Live data from Hacker News

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

fortune.com

271–280 of 497 posts

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

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are not many options. Headcount might help (secondment, overtime, contractors, move from another team, new hire) or pushing other work back (or cancelling it, reducing scope) or saying no (find a workaround, go without it). I might of missed it but there is only so much you can do. A win win might be showing how doing X now is not worth it because event Y makes X obsolete or less valuable.

You can just have a queue. I’ve seen departments that basically function as an internal vendor of services to other departments. First in first out. Fixed schedule to expect turn around on most requests. No one complains. Seems quite pragmatic and fair.

Queue is fine but my experience is small company’s anyway hate them. A queue self manages, so how do you micromanage!

Sprints are an editable queue I guess but even waiting 2 weeks is too much for the nanomanagers.

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

#272
In the context of a cost-cutting exercise, it's pretty obvious that the middle of the hierarchy is where you're going to do the cutting.

You're not going to cut at the top, because there aren't enough individuals there for that to add up to a total amount of money that's actually significant in the grander scheme of things, and the political repercussions for you as a leader would be far worse.

If you cut at the bottom, you cut the part of the workforce that's actually comparatively cheap on a per-head basis, and you basically give a demotion to everyone who is left who used to be a manager, because you're either cutting their team size or demoting them from manager to IC. So, the workforce you'd end up with would be more costly and less motivated than what you end up with if you cut the middle of the hierarchy instead.

So, this is basically just a corporation exercising the only option it really has in this situation, and dressing it up as some kind of deep insight about organizational structure.

But, even if the context was different, even in the context of a growing and successful business, "flat structure" and "self-organizing" are often euphemisms for other things.

For example, it could be a euphemism for a kind of social Darwinism where, instead of appointing a manager and risking the appointment of a "weak" individual, you just wait to see who it is who ends up beating the others into submission, thus, by definition, ending up with the "strong" ones bubbling to the top of the hierarchy. It's needless to say that this process is cruel and creates a ton of collateral damage.

What I've also seen in connection with "flat structure", "self-organization", and "bottom-up" rhetoric is the situation where the company is actually run by a secret cabal of people who know damned well who's on the inside and has power, and who is on the outside and does not. But the people on the outside don't know that, and are instead given the "flat structure" and "self-organization" rhetoric. This reinforces the secrecy of the power structure, and serves as a convenient gaslighting device to make it look to the outsiders like their powerlessness is their own fault, rather than the organization putting them in a place where they have no power.

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

#273

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?

[deleted]

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

#275

> Stewart Butterfield, former CEO of Slack, recently described a dynamic within tech companies behind much of the over-hiring. He noted on Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast in late May that when there’s no real constraint on hiring, “you hire someone, and the first thing that person wants to do is hire other people.” The reason is that “the more people who report to you, the higher your prestige, the more your power in th…

Lol… reminds me of a place I worked at where there were 2 developers on the project but 4 project managers. When the project was running late -> they hired 2 more managers!!

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

#276
Other companies before them have tried the holarchy/holacracy thing. As far as I can tell, the general conclusion is that there's such a thing as too little middle management, as well as too much.

See for example: Medium (https://blog.medium.com/management-and-organization-at-mediu...), Zappos (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-you-need-a-boss_n...)

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

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

To piggy back on it. A good manager will shield you from other bad managers and outsourcing firms promising the moon. Quite a sad state of affairs.

I think it’s important to say that they also protect from rogue/drive by superstar IC’s. The ones who will come along and “fix” your problem, leaving a mess that nobody understands behind them that makes them look competent and your team incompetent, when in reality they’ve just half assed the job.

I’ve seen managers stand up for their teams and defend against those guys successfully.

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

#278

> Stewart Butterfield, former CEO of Slack, recently described a dynamic within tech companies behind much of the over-hiring. He noted on Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast in late May that when there’s no real constraint on hiring, “you hire someone, and the first thing that person wants to do is hire other people.” The reason is that “the more people who report to you, the higher your prestige, the more your power in th…

It's called "empire building" and is also part of the principal-agent problem where the manager is the agent and is assumed to have the firm's best interests in mind, but in reality doesn't. As a result, the principal (for example an owner) has to come up with methods to keep their management honest (example... tying most compensation to stock price - although I think this just makes management short sighted). I was…

Yeah

Hiring too much is one of the things the "falling upwards" specialists do

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

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So… the goal is for you to do nothing? Except not impede people making decisions and hiring consultants when you, not the person closer to the issue, thinks it’s not working?

In the same sense that a machine maintenance person’s job is to not be involved in the machinery. Their job is not to operate the machine, but to make sure the machine operates correctly all on its own without intervention. Doing this correctly does take a lot of work.

I like this, but I think also that a machine maintenance person has a very clear job description, defined set of tools and schedule to follow.

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

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The layers above do likely understand the actual business goals better, and want to be sure that this thing you are asking for is actually going to support achieving those goals. Ideally that is the case, anyway.

To an extent, sure. If you've got the CEO, and you've got front-line workers doing the actual value-producing business, you can have two layers in between, sure. Maybe three layers. But once you get to four or five layers? I hope your culture and productivity and ways of working were exactly where they need to be, because they're now impossible for anyone to consciously change.

I work in an org with 5 layers of management. I do think CEO and top management have good strategies and big picture thinking etc. It is the bottom two layers where is see the biggest issues and challenges. We are not a software company but as an engineering/technology company most of our work happens in systems and software. Lowest level management needs to know, really know the software and concept to support workers. Else it is just smooth talking and buzz words.
Post reply on HN