Decius wrote:

] This is a starting point for some extremely rich and
] interesting ideas.

"Through the years, I have greatly feared and sought to keep at bay the four beasts that inevitably devour their keeper -- Ego, Envy, Avarice, and Ambition."

And therin lies the problem. People who start and/or run businesses end up getting consumed by ambition and ego. Their businesses end up failing, or failing to meet the full potential becuase that person refuses to make an organization that can function without him or her. This seems unnatural since many people feel they *are* their work and if their work doesn't rely on them they feel they are wandering without purpose.

UPDATE: Whoops. That should be "People who start and/or run businesses *usually* end up.." I should proofread my posts better.

Thrynn wrote:

] "Through the years, I have greatly feared and sought to keep
] at bay the four beasts that inevitably devour their keeper --
] Ego, Envy, Avarice, and Ambition."
]
] And therin lies the problem. People who start and/or run
] businesses end up getting consumed by ambition and ego. Their
] businesses end up failing, or failing to meet the full
] potential becuase that person refuses to make an organization
] that can function without him or her. This seems unnatural
] since many people feel they *are* their work and if their work
] doesn't rely on them they feel they are wandering without
] purpose.

I would vehemently state that this is a gross oversimplification and generalization. There is a distinct difference between people who start businesses and people who end up running large enterprises.

With that said, I am ambivalent about this article. I agree that an organization that pushes empowerment and accountability as far to the edge as possible is better. This is in line with Drucker's thoughts on the nature of entrepreneurialism. However, scale creeps in and some other dynamics that make it very difficult, impossible even, to make the organization function effectively. For instance, given today's requirements for corporate governance, it becomes incredibly difficult for a CEO/CFO to sign off on quarterly statements when there are things going on at the edge of the enterprise that they have no idea about due to the autonomy in force there.

Today's hierarchical organizational structures and command and control philosophies are so prevelant for a reason. They work, particularly well in super scaler systems. You see them all over nature. While it can be easily demonstrated that these structures have originated due to hubris and insecurity on the part of the leading point (King, Pharaoh, CEO, whatever...), I can still see a good amount of usefulness in them. That's not to say that bureaucratic or autocratic systems are preferable. Quite the contrary. You want a mixture of hierarchy and empowerment.

That's why I find it intriquing that they use the term 'chaordic'. We're not given enough detail on what the organization looks like at Visa. We have no idea who reports to who, or what committees are present, or who's responsible for what, or even if none of those things apply. So it's difficult to say whether it's more or less 'chaordic' than any other organization. I think of hierarchy as the skeleton that allows the muscles to get work done. One needs the other. It's ironic that entrepreneurism preaches chaos, while staunch corporate management theory preaches control. The typical organization is constantly vacilating between those states. It's never one or the other, and the tension is constantly changing on a daily basis. It's that tension, muscle pushing against bone, that gets things done.

The 'DNA' that makes up an organization is what ... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:
] A people hire B people who hire C people, and so you've just
] started building hierarchy again. And as we already know, A
] people are more susceptable to trying to prove that they are
] A+ people over the other A people. Competition is good, I
] agree with Hock there, but too much competition breeds
] contempt, and that breeds politics, and then you're back where
] you started from. Because politics will seek to enforce
] command and control in order to wield power. And we haven't
] even gotten into humanity's imperfections, like inconsistency,
] or shortsightedness.

That was a really great post. I want to know more about this problem... At (unnamed company I used to work for) politics was incredibly bad. I think that this partially stemmed from a lack of central leadership. The buck didn't REALLY stop with the people it was supposed to stop with, and the people it did stop with were too focused on their work to really communicate with the company. However, I think there is more to it then that. You observe this problem but you don't really go into how to combat it.

Another (possibly wrong) observation: Because there is one higharchy, there is one skill set that matters, management/leadership. We don't pay based on whether you are an A+ person or a B person. We pay based on whether you are responsible for a lot of people or you are responsible for a lot of work. This is why A people hire B people. They can't have "subordinates" who are better then they are. They'll loose their status. You want B and C people to hire A people. CEOs always say hire people who are better then you. That should trickle down. In order to do that it has to be possible to be a bad ass engineer, or a bad ass tech support manager, and get paid what you're worth, and have someone managing the work (ie handling the communication, coordination, and planning) who doesn't have to be more of a star then you are in general. Acknowledge that these are different skill sets but one is not superior to the other. Acknowledge that leadership and management are not the same thing. Let people excell in any direction instead of constantly focusing them on management skills.

One more observation (that I'm pretty sure is right). Its 1000 times better to have people who are professional, mature, and careful then it is to have people who are smart. If you can get all four, then great, but its better, in general, when you are trying to get stuff done, to have people who will do it, and do it right, and will communicate about it, then to have people who can solve any problem but who don't communicate well about it and don't like doing things that are boring. You need smart people to figure out how to solve the problems, but thats ALL that they need to be doing, and separating roles that way can be really hard when you are small.

(Of course, this was a terrible conclusion for me. I tend to be smart, and uncommunicative, and bored. At least I was until I actually had to manage people who are a lot like me.... I'm really conflicted about this realization in general. I grew up hating school because it rewarded obedience while claiming that it rewarded intelligence and hard work. I, frankly, have a hard time reconciling the world view I developed through being annoyed at the sort of behaviors that schools encourage with the reality I found when I was actually responsible for a team of people in a company... )

Decius wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] A people hire B people who hire C people, and so you've just
]
] ] started building hierarchy again. And as we already know, A
] ] people are more susceptable to trying to prove that they are
]
] ] A+ people over the other A people. Competition is good, I
] ] agree with Hock there, but too much competition breeds
] ] contempt, and that breeds politics, and then you're back
] where
] ] you started from. Because politics will seek to enforce
] ] command and control in order to wield power. And we haven't
] ] even gotten into humanity's imperfections, like
] inconsistency,
] ] or shortsightedness.
]
] That was a really great post. I want to know more about this
] problem... At (unnamed company I used to work for) politics
] was incredibly bad. I think that this partially stemmed from a
] lack of central leadership. The buck didn't REALLY stop with
] the people it was supposed to stop with, and the people it did
] stop with were too focused on their work to really communicate
] with the company. However, I think there is more to it then
] that. You observe this problem but you don't really go into
] how to combat it.

I don't think you combat it at all. Yes, you want *leadership*, but that's not to say that it's always _centralized_. In fact, you want the organization to be comprised of teams, each having their own leaders and their own 'personalities', but having centralized command and communications. That would be my ideal, and I think given the right set of people (and the right macro-economic forces) that I could pretty much take over the world with that structure.

What you're describing is gateways, and I don't think you get rid of that in any organization. In fact, part of the 'grind' of working for a big company is in fact good and important. When a gateway keeps you from being able to order a white board for your office, it provokes you. This can be a positive thing, and keeps the organziation in a self-maintenance cycle. It's part of the tension that I spoke about.

] Another (possibly wrong) observation: Because there is one
] higharchy, there is one skill set that matters,
] management/leadership. We don't pay based on whether you are
] an A+ person or a B person. We pay based on whether you are
] responsible for a lot of people or you are responsible for a
] lot of work. This is why A people hire B people. They can't
] have "subordinates" who are better then they are. They'll
] loose their status. You want B and C people to hire A people.
] CEOs always say hire people who are better then you. That
] should trickle down. In order to do that it has to be possible
] to be a bad ass engineer, or a bad ass tech support manager,
] and get paid what you're worth, and have someone managing the
] work (ie h... [ Read More (0.9k in body) ]

Thrynn wrote:
] And therin lies the problem. People who start and/or run
] businesses end up getting consumed by ambition and ego. Their
] businesses end up failing, or failing to meet the full
] potential becuase that person refuses to make an organization
] that can function without him or her.

Ambition can be a good thing, but ego, I think, is only useful to the extent that people tend to follow egos. Don't beleive your own schtick.

I've seen what you are talking about a lot. I call it the lifestyle trap. People start a business. It works. They grow a little. They grow out of the stuggling to eat phase and reach a point where:

There are a number of people working for the company.
The company has healthy cash flow.
You can pay yourself a good salary.
You are the man in charge. You can do what you want.

At this point, the companies stop growing. Because the CEO has everything that he or she wants. Self reliance, power, and a comfortable lifestyle. These companies don't go anywhere because the CEO isn't really interested in fullfilling anything other then his or her own personal needs.

The company becomes a lifestyle company. It exists to provide the CEO with a particular lifestyle.

CEOs of lifestyle companies never really know that they are doing this. At least not that I've seen, and this seems to be a pretty common theme.

Decius wrote:
] Thrynn wrote:
] ] And therin lies the problem. People who start and/or run
] ] businesses end up getting consumed by ambition and ego.
] Their
] ] businesses end up failing, or failing to meet the full
] ] potential becuase that person refuses to make an
] organization
] ] that can function without him or her.
]
] Ambition can be a good thing, but ego, I think, is only useful
] to the extent that people tend to follow egos. Don't beleive
] your own schtick.
]
] I've seen what you are talking about a lot. I call it the
] lifestyle trap. People start a business. It works. They grow a
] little. They grow out of the stuggling to eat phase and reach
] a point where:
]
] There are a number of people working for the company.
] The company has healthy cash flow.
] You can pay yourself a good salary.
] You are the man in charge. You can do what you want.
]
] At this point, the companies stop growing. Because the CEO has
] everything that he or she wants. Self reliance, power, and a
] comfortable lifestyle. These companies don't go anywhere
] because the CEO isn't really interested in fullfilling
] anything other then his or her own personal needs.
]
] The company becomes a lifestyle company. It exists to provide
] the CEO with a particular lifestyle.
]
] CEOs of lifestyle companies never really know that they are
] doing this. At least not that I've seen, and this seems to be
] a pretty common theme.

Moreso than a 'lifestyle company', this is very desirable result for an entrepreneur. Obviously you've not learned your lesson in Business 101 from the dotcom boom. If you can start a company, grow it to be cash flow positive (bonus points if it's kicking off lots of cash) and never have to raise more funding, then what's to complain about? Even from an employee's POV, this is almost the ultimate situation, since the company stays solid and doesn't have to go through the pain and suffering of having investors coming in and screwing around with the company.

Only slightly more desirable is that the company goes public at a premium valuation and everyone's options vest. This is better for each individual shareholder financially, but I sometimes question whether it's better for the company, its employees, and ultimately its customers. There's a big difference between being a privately held company and a public company, on many levels.

Probably the thing that surprises me the most about your comment is the pro-growth undertone. We've had discussions on Memesteams before that growth for growth's sake may not be all it's cracked up to be. Everything in our world is finite, so continuous growth of anything is impossible. At some point, growth stops. It can be argued that simply growing for no other reason other than 'because' is bad. Bad for the economy. Bad for the environment. Bad for organizational health. Bad for human beings.

In the strictest sense of organizational well being, growth might not be the best quality. If you could have a company where everyone loved to work, customers were happy, it made money, and you don't have to continue growing, that would be the easiest company to manage. Depending on your margins, you could focus a lot of energy on nurturing the organization. You would kick off dividends to shareholders. In the perfect world, employees would all own chunks of the company and participate in the dividend. Life would be bliss.

So I would say that if people are achieving this state, it's not by accident, and they are certainly aware of it. It's basically business nirvana.