I always scratch my head when stuff like this comes up. Not that it isn't a good idea or it doesn't have its place, but more that people think "traditional management" is a thing itself.
For instance, if I could summarize my 15 years of people and exec management it might be this: empathy and seek first to understand, then be understood (can't remember where I read this one). If I had to tack on something after this is it "take the hill", meaning a very clear shared vision so if there is ever ambiguity, people know what the ultimate goal is so they can make the right judgement call when needed (taken from the military, I believe).
My issue with things like this article is that they use different terms for the same things. It seems there will always need to be someone setting direction, someone following up that people are doing the right thing and some key decision makers. What we call those people might be different and how you "organize" could look different on paper, but those roles kinda, sorta need to exist.
Now, the feel and philosophy of the whole company can be different, but I would say that is more about the culture and how people react to good and bad news.
So things like Valve and Medium try to say they are not "traditional companies". Well, no company ever is, really. It's like when every company under the sun says they "only hire A people". They don't. They say they do and they want to, but they don't. Otherwise no B or C people would ever make their way through these companies and we all know they do. Heck, there are C, D and F people leading venture funded companies in SF right now.
So, in closing to this rambling comment, terms don't matter. Systems of management aren't important. Focus on the people, the mission and understanding both and you'll be fine.
I disagree. Systems of management are important. There are going to be some people who work well under a strongly hierarchical system, some people who work well under a flat system, and people who could hack it under either. Thing is, there is no reason to believe that the people you attract under any given culture/structure is completely independent of ability to provide a product or service.
For example, GE is a very hierarchical megacorporation, BUT it has found it expedient to make its aircraft parts manufacturing flat, because parts don't need to be turned out so quickly and individual workers can have multiple specializations.
The intriguing thing about the article for me is that it combines a pretty sophisticated description of an alternative management structure with a characterization of "traditional management" techniques which is just daft. There's nothing remotely novel or "flat" about a corporate culture where managers and their reports are happy to discuss their personal lives and socialize with each other; it's pretty standard in lots of very hierachical, old-fashioned corporations whose managers have an above-subnormal level of social skill.
And for that matter, asking employees to rank their "SCARF" priorities sounds like some new form of torture a pointy-haired middle-manager might devise to torment you with the unforeseen consequences of picking the "wrong" order ("in view of your desire for greater autonomy and ambivalence about 'certainty', you're now part time")
Yes, yes, and yes. I work with Holacracy and I will confirm that the techniques described from Stirman's experience before joining Medium (chatting with employees, SCARF, etc.) are not to be put in the same bag as Holacracy.
It doesn't even make that much sense to compare them -- these techniques are bolt-ons - more or less useful practices to make do with the challenges inherent to a conventional structure. On the contrary, Holacracy is a new meta-structure for how power is distributed, how decision-making is distributed, with different channels available to effect changes - a new "social operating system", really.
In my experience, having my manager use techniques like SCARF to "better reward me" is nowhere near as powerful and empowering as having no manager to solve my problems, because there is a system that allows me to address them myself.
As a species, humanity is about 50,000 years old. Millions, if you include our most obvious ancestral species.
The claim that neologism-of-choice is a "new" system is extremely unlikely to be true. What is more likely is that the new system is a reinvention of a system that has been seen hundreds of times under hundreds of names. Social structures tend to be evolutionarily convergent, depending on prevailing constraints. If a given structure is rare, that is because it relies or can only exist in a peculiar environment (eg Valve + massive profitability).
Truly. There is nothing new under the sun. Including totally "new" social systems that "work" because of short-term enthusiasm.
Well, technically, I'll grant you that it's impossible to rule out. IMO it's highly unlikely that someone came up with these rules: http://holacracy.org/constitution, but I'm not going to argue that, the novelty is not my main point.
I'm interested in whether it's working. From what I've seen, it is. Perfect? Of course not. The be all and end all of running a business? No, you still need to do work. But it's a much better framework to do so that anything else I've seen. Many people seem to share this opinion, too, and it seems to help them to their work better (and enjoy it more). That's pretty cool in my book, I don't need to convince the world that it's right for everybody. If you find the same benefits with another system, or a similar one from thousands years ago, who cares, run with it.
hah, totally agree about the SCARF thing. I thought, "oh that's a great idea", and then I immediately realized, "oh hell no". This may sound creepy, but I guess part of a good manager is figuring out the SCARF parameters of an employee and figuring out how to arrange them in projects/gently nudge them in the right direction based on what you (hopefully have correctly) identified as the motivators for the employee.
Would you agree with 'which system of management you pick isn't that important'? I think point is that management system isn't necessaraly unneeded, but that it's less important for progress than the acts of having empathy for someone, and they you.
Every team will always have different people. Some need more hierarchy, some need more autonomy. Some differ on SCARF. Some differ on Myers-Briggs personality type. Sometimes the differences are big. Usually they are small and not binary. The job of a manager is to create an environment, where all those different people can efficiently work together. This means every manager will to some extend create their own system in their sphere of influence.
> So things like Valve and Medium try to say they are not "traditional companies"
In Valve's case, it's true. They are so unstoppably profitable that the company can be run in just about any fashion at all. The profitability is now largely due to network effects.
Any system from totalitarian dictatorship through to hippie commune will work, so long as it doesn't decide to dry up the river of money.
Normal businesses have much tighter constraints, tougher competition and far less free cashflow to play with.
Drawing universal conclusions about populations from extreme outliers is generally considered to be a mistake.
> empathy and seek first to understand, then be understood (can't remember where I read this one)
Could be from Stephen Covey (habit nr. 5) as one other mentioned. It could also be in the Prayer of Francis of Assisi,
[...]
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive.
or in How to Win Friends and Influence People from Dale Carnegie with principles like:
Become genuinely interested in other people.
Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
Talk in terms of the other person's interest.
Make the other person feel important – and do it sincerely.
For instance, if I could summarize my 15 years of people and exec management it might be this: empathy and seek first to understand, then be understood (can't remember where I read this one). If I had to tack on something after this is it "take the hill", meaning a very clear shared vision so if there is ever ambiguity, people know what the ultimate goal is so they can make the right judgement call when needed (taken from the military, I believe).
My issue with things like this article is that they use different terms for the same things. It seems there will always need to be someone setting direction, someone following up that people are doing the right thing and some key decision makers. What we call those people might be different and how you "organize" could look different on paper, but those roles kinda, sorta need to exist.
Now, the feel and philosophy of the whole company can be different, but I would say that is more about the culture and how people react to good and bad news.
So things like Valve and Medium try to say they are not "traditional companies". Well, no company ever is, really. It's like when every company under the sun says they "only hire A people". They don't. They say they do and they want to, but they don't. Otherwise no B or C people would ever make their way through these companies and we all know they do. Heck, there are C, D and F people leading venture funded companies in SF right now.
So, in closing to this rambling comment, terms don't matter. Systems of management aren't important. Focus on the people, the mission and understanding both and you'll be fine.