How to set priorities, create budgets and do PM in a no-manager company | Hacker News Reader

How to set priorities, create budgets and do PM in a no-manager company

ryancarson.com

33 pointsjoeyespo10 comments

This isn't a no manager company. This is a "few manager" company. They still have managers -- the cofounders.

Reading through this series it looks like they basically just consolidated all of the management decisions to themselves. I'd love to know how a truly no management company functions, if such a thing exists for companies more than 5 or 6 people.

You're conflating leadership with management. While leaders will usually end up managing, and vice versa, these are all too often treated as one and the same role. Management is more about driving day to day goals and ensuring everyone is 'productive' and working towards a specific set of objectives set down by the leadership. In this case, it sounds to me like everyone is more or less self-managing and leadership is painting broad strokes about where the company is headed.

His other point is still true however, being able to have 5-6 people self manage is much easier than even having 25 people self manage. Just because getting that many of the same kind of people is difficult if nothing else.

My main counter-example is how they do compensation. Everyone does a peer review, and then the founders sit in a room and decide everyone's salary. That doesn't feel like self management to me. I think a self-managed way to do salary is to either say everyone gets the same thing, or everyone in the company decides and agrees on everyone else's salary. Neither of which seem very tenable.

Ricardo Semler's book "Maverick!" is a great read to see the long term impact of this approach on a company, it's culture, and it's success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Semler

Also Valve's handbook: http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.p...

I will not be surprised if this implies a transition from leadership by authority to leadership by democracy. I will also not be surprised if natural leaders emerge and small factions start to form around them.

True, this system could lead to the above. But it will more likely lead to leadership by competence. One of the great failings of traditional management is that so many incompetent folks become managers.

Another benefit of this system is that it allows for the natural evolution of teams and leaders. A good leader may not always want to lead. A good leader may want to follow sometimes. A system like this allows for that. And yet, it also allows for new leaders to mature and grow on their pace, without needing an official title such as "manager of X".

I'm curious on the kinds of hurdles they'll face. Old managers simply become new PMs? How will "boring" projects get done?

I think they may very well become (the digital equivalent) tragedies of the comments. I am under the belief that team leads should handle all the dirty work nobody else wants to do.

I believe that with dedicated, focused employees, a democratic management system could work.

Thanks for experimenting with management styles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com