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 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.

on the contrary, I think you are confusing management skills and specialized skills. Most successful organizations pay based upon competence, not headcount. This is how brilliant engineers can retire earlier than CEOs. In fact, at most 'technical' companies, the brains usually make more money than the suits overall. It may be incented differently, but total comp is usually higher.

To be sure, a successful organization needs to have balanced competency in both specialized skills and management skills. This is the key difference between an organization that is rigidly hierarchical (GM in the 60's) and one that is vastly decentralized chaos (most non-profits). The trick is having that balance. Too much one way or the other is bad. This is where I disagree a lot on what Hock is proposing. He's pushing too far on the chaos side for what I think is effective.

The management hierarchy isn't necessarily about subdividing headcount to bite-sized morsels of people who report to you. It's about putting together a structure in which communication can flow back and forth and responsibilities are made accountable. Granted, the mistake that most organizations makes is that the higher on that org chart you are, the more you get paid - blindly, but what's really going on here is that the higher on the org chart you are, the more you are accountable for, and the greater degree of flexibility you need to have in your skill set for managing people and accomplishing work.

But this all boils down to my key point, which you quoted some of. I was trying to articulate that when you have large enterprises, people's ideas about power and rank and status and whatnot disrupt a lot of what CEO's are trying to accomplish. There are people who are going to do whatever their superiors say, because they respect the position. And then there's people who will run amok trying to overthrow management no matter what management is doing. And everything in between. It's impossible to get a consensus of thought on how the organization should 'live' at that kind of micro level. It's cultural. That's why culture matters so much in organizations. It's not the touchy-feely crap that management consultants like to spew about. It's shared POV.

This is the reason why I think the Valley (and more specifically, California) is successful at creating very effective organizations. It's because of California culture in general. It's diverse, multi-cultural, anti-establishment (but not too much so), and hard working. So generally, you're going to have more of those pieces fit together and 'see' the big picture in a more harmonious way than say, Nashville. Although I think that's changing as our generation got exposed to the ideas during the dotcom boom and have refined their thoughts on what it means to work for a corporation. It's much different now than it was for our parents.

ADDED: Yes, I think that most people preach to hire smarter than yourself. I did, and it worked out great. But that's still mixing management skills with specialized skills. If I'm going to hire someone smarter than me, I'm going to hire specialized skills. I'm going to hire someone who's better at putting together P&L statements than I. I'm going to hire someone who's better at keeping sales people on target. Neither of those people might be able to juggle technology, or even say LDAP correctly. But they are effectively smarter than me in specific areas.

In a perfect world, any Cxx would be able to step in and run the company. At that level, you are effectively a generalist whose main job is to keep the machine running and running smoothly. You are not the worker. You are the environment maker. You are the architect of the plan that everyone is executing. But realistically, too many sub-CEO folks are more specialized and/or focused too much on task managing.

] 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.

I agree with your thought here, but aren't people who are professional, mature, and careful usually smart too? One might say that you can be wise *and* smart. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. You are correct that someone who is smart and doesn't possess the other capabilities is basically worthless. In my mind, this person isn't smart. Smart means that you're willing to learn from your experiences and continuously better yourself. No one who is smart was born with their knowledge. They acquired it in this process of iteration. When you alienate everyone, you are limiting yourself. You will accomplish less. Your smarts are wasted, and you rarely get smarter.

I have serious issues with this because a lot of geek culture rewards smart for the sake of smart while overlooking PRODUCTIVE. Genius is irrelavent if it's not applied and refined. This is the bane of many smart people. They are taught that they are smart, and that this somehow makes them 'better'. This elitism keeps them from actually doing anything with themselves, because it's become comfortable enough knowing that you're smart. That's stupid, IMO.

] (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... )

pssftt... don't get me started on school. It's broken. Completely. School, particularly public school, is basically engineered to turn out industrial drones perfect for the working world of 1950. It is woefully inadequate for today's working world. I am glad though that you at least got to see the world from a different perspective. It's not so evil after all. A great man once said "the true genius is a mind that can see conflicting views and keep them in the same mind." There might not need to be a reconciliation.

RE: The founder of Visa on Corporations