Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 497 posts

Re: Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’

#161

Post by whoknowsidont »

pyuser583 wrote: post #145
Rinzler89 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the manager is the agent and is assumed to have the firm's best interests in mind, but in reality doesn't. Every manager I had at every major multinational company only had the interest of their own career progression in mind, not the company's, not their team's. You as an employee under them were just a means to their goal, nothing more. I naively assumed that making them look good and doing the overtime when need…

I’ve been fortunate to have some very good managers. That’s why I find this idea so horrible. I wouldn’t be where I am now if I had to “self-organize.”

>I’ve been fortunate to have some very good managers.

Every time I've seen this sentiment and asked for something concrete on what made them good managers I get answered with platitudes or "nice-isms."

At this point in my career, the emperor has no clothes. There are no good managers, only good peers.

Re: Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’

#162

Post by langsoul-com »

agent86 wrote: post #43

Valve - the PC gaming giant and owner of Steam - is very famously a flat organization. Their Handbook for New Employees[1] that goes into detail about how they operate has made its way out into the world a few times as well. [1] - https://cdn.cloudflare.steamstatic.com/apps/valve/Valve_NewE...

Valve most likely doesn't use that handbook in full any longer. Lots of things changed.

For instance, they have a round table where everyone would judge everyone else. So if too many people don't like you, the axe is coming. Sounds miserable.

Re: Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’

#163

Post by aleph_minus_one »

FLT8 wrote: post #137
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But sadly there just is no counteracting force (except perhaps mr Musk). When you apply for your next job as a manager they will ask you “How big was your team?”, and they won’t be impressed when you say “I managed to keep it down to four people”. I honestly would strongly prefer 4 people who are highly smart (think prodigy- or genius-level) below me than 20 "somewhat intelligent" employees (i.e. what at least 95 %…

In general I agree, but Prodigy-level people can come with their own challenges too. Eg. They're going to be coming up with a million ideas for how to improve things, so you'd better be prepared to listen and support them, which often will require changing the way the organisation works. If you don't (or can't) support them, be prepared for them to get demotivated quickly and move on. The other 90% are generally a li…

First:

> so you'd better be prepared to listen and support them

... is in my opinion basic management 101.

---

Concerning your other points: I do believe that I at least somewhat know how to work with such people (though I never managed such people).

For example, at a former job, I worked under such people; they really liked me, because I was one of the few people who were actually capable of "understanding" their visions and make them understandable to less intelligent (but still smart) colleagues.

I really have a tendency to be liked by frustrated highly-smart people, both because I really love to learn from them and I think I am a decent person to talk to if you are really frustrated (on the other hand, much more "ordinary" people often reproach me for being "unapproachable", "having my head in the clouds", "always being so negative", "complicated to work with", ... :-) ).

Re: Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’

#164

Post by Quarrel »

esel2k wrote: post #153

« It is just lots of noise » thats what people told me who know him/worked for him. The reality is that Bayer is in deep mud with their lawsuit and laying off lots of people in Germany is difficulty. If you pack it under a nice « we are modern, amazing shift » package, then he will get more support and also shareholders will be pleased (for a while). That’s my theory.

This was absolutely my first thought.

In Germany he'll need to get buy-in from the board, which will include employee representatives (I've not looked at Bayer specifically, but either directly, or through a supervisory board that has real power), while also convincing shareholders that he's going to either goose the share price short-term, or actually add value long-term. While the hope for the German corporate model is that it delivers on long-term value for both employees & shareholders, it has not held up to much long term scrutiny unfortunately (which isn't to say it is bad, just that it hasn't necessarily shown itself to be better than most other corporate governance models). What it has done is make for innovative CEOs, and not necessarily in the US model, as they try and negotiate the pitfalls.

Re: Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’

#165

Post by andrekandre »

_the_inflator wrote: post #127

I am not convinced. Reading the whole article it seems that Bayer is moving to a system better known as QBR, mixed with OKRs and most likely some sort of agile model. There is no no-hierarchies. Working in a 3 month cadence on an organizational level puts a lot of pressure on all people. Usually QBRs work top down and there is more monitoring along the process. What sounds great is more or less success theatre as wel…

noob question: what does qbr stand for in this context?

i thought maybe quarterly business review, but not sure after reading several descriptions around...

Re: Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’

#166

Post by QuantumGood »

andrekandre wrote: post #165
_the_inflator wrote: post #127

I am not convinced. Reading the whole article it seems that Bayer is moving to a system better known as QBR, mixed with OKRs and most likely some sort of agile model. There is no no-hierarchies. Working in a 3 month cadence on an organizational level puts a lot of pressure on all people. Usually QBRs work top down and there is more monitoring along the process. What sounds great is more or less success theatre as wel…

noob question: what does qbr stand for in this context? i thought maybe quarterly business review, but not sure after reading several descriptions around...

You're correct, QBR = quarterly business review in this context

Re: Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’

#167

Post by JSDevOps »

_the_inflator wrote: post #127

I am not convinced. Reading the whole article it seems that Bayer is moving to a system better known as QBR, mixed with OKRs and most likely some sort of agile model. There is no no-hierarchies. Working in a 3 month cadence on an organizational level puts a lot of pressure on all people. Usually QBRs work top down and there is more monitoring along the process. What sounds great is more or less success theatre as wel…

Asking for everyone here. What’s a QBR?

Re: Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’

#168

Post by mvkel »

This is going to crash and burn.

Humans are tribal. We need hierarchy, whether it's defined or not. We need to know where we fit among a collection of people.

At work, bureaucracy gets a bad rap because we like to cite the -bad- examples of it being executed. It's actually a very efficient way to explain someone's purpose, expectations, and tools to succeed.

Ripping it out is just taking a c-level mentality of "wanting to be the leader" and applying it to people who don't necessarily want/need/have the capacity for such a role.

As for de-layering, a person can really only properly handle 7 direct reports before things get dysfunctional. Delayering just means more people reporting to fewer managers. Expenses are saved, but dysfunction grows, along with opportunity cost.

Re: Bayer is getting rid of bosses and asking staff to ‘self-organize’

#169

Post by maccard »

whoknowsidont wrote: post #161
pyuser583 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been fortunate to have some very good managers. That’s why I find this idea so horrible. I wouldn’t be where I am now if I had to “self-organize.”

>I’ve been fortunate to have some very good managers. Every time I've seen this sentiment and asked for something concrete on what made them good managers I get answered with platitudes or "nice-isms." At this point in my career, the emperor has no clothes. There are no good managers, only good peers.

I’ve had good managers and bad managers.

As an IC, a good manager will shield you from the chaos, infighting, changing priorities and ever shifting timelines. They will ensure that you are aware of what’s going on, and have enough clarity to be able to proceed.

A bad manager will most likely try to help by exposing you to all of the above, and cause you get caught up in all of the confusion that comes with it.

Just one example.

Post reply on HN