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... )

RE: The founder of Visa on Corporations