Live data from Hacker News

Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

inc.com

141–150 of 184 posts

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#141
post #95

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 should never say never, but I don't think we'll ever be 150 people. I think there's a good chance we'll never even be 50 people. Although, as many others have pointed out, there are some great examples of huge companies running similar strategies to good effect (Semco etc).

What happens if you're inspired to branch out in another direction? Would your plan be to form a new company that also stays small and nimble? What would you see as the benefits to separate small organizations v. a larger one with smaller divisions?

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#142

"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…

This is the most ridiculous post I've ever read on Hacker News.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#143
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,…

This is really true, and something we are experiencing now in the company I am working for. Traditionally we've been a company with ~12 employees, small project teams of 1-4 people. Now the company has expanded to over 40 employees over two offices, with team sizes becoming larger than 10 people.

We have experienced the exact difficulties you have described, and have been slowly adjusting to create just enough structure to organize and motivate people. I would add that an additional area that becomes more important as a company grows is communication. Once the company gets past the size where the CEO/Director is getting around and talking with each employee on a weekly basis, and physical walls start to grow between teams, communication becomes much more difficult in both a vertical and horizontal sense (a side effect of added hierarchical structure i suppose?).

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#144

"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…

[deleted]

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#145
post #91

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.

Why does it have to scale? 37signals took 11 years to get to 26 people. It might take us another 11 to get to 50. We can optimize for that future when and if it arrives. But making your environment worse today because you worry about some possibly maybe future is the essence of premature optimization.

Many companies need to scale up people as they grow because their ratio of human involvement to revenue produced isn't as high as 37signals'. Almost anything other than the specific style of product development that you guys do falls into this category.

The assumption when you publish an article is that you're doing it to provide examples to others, not just talk about how good you are. In that situation, I think it's fair to point out the limitations and areas where this strategy might not work.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#146
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,…

"But what works there, or at FC, is not a one size fits all answer." Absolutely. I'm simply sharing our experiences with how we run things - that's what my Inc. articles are about. I wouldn't expect anyone else to do what we do because we do it. Find your own comfort zone. There are plenty of ways to do plenty of things.

[deleted]

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#147
post #135
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We solved this in part by using "cocktail titles". So anyone who works here can call themselves senior. So we have "senior designer", "senior programmer". At least that has some ring of fancy.

Sounds like you are following Ricardo Semler philosophy(author of The Maverick). Are you? [ http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/308 ]

If you liked Maverick, you should definitely check out Seven Day Weekend by Semler. I found it much more readable and relevant. It's crazy that it's out of print in the era of the Kindle

http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Day-Weekend-Changing-Work-Works/...

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#148
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…

20-40 employee bracket here! All of our employees are billable (sort of). It's hard to explain our structure but needless to say our CEO/COO/Operations Director/Consulting Director/CFO all work as a team and are never really limited to their "designated" positions. Our Operations Director has been billing on a project for 4 years.

Our company has an interesting dynamic. I would say everyone has the ability to "speak up" but we have designated management roles. I speculate there are some reasons for this:

1. Leadership - "junior" people need a certain level of mentorship. Many of them don't understand process and need managers to guide them on those processes. Hiring the quality of people (even at "the bottom") that your firms may attract is VERY difficult for the other 99% of companies like us out there. We simply don't have the whole techie seen watching our firm day to day and thus don't attract them to our company. Hiring SUCKS. Is that our issue? Sure. But this utopian business world isn't always possible -- even though we want it to be.

2. External client view - Our company works almost exclusively with blue chip companies. They expect to see CV's with years of experience and fancy titles like "Principal Consultant", "Management Consultant", etc. etc. With these titles comes the responsibilities of managing people. When I used to work for the largest biz software vendor in the world I remember there was a title "Engagement Architect". I was basically told that this position only existed because the client contact (mainly the CIO) needed a contact at our company that was on his same "level". Also, some people flat out do not have soft skills.

I think the overall point is this... this is not a lesson in how to run a better business. This is a lesson in how Jason is happiest in running his small business and wants to keep it a small business. Many of us love the agility of being in a small company and fear if we add more numbers we will lose that agility. (and that's probably true) 37signals has only increased it's employee base to 26 over 11 years. With the amount of press they have drawn there is no reason why this number shouldn't be 260. For the record, I'm not saying that it should be 260, I'm saying that they have probably favored higher profit margins on their existing employee base rather than to scale the business out vertically.

Fred Wilson once wrote "Marketing is for companies who have sucky products." In order to do this with 26 people, you need to find 26 very good people. Do you know extremely difficult that is to do? It's even difficult with just 2! Face it, most people SUCK at business. I applaud Jason (and others) who have had the fortune and ability to do such a thing.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#149
post #82

I like the idea of keeping people closer to what they are good at. However I'm afraid this strategy will backfire on your employees if they are forced to leave to another company for whatever reason. In an environment where every company does not have this flat hierarchy it is strange to see a person who has spent 10 years in one place and has not advanced to some managerial position. New employer will think that he…

The hypothetical company you've described here sounds very irrational to me: discarding a candidate with 10 years of experience (at a very highly regarded company, no less) without ever even speaking to the person.

Why should anyone optimize for the irrational job-hirers out there? This does not sound like a path to happiness to me. Besides I find it unlikely that the kind of person who is happy at a small company like 37s for 10 years would want to work at this hypothetical irrational company.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#150
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+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?

Isn't that basically the Peter Principle?

I like to call it the Alicia Principle http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Speed-of-Code.aspx
Post reply on HN