvy people.
- richmarr 11y ago
  For reference, another approach to 'flat' leadership is the Consensus approach used by the Quakers and Occupy movement, amongst others. Discussed recently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9617665
- 11y ago

skewart 11y ago

It's not quite accurate to equate 'democratized management' with 'no management'. Anarchized management might be a better term for the kind of wild west bossless system at Valve. (I mean anarchy as an organizational system, not a casual pejorative term). The author does make a good point that organizational structure and decision-making is an area ripe for innovation and improvement. And it does indeed seem to be one where new companies have a distinct advantage over existing ones. A lot of the things people dislike in traditional management hierarchies are also things that are ultimately bad for the company overall and its shareholders - excessive politics, slow decision-making, etc.

lordnacho 11y ago

One thing that needs to be thought about is ownership. Long story, but currently we have an equity culture where the owners appoint a board, who appoint management. You have some variation between Anglo and Germanic types but pretty similar, still with roots in the industrial system with factories and machines and mostly commodity human capital. Now of course there are companies who have adapted this to fit modern labour types in various ways. But is there a better way?

dang 11y ago

> What are you talking about? Please don't degrade HN threads with uncivil jabs. Apart from that sour note, this comment is excellent, and I hope you post more about that experience. Edit: detached from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9908463 and marked off-topic.

solve 11y ago
I'm genuinely confused as to what experience he's talking about, as it sounds like the complete opposite from what I've experienced. I do know that different companies may have implemented their flat structure in completely different ways though, so that's why I ask. The question was actually not a rhetorical jab :) But thanks, I'll keep that in mind.
- dang 11y ago
  Thanks. It's hard to read intent, but that's partly why phrases that typically carry an acerbic or sarcastic payload are best avoided here. I feel bad for taking a substantive subthread off-topic so I will detach this digression from its parent and demote it.

dbg31415 11y ago

MANY people in a company aren't good at leading. Not really sure why anyone would think democracy was a good way to run a company. Find people who are GOOD at leading, make them leaders. If you have bad leaders, of course that's a bad thing, but "WE DON'T LIKE BOSSES" is a horrible way to tell if someone is good or bad at leading, it's just teenage angst.

tajen 11y ago
I've never understood why people equate management to leadership. For me leadership is that you're so awed by the excellence and ideas of your manager that you follow him. But whereever I see a manager act, I see authority and no leadership. What did I miss? I reckon there is leadership when a boss is driving a corporate all-hands. But when you're in a 1-on-1 with your team lead, and he tells you that your performance is too low, there is no leadership involved. It's only driving and authority. No convincing, no leadership. The TL is here to review the tasks, the sprint backlog, remove hurdles for you, potentially check everyone's preferences or career advancement. Can someone point me to a situation where a team lead isn't acting using authority but using leadership? Is there any time I could choose that he's wrong and do something else than he says?
- dbg31415 11y ago
  If your team lead is telling you that your performance is low... one of a few things is happening: * You aren't a team player, and he doesn't like you. He doesn't like spending time with you, he wants you to quit. This is a personality issue. Possibly he's at fault, but more than likely you are. Ask yourself, "Do I make the jobs of other people easier or harder? Do I make my team lead's job easier or harder?" Be honest. Remember, missing a deadline is often something he can smooth over. If you were really irreplaceable you wouldn't be having reviews with your team lead -- watch your attitude. (I'm putting this first because it's a hot market and so many devs have attitude problems / entitlement problems as a result.) Personality is 85% of your success, technical skills the other 15%. * He has to give someone a bad rating (and he doesn't like you / you are the low man). Stack ranking sucks, but it's very real. You are being graded on a curve at work, even if you're a solid performer you're being compared to the others on your team. Always do what you can to show your worth. Never let others speak or you, or present your ideas. Get the credit for what you do. * You deserve it. Be honest. * He's a douche. But chances are he is a douche because he doesn't have insight (because you didn't do your work in a way he could see it, or your attitude sucks). It's rare for team leads to want people off their team, they usually aren't promoted because they were bad at their job / not ambitious. As long as you know what his ambitions are... and align yourself with them... you can have a great relationship with your boss. Don't jump to the conclusion that your boss is a douche. Do your best, and try to understand what's going on here. 99% of the time your boss wants you to succeed and you're your own worst enemy in the workplace.

kabdib 11y ago

Free food is easy. It's "just money". Low on money? Cut back to soda and snacks from Costco. A flat organization is something else entirely. The Valve way is simple, but not easy. You need to be able to put a huge amount of trust in people. You can't be shy about getting rid of people who aren't working out. It's not "managerless nirvana," it's different, and it's unclear if it's really what you want in a focused company like a start-up, where you have a financial fuse and little luxury to experiment. (I read the Zappos manifesto. It was full bull-goose batshit crazy; basically unreadable psychobabble power-blended with scientology-class buzzwords. It looked like they didn't want employees, they wanted bio-robots capable of running some funky version of Python. Hoo boy).

Sebguer 11y ago

This article's a good counterpoint: https://pando.com/2015/07/03/holacracy-dunces/ https://pando.com/2015/07/03/holacracy-dunces/

darknomad23 11y ago
Any easy way to read pando articles without subscribing?

jacques_chester 11y ago

> The things is: engineers don’t like bosses. I don't like being told how to do my job. But I don't want to do everyone else's, either. On an engagement I don't have to think about what feature to develop next. That's up to my product manager, working with a designer. I sometimes venture an opinion, but it's just, like, my opinion man. And they don't have to worry about the minutiae of code. That's my job as an engineer. They can ask questions and make suggestions, but it's up to my peers and I to decide the engineering questions. The problem isn't with clearcut roles. Clear separation of responsibility is great. The problem is trust. And trust problems are not solved by throwing everyone into the same deep end.