Live data from Hacker News

DHH: Un-Manage Your Employees

nfib.com

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: DHH: Un-Manage Your Employees

#21
It is possible to keep this model working at a scale with a lot more employees. That being said it requires not only the right culture within the company, but the right people. Keep only the creme of the crop employees; stop 'fiscalizing' sick days, time sheets, and clocking hours; get the developers to get together at the start of an iteration (say every two weeks for example) and together come to a definition of priorities and tasks; measure results, not time in front of a computer. You as a business owner have - of course - the last word on any issue or priority; however empowering your employees, while keeping a friendly, social, and liberal company culture, will most probably have a positive effect on your workforce's drive and productivity. Hell everyone wants to the see the company grow when you really feel a part of it, as opposed to just another employee.

As a counterpoint though, I feel this approach only works with IT, Development and Design Departments. Lot's of other departments (Sales, Marketing, Customer Service, Implementation) require a certain structure and hierarchy to function correctly. In my experience, the more specialized the skill set, the more are liberty and culture important to further the drive of the team/teams.

Re: DHH: Un-Manage Your Employees

#22
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, they don't do that anymore. Something about the weather in Chicago. No, really.

We do four day work weeks from May - October. Five day work weeks the rest of the year. We've found that's the right balance.

Sounds good to me. I would like a workplace where it is accepted culture to work 4 days, or equivalent on average, since I'd probably rather work a few of weeks and take a long weekend.

Re: DHH: Un-Manage Your Employees

#23

My only issue with that approach is that of holiday days. I can see so many ways that that can go wrong. To me, the reason it works seems more like peer pressure than enjoyment of work. I love what I do, I love coding, and I also know that I love taking a week out to not care about everything I do at work. If I was in a system like that, I'd feel kinda pressured to keep up with my colleagues and not let the team down…

People take a healthy amount of vacation at 37signals.

And if we spot someone burning out because they aren't taking enough vacation or time off, we remind them - and sometimes strongly encourage them - to take some time off.

Re: DHH: Un-Manage Your Employees

#24
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's ironic is that you're doing the same thing. You pay lip service (using phrases like "I wouldn't consider" and "It seems") to the fact that you might be wrong about DHH paying lip service to the fact that he might be wrong. And then when you actually change over to the main topic, you do the same thing. The majority of this comment explains how DHH is undeniably and completely missing the point. If you want to…

Not really. The implied point is that DHH has an obligation to explain not only why a company should consider his radical changes. But also , because of the magnitude of the changes he proposes, he has an obligation to explain seriously why a company shouldn't. Otherwise, it's just cheerleading. I was calling out that he failed to do the latter, and my obligation is to explain why a company might not want to, or be a…

I wasn't trying to say that you were being disrespectful. I was just saying that the way I interpreted it was logically inconsistent. It came off that you were saying "DHH isn't admitting that there might be a downside to his plan. He needs to provide a balanced argument. Oh, and by the way he's completely wrong about everything too."

Whereas after reading this post (and rereading the last one), it sounds like you might have meant to say "DHH isn't admitting that there might be a downside to his plan. He needs to provide a balanced argument. For example, here's one potential hole that I see" which is a reasonable thing to say. Remember, we humans are dumb animals who are prone to completely misinterpreting your argument. Sometimes you have to beat a dead horse to make your point. :-)

Re: DHH: Un-Manage Your Employees

#25

To the commenters here who notice there may be an upper limit on the number of employees David's approach is valid for, keep in mind that the subtitle of the article identifies "small business" as the scope. Thus the counterexample of Google seems unfair. That said, the legal definition of "small" in the U.S. for most nonmanufacturing businesses is that the business must have less than $7 million in annual receipts (…

Sure I agree. But on the other hand, the Joel Spolsky article I posted noted that he started having problems once he got to 17 people, which is smaller than 37signals. I was simply using Google as an extreme to illustrate my point.

> Since large organizations, if they are designed well, are just a latticework of small organizations maybe it's possible there is no upper limit.

How do you make a smaller organization though? By giving someone authority over it who can really take control of it.

> Regarding David's larger point I would add that having a boss tends to make people feel slavish and subservient to a certain extent.

Tough. That's just the way it is. You're always going to have a boss. Whether it's a manager, a C-suite executive, a board of directors, or the customer. You're never going to be completely free from someone having authority over you. It's just a matter of how they use that authority over you.

Now, I will agree that bad bosses (which are unfortunately too common) make you feel slavish. If you have a good boss (and let's give DHH credit, he sounds like he is a good boss), then they make you feel powerful. A boss's primary job is to enable you to do things either with encouragement or by taking care of the administrative details for you. Someone once said that a boss is a "secretary who can fire you."

Re: DHH: Un-Manage Your Employees

#26
post #25

To the commenters here who notice there may be an upper limit on the number of employees David's approach is valid for, keep in mind that the subtitle of the article identifies "small business" as the scope. Thus the counterexample of Google seems unfair. That said, the legal definition of "small" in the U.S. for most nonmanufacturing businesses is that the business must have less than $7 million in annual receipts (…

Sure I agree. But on the other hand, the Joel Spolsky article I posted noted that he started having problems once he got to 17 people, which is smaller than 37signals. I was simply using Google as an extreme to illustrate my point. > Since large organizations, if they are designed well, are just a latticework of small organizations maybe it's possible there is no upper limit. How do you make a smaller organization th…

FWIW, I've heard that Google once had no managers. The person I heard it from started around 2002, when Google was already an order of magnitude bigger than 37signals. So while it obviously doesn't work for all size companies, it seems that you can get fairly big and still do okay without managers.

Re: DHH: Un-Manage Your Employees

#27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The implied point is that DHH has an obligation to explain not only why a company should consider his radical changes. But also , because of the magnitude of the changes he proposes, he has an obligation to explain seriously why a company shouldn't. Otherwise, it's just cheerleading. I was calling out that he failed to do the latter, and my obligation is to explain why a company might not want to, or be a…

I wasn't trying to say that you were being disrespectful. I was just saying that the way I interpreted it was logically inconsistent. It came off that you were saying "DHH isn't admitting that there might be a downside to his plan. He needs to provide a balanced argument. Oh, and by the way he's completely wrong about everything too." Whereas after reading this post (and rereading the last one), it sounds like you mi…

It's all good; I'm glad we came to an understanding. Thanks for the feedback and perspective.

Re: DHH: Un-Manage Your Employees

#28

There are tons of bad managers, but there are also a few excellent managers. I think it mostly depends on their focus. Most middle managers (and most people in general) are focused on what they need to get done--the reports that need to be filed or the next status meeting to be scheduled. What good managers realize is that their work contributes absolutely nothing to the company (directly.) They are overhead in the p…

I agree, good managers are supposed to manage people, not tasks.
Post reply on HN