Live data from Hacker News

Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

inc.com

11–20 of 184 posts

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#11

I really appreciate the idea of having a career path that doesn't involve moving "up" to management. I'm a developer because I love development, and my own personal hell is managing a team and never getting to code.

Imagine how the engineers at Google think now that they're "back in charge" (/sarcasm) I'm sorry, I know it's fun to bash on managers but they exist for a purpose and asking engineers to be in charge is a burden I don't think many want.

> I'm sorry, I know it's fun to bash on managers but they exist for a purpose

The point is that it's possible to run a company where managers don't have a purpose and aren't necessary.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#12
Fog Creek and 37Signals are probably more alike than either of us would care to admit (ha!) and I could see Joel writing a very similar article a few years ago when we had 20some people at the company. But what works there, or at FC, is not a one size fits all answer.

Having managers when there are 10 people are at your company makes no sense. The hierarchy starts out flat, you add a few more people and you're at 20, and the idea of making someone a manager seems like a waste and something a 'BigCo' would do. "We need people who get stuff done, not people who sit around doing nothing but managing", you think. Then you get to 50 people and everything breaks down. You wonder why people are frustrated they can't get things done, while other people are doing things that embarrass your company or compete with other things you are doing. And you realize your company isn't a special little gem that is wholly unlike every other company in existence. You need management.

Just make sure you give the devs a professional ladder and compensation structure that doesn't involve moving to management, because managing isn't something everyone is good at or even wants to do. And make sure that management knows their job is a support role to the people at the company who are making things happen, not the other way around.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#13

While 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.

Its a different industry, but take a look at Semco SA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Semler Their industrial democracy approach has scaled quite well, with 3000 employees.

Maverick: The Success Story Behind the World's Most Unusual Workplace, by Ricardo Semler. Costs $10 at Amazon. Worth it.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#14
post #12

Fog Creek and 37Signals are probably more alike than either of us would care to admit (ha!) and I could see Joel writing a very similar article a few years ago when we had 20some people at the company. But what works there, or at FC, is not a one size fits all answer. Having managers when there are 10 people are at your company makes no sense. The hierarchy starts out flat, you add a few more people and you're at 20,…

+1 "managing isn't something everyone is good at." How many bad developers get moved to management to keep them from causing trouble, and then cause even more?

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#15
Jason seems to imply that managers are useless when he says "We do not have room for people who don't do the actual work".

I think this is very naive of him, and a little selfish. He's enjoying the title of "President" which, to me, is a purely managerial position. I doubt if he considers himself useless, but he's happy to label other managers useless. I might be wrong, but it seems that he's either too selfish to see other people take away some of his control or he's afraid to tackle the problem of a growing company. Both of these will have negative consequences in the future.

Just for the record, over my 14+ years in a technical field, I have been a manager for 5+, and have given up that title twice before to focus on more technical work.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#17

I believe some sociologists found that personal relationships begin to break down at about 150. Beyond that it is very difficult to maintain meaningful interaction in person. Online relationship numbers are much higher so maybe a distributed team like 37Signals can get away with this for a while longer.

You're referring to Dunbar's Number:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine how the engineers at Google think now that they're "back in charge" (/sarcasm) I'm sorry, I know it's fun to bash on managers but they exist for a purpose and asking engineers to be in charge is a burden I don't think many want.

> I'm sorry, I know it's fun to bash on managers but they exist for a purpose The point is that it's possible to run a company where managers don't have a purpose and aren't necessary.

At Google's scale? Successfully? I find that rather unlikely. If you have any examples of this, please do share. Otherwise, all I can imagine is reducing the depth of the tree, and in some cases not to make it a strict tree, but a somewhat interconnected graph. (that said, throwing people into distinct "manager" and "engineer" bins is disingenuous anyway, a manager managing engineers had better have some kind of engineering understanding)

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#19

While 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.

Its a different industry, but take a look at Semco SA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Semler Their industrial democracy approach has scaled quite well, with 3000 employees.

Definitely a great example... but I find it disappointing that it is pretty much the ONLY example of this kind of company at that kind of scale that is brought up when topics like this are discussed. If it worked for Semler, why hasn't anyone repeated it?
Post reply on HN