Comments on: Management – a Necessary Evil?

By: stevew

stevew — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:58:09 +0000

Ricardo – many thanks for the feedback – much appreciated. As they say here, the proof of the pudding is in the eating – time will tell how well things work in practice, but I believe you sometimes have to be radical to do something really new. Time will tell….!

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:58:24 +0000

Agree 100% with your objections to getting a “regular” job and also with Semler’s approach.
People are more productive when given the freedom to manage their own time, and are not forced into a non-sense schedule. Some people might argue that this not for everyone and I would agree with that, just as I believe that working from 8 – 5, M – F, is not for everyone either and yet most corporations don’t consider this at all and expect everyone in their payroll to do this.

By: Venture Capital – A Necessary Evil?

Venture Capital – A Necessary Evil? — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:56:32 +0000

[...] of bootstrapped businesses over VC-funded businesses. Following on from one of my themes in an earlier post, one advantage particularly resonates with me: Bootstrappers have more freedom and flexibility. [...]

By: Four devs good, two devs (and a project manager) better?

Four devs good, two devs (and a project manager) better? — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:30:09 +0000

[...] I re-read my last article, it struck me that I was perhaps being a little unfair to the many people who have a regular job [...]

By: Anders Kirkeby

Anders Kirkeby — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:06:39 +0000

Steve – I guess the economic downturn makes it easier to be a bit more picky about who to bring on. Over the last few years I think a lot of companies have found meagre pickings when they needed to hire new people.

Anyway, after posting my last reply I read a highly relevant little article in the January edition of ACM Communications (doi:10.1145/1629175.1629190). A little story about how the right environment and process turned a fairly useless non-productive team member into a productive participant. Let me know if would like a copy.

By: stevew

stevew — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:07:00 +0000

Anders – you’re absolutely right – scaling is a big consideration – but I think that is an issue for software development teams in general. In an engineering context, Semler managed to scale the approach to 3000 people, so it must doable.

It’s interesting what you say about bringing on the right people – implying that bringing on less than optimal people can be tolerated under a more conventional structure. (I don’t necessarily disagree.) That of course begs the question – is this a good thing? (Indeed, have conventional structures developed in part in response to the need to manage “the average employee”). I think it’s fair to say that bringing on the right people is crucial in any start-up, but I agree the sensitivity is even greater in a democratic management structure.

By: stevew

stevew — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:54:41 +0000

Christian – thanks for the feedback – I will get a copy of the book. After I posted the article, I worried that I was doing my ex-colleagues a disservice – there are plenty of good reasons to stay in a regular job, but of course that wasn’t the point. I plan to redress this in my next article. Appreciate the encouragement too.

By: stevew

stevew — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:47:17 +0000

Thanks for the thoughts Nick – your comments forced me to think long and hard about my own philosophy around business and employment. I don’t really agree that the approach in alignment with Marxist principles – from my limited understanding of Marx’s worldview, the assumption is that under capitalism the working class are exploited by the ruling classes – I don’t believe that is a true reflection of Western corporate life in general (although there are obviously places where it is the case). My fundamental premise is that in most cases classic hierarchical management structures do more harm than good, by moving the decision-making power away from those with the best information, and as such should be avoided like the plague.

You make a very valid point about motivation – people’s motivations are all different and really need careful thought – but a lot of the examples you draw are from today’s dysfunctional organisations where things like title, power and prestige take the place of true motivators. (A subject I hope to cover some more in my next post).

By: NickB

NickB — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:26:41 +0000

A very interesting and thought provoking piece, a lot of which I agree with. I think that the approach is somewhat Marxist; however, please don’t take that as a criticism – the premise that everybody is equally valued isn’t a bad one, but, from my experience, there are some fundamental issues to be aware of.

The six points you bring out have one fundamental issue (as Marxism does): they don’t take into consideration the different ways in which people are motivated. There are a number of things that motivate people: titles, power, prestige, money, being part of a team and many others depending on the person. Your proposal takes away most of those motivators. Bearing in mind that money is only a short term motivator, when this happens, what do people have to strive for? The good of the company? That will only motivate certain people.

Having said that, on a few occasions I have seen this work brilliantly. As Anders has said, the selection of the team is critical. The people must truly believe in the principles, not just consent to them. If you can get the right team, the right balance and the right product, the results will be the type of thing they write about in Time Magazine.

By: stevew

stevew — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:29:18 +0000

Thanks for the feedback Thomas. I think I’m going to develop this whole idea some more in my next post – the need for different skillsets, e.g., project management, in a business is (in my view) not the same as needing hierarchy or rigid structure. I completely agree with the premise, though – having worked in an environment lacking those skills, I fully appreciate the need for them.