"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…
Also, sometimes the cheese is Gouda. When the cheese is Gouda, it is the cheese of customer service, and the job of the person standing above the maze it to identify if there is Gouda and where it is. But sometimes the cheese is Emmenthaler, and when the cheese is Emmenthaler, then there is a rule† that the Gouda manager and the Emmenthaler manager must share the cheese or else by finding maze paths that don't connec…
"...in a well-managed organization, one President or CEO can structure roles such that everyone is clear about the business value they provide and can manage their effort accordingly."
And once achieving this point, you neither change the people in the organization, nor do you change the direction of the overall effort. Life will be grand.
So 100% agreement on the goal of what every CEO/Founder is trying to achieve which is "Structuring the roles such that everyone is clear about the business value they provide and can manage their effort accordingly," Keeping the organization as close as possible to that goal in the presence of change, the limiting factor of using people that happen to be available in the job market at any given instant in time, and with the added constraint of operating within a viable business model. Well that separates the good ones from the bad ones does it not?
It has been my experience that people who are not able to evaluate the relative contributions of others who are in dissimilar roles make poor choices.
When I read a comment like 'we value doing over not doing' in the context of leadership, I wonder under what set of constraints is leading a group or team not a form of 'doing'? I can't come up with a case where someone who was, as part or all of their role, leading, felt that the 'leading' task wasn't a form of 'doing.' I have also not experienced anyone who, was in a leadership or management role felt that 'leading' (or in our case 'managing') they were doing was 'less hard' or 'less useful' than technical work (designing, coding, debugging, Etc.)
However, I've encountered people whose experience is dominated by technical work firmly believing that managing or leading was both easier and had less impact than the technical work they were doing. And I've known managers who have been managers for most (or all) of their career and felt that is was harder and more relevant than what the technical people did who worked for them.
So, to my way of thinking, if someone does value 'doing' over 'not doing' (which is good) and they understand the different values between what managers do and what engineers do, then the question of 'vertical movers' vs 'horizontal movers' is not a cultural thing its a 'what do we need right now for the business' kind of thing.
It's like reading an article that says "We had to fire Bob today because he came to me to say ask if he could spend more time on gcc, you see our organization is all linux kernel hackers and we like it that way." And yet that pre-disposition to kernel hacking completely misses the benefits that can be achieved if you your compilation environment improves. Anyway, enough analogies, I can tell they obscure the point too much.