January 11, 2014 at 4:22 pm
I guess I don't understand why anyone would think this is a recent innovation. It's been known for a very long time that the best "managers" are the ones that surround themselves with good motivated people, identify a task, enable their people (if they need it), and then get the hell out of the way.
"Holacracy" isn't a new concept. DBA's have been working under such conditions for a long time.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 13, 2014 at 6:13 am
Years ago Best Buy Corporate tried an interesting experiment by essentially eliminating work schedules. Employees were allowed to work when, where and how they wanted. I'm not sure if it's same thing Steve's referring to, but it embraced a similar concept that there was no excuse for the work not getting done and done on time. If memory serves, they called it a "results-oriented workplace".
Pesonally I'm in a position something like that because I asked for it. When I was interviewing for my current job, I flat out told my future boss I work best when given a task and a due date. If I need help or have issues I'll ask. I still have a boss, but I've got considerable latitude in how I work. It's a little concept I learned years ago called managing your boss. Jeff's absolutely right that good managers surround themselves with qualified, motivated people they trust to get things done. But on the flip side, there's something to be said for an employee initiating the conversation with their supervisor about how they work best and get results (performance appraisal times are a great opportunity for this kind of conversation). Not all managers may be open to this, but that might be an indication this particular job isn't the best fit.
Much of the American work environment is based on attendance taking if you really think about it. Labor laws reinforce this a fair amount, but that's an entirely different discussion. We all know that a fair chunk if IT work just doesn't fit into that model. Finding new, flexible ways of working would no doubt benefit the workplace as a whole, but particularly IT.
____________
Just my $0.02 from over here in the cheap seats of the peanut gallery - please adjust for inflation and/or your local currency.
January 13, 2014 at 6:23 am
If there are no bosses, then everybody is a boss. Sounds great, right? Not really. My boss is the person that says no to my coworkers, his bosses and clients when they have unrealistic expectations of my time.
January 13, 2014 at 7:07 am
I fear this will sound like I am opposed to something like this, but that is not my intention. I am sure there are places it would be beneficial.
Just not where I work.
I work with a great group of people, but like most companies, we are very siloed. This results in people working towards the goals of their direct manager, and NOT the corporate or team goals. To make something like this work for us would require wholesale changes in staffing.
There are times when a company can make changes in their management structure and maintain the people who do the work. Frequently improvement in productivity and happiness is a result. However I would think that a change as massive as this would not work well for a lot of companies. I think most people are so ingrained in the typical structure that something like this would leave them floundering.
As for me, I have always prided myself on being able to work for anyone, in any structure. I have worked for managers who abused drugs, and I have worked for some of the best people on the planet. I always give my best no matter who is in charge. I also make a point of doing what I am asked to do no matter who asks, although there are certainly times I need to delegate to others due to staff assignments. I would hope I could adapt to something like this, but even given my history, it sure sounds weird!
I imagine that a lot of people in this forum probably succeed no matter what, and some percentage of the whole would thrive in this design. There are probably those who would do best in a typical structure though.
Dave
January 13, 2014 at 7:19 am
chrisn-585491 (1/13/2014)
If there are no bosses, then everybody is a boss. Sounds great, right? Not really. My boss is the person that says no to my coworkers, his bosses and clients when they have unrealistic expectations of my time.
I believe that's known as "anarchy" and I agree that there has to be someone with the central vision and to guide good motivated people down the road. Teams with no leaders arn't teams.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 13, 2014 at 8:32 am
djackson 22568 (1/13/2014)
I fear this will sound like I am opposed to something like this, but that is not my intention. I am sure there are places it would be beneficial.Just not where I work.
I suspect this is the case for many people. I'd argue that this really comes down to poor culture, perhaps in (too many) pockets or departments where managers haven't given, or required, responsibility. There are probably other things they don't do well, which end up allowing, or encouraging, poor productivity.
January 13, 2014 at 8:45 am
I can think of hundreds of objections to that kind of structure, some based on things that would be a poor fit (distributed authority being potentially problematic for fiduciary responsibilities in publicly traded companies, and for compliance to regulation like SOX).
And then a host of others based on what happens when someone SAYS they will adopt the method, but instead of doing it all that way, they try to maintain their top level power and accountability structure with this underneath it.
It would be really interesting to see how HR/recruiting would work in this paradigm. How do you decide to let people go when the authority to do so is distributed?
January 13, 2014 at 8:55 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/13/2014)
djackson 22568 (1/13/2014)
I fear this will sound like I am opposed to something like this, but that is not my intention. I am sure there are places it would be beneficial.Just not where I work.
I suspect this is the case for many people. I'd argue that this really comes down to poor culture, perhaps in (too many) pockets or departments where managers haven't given, or required, responsibility. There are probably other things they don't do well, which end up allowing, or encouraging, poor productivity.
Are you spying on us? Did you ask the NSA to tap our internal communications? Have you placed cameras in our workplace?
Seriously, Patrick M. Lencioni has some great books, one of which is "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team". If you Google "five dysfunctions of a team pyramid" you will quickly see images of a pyramid from his book that covers this succinctly. We worked on this a few years back, but have backstepped quite a bit. Absence of trust, most definitely. Fear of conflict, yep. Lack of commitment, uh huh. I could go on but you get the picture.
The sad thing is we are not unique, you nailed our issues without ever visiting us, or spying in any way!
I must say, my direct manager and my director DO NOT HAVE THESE ISSUES!!! I love them.
Dave
January 13, 2014 at 9:00 am
Nevyn (1/13/2014)
It would be really interesting to see how HR/recruiting would work in this paradigm. How do you decide to let people go when the authority to do so is distributed?
My concern would be those individuals whose other skills are valuable, but maybe don't have the best people skills. I am thinking specificlaly of someone I know who suffers from an ASD issue, which makes him very difficult to work with. He doesn't generally have customer contact though, and is an absolute star at what he does. His management protects him for good reason. People who don't fit in nice little packages might suffer in an organization like this, which would of course (IMO) lead to massive failures as those people tend to be far more creative. I know there are a lot of people who disagree with me on this, but if we stick to the point I am attempting to make...
I think there would be some individuals who currently enjoy the protection of their direct management, who would not survive in a structure such as what Steve referred to.
Whether that is good or bad is a differnt question, one that we all have our own opinions about.
Dave
January 13, 2014 at 9:05 am
I love this kind of thing for several reasons. First, it can make sense in certain environments. Second, it helps make the individual employee have 'skin in the game'. Whether it can work long term without modification, I would say probably not. But there are other models to choose from when time comes rather than resorting to the typical Wall Street-ordered deep hierarchical organization.
Personally, I don't know whether the typical Fortune 500 company structure is just a necessary evil or truly evil. Mind you, I am not a closet Marxist. If anything, I am an unabashed capitalist (however an ethical one). But the direction dictated from Wall Street today is ruthless, and getting more so. It will one day collapse under its own bloated weight unless major changes can be addressed. For starters, stop focusing on short-term financial goals at the expense of long-term market penetration. Having an upper management that has a passion for the business rather than a solitary passion for just making as much money as possible wouldn't hurt either.
If start-up firms operated the way your Fortune 500 firms do today, they wouldn't survive for six months. So 'kudos to Zappos'!
January 13, 2014 at 9:17 am
jim.drewe (1/13/2014)
I am an unabashed capitalist (however an ethical one).
Wow, don't say that out loud. The media will eat you alive for claming there is such a thing as an ethical capitalist. Well, other then actors and media members themselves of course.
For starters, stop focusing on short-term financial goals at the expense of long-term market penetration. Having an upper management that has a passion for the business rather than a solitary passion for just making as much money as possible wouldn't hurt either.
Amen. Although the balance isn't always easy.
Dave
January 13, 2014 at 9:34 am
I can see this working at some companies.
I have been pretty much been unsupervised for close to 15 years just because of my positions. (Here's what we want you to do. Come back if you have problems.) I also have done self created projects that make everyone's job easier.
But then I have seen co-workers that have to be watched with a close eye that they are even doing actual work they are assigned.
So really it comes down to having employees that are willing to be personally responsible for getting their job done. If you don't have that, I can see the change failing, miserably.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
January 13, 2014 at 9:43 am
Thanks. If what I said appears to be a rant, I guess it is. And I could easily drift into a rant on the media for the reasons you said (their preference is to spike news events rather than reporting on them).
The balance part shouldn't be that difficult, unless a company has "evolved" to the pure Wall Street paradigm. Under that paradigm the senior officers of the firm focus on maximizing the metrics that the investment bankers dictate while keeping themselves from going to jail (at least there is now a compliance constraint with the US Sarbanes-Oxley legislation). The long term impact to the company doesn't really matter as long as the short term metrics are met. This really comes into play when a CEO is planning on retiring in XX months. He will gut anything in the organization that doesn't raise the stock price before his retirement date. He becomes a poster boy for Wall Street because he exceeded the bankers' expectations for the company. The stock price goes up, he retires and cashes in his stock options (he can legally do this because as an officer he has announced), and leaves the smoking results to his successor. The board doesn't say too much because as fellow CEOs they will do the same thing to their companies when they retire.
There is much to say here, but the obvious point I want to make is not be in the position to buckle to the metrics of hachet men.
January 13, 2014 at 11:36 am
This works fine in favourable business conditions. The true test comes in difficult times where difficult and unpopular decisions are needed.
Committees aren't great at setting directions. The best bosses steer their staff in the required direction without appearing to do so and/or without their staff noticing that they are being steered. Their control only becomes apparent when the difficult decisions are required. You may have a great deal of autonomy within boundaries you haven't discovered yet.
Anarchy is the perfect state where no control is necessary but it doesn't exist in reality.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply