What Jason Fried is expressing is something I've been pondering for a while. And I think we'll (hopefully) see more of it (sorry, manager-types). In my experience, managers in most departments have essentially taken the role of sheep-herders. So, I started to ask myself: why do I need a manager when I work well on my own, making smart, educated decisions that are based upon the ideals and successes of other smart, ed…
Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company
131–140 of 184 posts
Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company
#132"Even as we've grown, we've remained a lean organization. We do not have room for people who don't do the actual work." That is a priceless comment. It exposes Jason's huge blind spot. Worse, it is on this undefended flank that great future pain may be inflicted. I look forward to the post-learning article. The underlying premise/assumption is that a 'manager' is not only not doing 'the' work, but they aren't really…
Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I realize that particular suggestion regarding degrees is a little Mickey Mouse. My point was simply that it is quite risky for them to have to rely on your good graces when they leave the organization. What if you're not around to bestow that promised title 10 years from now? What if after a string of successes, that employee makes a mistake and tanks a product, and gets fired on bad terms? This system works fine in…
What's the risk? That I don't take a job sometime in the future from a short-sighted HR drone who can only judge me based on my resumé? If the lack of an archetypal career path on my resumé is a barrier, it's probably not a job worth having.
A large part of management structure in the first place is to try to insulate the organization against changes at any level. Want to replace the entire C suite and the board? No problem... business goes on as usual. With this structure, the company becomes highly dependent on the people at the very top. Any changes there might have the effect of blowing up the whole organization, because there are only a few people who are unquestionably in charge. I think there are lots of benefits from trying to reshape the corporate org chart, as I mentioned in another post, but it is also dangerous to be overly idealistic in terms of how your employees regard this structure and the risk they place on working under it. If most of them feel its appropriate, then I suppose there is no problem. However, I wouldn't automatically assume that's the case, just because they have chosen to work without a title. Also, a large part of their continued work at the firm may have to do with their relationship with you personally, which may put the long term viability of the business at risk.
Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company
#134While I totally buy what this espouses, I think it is probably incredibly hard to scale. They are doing well if they keep things flat(ish) for 26 employees. I can't really see it working at all for > 50. And while they may not have anyone with the job title CTO, I'd be very surprised if DHH was anything other than the de facto CTO.
Why does it have to scale? 37signals took 11 years to get to 26 people. It might take us another 11 to get to 50. We can optimize for that future when and if it arrives. But making your environment worse today because you worry about some possibly maybe future is the essence of premature optimization.
I think if I already had a business of 10-15 people this would be a good model to attempt to follow. If I had a business of 40+, I would be far more wary; the question of scale is for those who may try to fit the model to their existing business.
Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really like your approach, especially making everyone manager for a week. I think the only problem I see with it is that if people want to find another job, their 37signals title makes it seem that they essentially "went nowhere". So even if you are paying them a lot more then when they started and they are the best customer service person ever, their resume still says: "Jane Doe - Customer Service Rep 2005-2011" w…
We solved this in part by using "cocktail titles". So anyone who works here can call themselves senior. So we have "senior designer", "senior programmer". At least that has some ring of fancy.
Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company
#136It's unrealistic to not promote people. If you run a "flat" organization, you're telling your employees "I don't care that your resume indicates no progression." That's a real career limiter, and it can be perceived as an underhanded way to retain talent. Also, more pragmatically, how realistic is it to have 30 direct reports?
I would think working for 37 signals alone would be a big enough evidence of how awesome you are. Also the kind of company that is looking at your "progression" probably isn't the place to go.
It's "unrealistic" because there are social realities that exist outside of the valley and tech blogs. It's true that it's a good company, and it's true that it's a darling company here, but there will be sectors that haven't heard of these kinds of places.
And, again, once you hit something of size, some delineation is a necessity. You don't have to model the Marine Corps, but when you have 30 people arguing over something, the buck has to stop somewhere.
Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company
#137"Even as we've grown, we've remained a lean organization. We do not have room for people who don't do the actual work." That is a priceless comment. It exposes Jason's huge blind spot. Worse, it is on this undefended flank that great future pain may be inflicted. I look forward to the post-learning article. The underlying premise/assumption is that a 'manager' is not only not doing 'the' work, but they aren't really…
In your real world example, I would bet those engineers had some management team that decided localization into 100 languages was more important than interfacing with payment systems. That seems like a real world example of a management team that couldn't see the cheese.
Speaking from an engineer and team lead point of view, yes management is important, but not all management is created equally. For many large companies, the Dilbert principle is in full effect - non-technical people are promoted to management where they can supposedly do less damage. What does more damage to a company in the long term? One bad engineer checking in code that creates rework, or a manager that forces an entire team of engineers to head down the wrong path in the maze towards cheese that doesn't exist?
Also, I just wanted to mention that rowing doesn't mean you can't navigate as well. Bright engineers have a good picture of the industry they are in, and market direction. Some are far better at it than their managers. Just because you write code all day doesn't mean you don't know how to make a business decision, which is what I read when you say we can't row and navigate at the same time.
Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
We solved this in part by using "cocktail titles". So anyone who works here can call themselves senior. So we have "senior designer", "senior programmer". At least that has some ring of fancy.
Sounds like you are following Ricardo Semler philosophy(author of The Maverick). Are you? [ http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/308 ]
Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have it backwards. You don't design your company structure in the hopes or anticipation of becoming Groupon or Zynga. You deal with that growth when it happens. You optimize for that scenario when it occurs. You can't "want" your company into becoming a Groupon or a Zynga by design a certain organizational structure. Startups try that all the time by preemptively hiring tons of people to sit around and wait for t…
I know, I'm not saying you should design your organization or hire around the idea that you'll be at Groupon's level in a year. That would be a waste. Well let me ask you this. When is it the right time to reorganize and evolve from the flat structure because you are growing like gang-busters and can't keep up with the pressure on all areas of the company (support, development, sales, etc.)
Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think working for 37 signals alone would be a big enough evidence of how awesome you are. Also the kind of company that is looking at your "progression" probably isn't the place to go.
Maybe for a designer. What about the accounting clerks, administrative assistants, CSRs, etc. that any company of size needs? It's "unrealistic" because there are social realities that exist outside of the valley and tech blogs. It's true that it's a good company, and it's true that it's a darling company here, but there will be sectors that haven't heard of these kinds of places. And, again, once you hit something o…
The buck always stops somewhere. Whether you're two people or three people. At 37signals, the buck stops with Jason and me. Now it happens to be that when you employ smart craftsmen and women who care about what they do, there's very few loose bucks to stop.