Live data from Hacker News

Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

inc.com

151–160 of 184 posts

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#151

"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…

Excellent. This is the key bit for me:

"...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.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#152

"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…

I think you bring up an excellent point, and I really like the cheese analogy. The only problem with this analogy is that it presumes that managers can effectively see exactly where the cheese is. 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…

"The only problem with this analogy is that it presumes that managers can effectively see exactly where the cheese is."

Yes, its the difference between good managers and not good managers. And yes the downside of a bad manager is that a bunch of people have a poor experience rather and the rest of the team having to cover for a poor developer. So picking managers is hard, must be done carefully, and must be constantly evaluated.

"non-technical people are promoted to management where they can supposedly do less damage."

See the comment about the role of the CEO (or more senior manager) if someone isn't the right person for any job in your company, then you have to let them go. If you can't do that you're not doing the management thing correctly.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you're right. With a smallish company, it's possible for everybody to jump in and do whatever needs to be done. As a company grows, though, this will become impossible. Many a great company in history have suffered spectacular deaths simply because they couldn't scale correctly with their success. In my opinion, it will be impossible to have 200 employees with a flat structure.

I don't care about what 37signals might/could look like at 200 employees. We have 27 employees today and we grow slowly. We're optimized for today. If we have to change down the road we will, but there's no sense in spending even 5 minutes worrying about if what we do today will work when we're 10x as big.

> What we learned is that adding a dedicated manager and creating a hierarchy is not the only way to create structure.

I think the misconception with the article is that the title (and focus) is "Why I run a Flat Company" as if this should be the standard for modern business. This works for 37signals, because (1) you have actively chosen to grow very slowly when you could have otherwise grown much faster and (2) you've had the fortune and ability to attract some very good people. Many businesses don't desire to do number 1 and find it very hard to do number 2.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#154
While I completely agree that flat vs a vertical hierarchy should be assessed from organization to organization, I tend to prefer flat structures mainly because they allow for the culture to mold perception of progression over an existing structure itself. What I mean by this is that if you have a structured way for internal progression (usually vertical) people mold their perceptions around that ladder no matter how much you try convincing them otherwise.

You can clearly see this being played out within the big 4 accounting firms (I recruited for them and from them). Within the firms its extremely vertical in that progression is dictated largely by how long you stayed until you hit partnership where its strictly vacancy. Thus, you're basically looking at steady yearly promotions until you reach being a senior manager after 6-8 years within the firm.

This is where I was able to take the most senior people usually in a seasonal manner pretty easily. This is because after being a senior manager you really have only two trajectories within the firm, associate partner or partner. The AP is basically a position they created to please senior managers who sounded too old and weren't good enough to be partners. So what you generally see is 3-4 hotshot senior managers all vying for the 1 partnership position that will be available that season/year. Inevitably I'll have 3/4 partner potential senior managers leaving because they know they're better off leaving the firm and going to an industry position or worse a competitive firm. They already know the stigma of being an AP.

Thus, you don't simply see attrition at the top level, but the attrition of the very best at the top level and the rest being APs. What's worse is those guys who are the best usually have a loyal following within the firm. Well guess who gives me a call after placing that senior manager as a hiring manager where they're building a team? Now you see an attrition of even better people who you were probably underpaying at junior positions leaving the firm for better pay and better hours. The only guiding light there is you're hoping that senior manager becomes their client in the future.

Thus, you see a system where the highly vertical nature of the structure led to a culture where attrition was the norm. While it might be naive to think so, I think being a flat structure might give a better chance for the culture to shape that perception of the promotion and have them "feel" it rather than perceive it.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#155
post #54

This really resonated for me because we have almost exactly the same company dynamics at play (we're of roughly the same size). I'm not sure we have similar answers, but one response to the problem of not being able to afford people who don't do real work is to make sure everyone is doing real work. We're primarily a services firm, and everybody in that org, including Dave, our President, is billable. It's something…

Yep, Joel wrote about this here: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20080901/how-hard-could-it-be-ho...

...and was inspired by this Fast Company Article about some GE division that had no middle management... http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/28/ge.html?page=0%2C0

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#156

I would like to commend Jason Fried on establishing a source of free and recurring advertising in a massively distributed publication that has had his target audience cornered for years. Not only is this free advertising, but it is the highest quality of advertising congratulating small and medium size business on being flat (which they usually are because in a small army, even the Generals are on the front lines) an…

I'm the first one to be skeptical about the universal feasibility of 37signals bootstrapping principles (that's an easy philosophy to espouse when your product was bootstrapped by leveraging early success in client work and community mindshare in what was a nascent market at the time), but your dripping cynicism is quite offputting. The fact that Jason's ideals serve his interests is not necessarily an indication of…

Since when is benefitting oneself by adding value to something a bad thing or a "Machiavellian scheme"? This is what you need to do all day: figure out how to establish yourself inside your customer’s head, no matter where he or she is - get the singer they listen to, get in the publication they read, get on the radio show they listen to etc. As a CEO you should chart out your customer(s) and go after them - establishing yourself as the best choice (every demographic has a different definition of "best" so be careful here) through all and any mediums.

Also, think about it like this if you feel "evil" doing this, as a CEO you are the mind of the organization, you must think for the organization because like a baby it cannot fend for itself. I am commending Jason for being creative - most companies throw away money year after on ads in magazines like Inc that barely get glanced at - Jason, on behalf of his organization, has sold you his product - correct me if he hasn’t.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#157
This is a lot of BS, spoken by a Founder with no understanding of employee needs. Employees do not have their eyes set on always staying where they are. They are not reaping the monetary rewards the way a Founder is. To an employee, EVERY job is a stepping stone to the next one, eventually. This Founder is completely self-absorbed.

Job titles are free and it helps the employee along on their career. No, they shouldn't be inflated, but they shouldn't be held back either. Eventually the employee needs to put that job on their resume and if it looks like they were an entry level person because the Founder was a jerk about titles, it's better if the employees leave now instead of later.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#158
post #83

Way to reward the one critical person who actually has to do the hard work of interacting with your customers AFTER they've been sold and paid you money. That's the hard part because it's only dealing with problems and never "great to have to call you". I guess customer service these days is disposable and easily replaceable.

I actually feel like I got quite a reward for my time at 37signals - Yes, that's me Jason's talking about :)

Since this topic is sort of centered around a small part of my experience, I'd love to shed some light on a couple points:

True! I started my own business! For about 7 hours of my life I didn't know what I was going to do if I couldn't bloom at 37signals, and then I told David and Jason I was starting my own company, CoSupport.us.

True: I left 37signals because I really wanted to do more support-wise, and the needs of the company didn't mesh with my ideas. They need people full-time on support, they don't need someone who's not there responding to tickets. After 4 years of answering 100+ emails a day, I wanted to do other things. Needing me on tickets interacting with customers is what Jason means when he says they can't have people working on a team not doing the work of the team.

True: David and Jason may sometimes come off a bit stiff, perhaps even cold, when it comes to how they manage their business, but that's the unfortunate aspect of print, edits, etc. In truth, working for them was the most challenging, educational, inspirational time of my career so far. They are the opposite of cold when it comes to their employee's ambition, ideas, talent and goals.

True: My experience leaving was equivalent to a professional football player saying to his coach, "Hey I think I want to try being a referee!" The player isn't on the team to be a referee. If he wants to be a referee, he needs to go to referee school and become a referee, not say, "I'm going to stay on the football team and be a referee, too." That's not how it works in football, or at 37signals.

False: I was not at all "rewarded" for my ambition by being shut down, put down, held down, or in any way shuttered by David or Jason. I was rewarded by them telling me I had too much ambition to be contained there, and by them supporting my new company as best they can.

False: I actually did my first job for 37signals in 2005, and started full-time in March 2007. So a little more than "just about 3 years."

The only bad thing I have to say about 37signals or their management or my leaving is that they stole my frog, which you can ask Jason Fried about.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#160
I think it's a good thing that a potential employee of Jason's can read his blog and be warned or at least aware of what kind of company he's running and potential future careers there. Personally as a developer I'm looking forward to gaining more managerial experience as I can see how you can make bigger more exciting things as you have more people contributing. Incidentally I work for a company twice as big as 37 signals although growing quite fast in comparison and I can see that the people in the nontechnical roles quite enjoy the possibilities (and realities) of progressing to different and managerial roles. It makes me happy that they can stick around and don't have to leave when they might otherwise stagnate.
Post reply on HN