
Zappos says goodbye to bosses - webdisrupt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/03/zappos-gets-rid-of-all-managers/#
======
josefresco
"Instead, there are people known as “lead links” who have the ability to
assign employees to roles or remove them from them, but who are not in a
position to actually tell people what to do. "

You say tomato I say tomato. Seriously though, renaming a title does not equal
removing it from your business structure.

Why not call them managers and simply take away the elements of their job
which cause issues? Seems to be this is more about drinking the kool-aid than
it is about actual structural changes to how things are accomplished.

~~~
kfk
_Why not call them managers and simply take away the elements of their job
which cause issues?_

But what are those elements? A good boss keeps a LOT of crap away from its
employees, a bad one is the exact reverse. I want a manager, he does most of
the crap political work for me while I grow professionally.

Is it a problem managers exists or is it a problem some companies can't manage
to hire good ones?

~~~
modoc
Yes exactly! The best boss I ever had explained his job like this (and yes
probably some ego stroking in there):

"You guys are like a rock band. You're the stars. You need to show up,
practice, and play gigs on schedule.

I'm like your band manager. It's my job to take care of all the random crap
like booking tour buses, replacing blown amps, and protecting you from the
annoying label guys so you can just focus and do your magic."

It's a good analogy. A good manager protects their team and lets them focus on
their work and gives them what they need to succeed.

~~~
adekok
> It's a good analogy

Yes, a manager is like a manager. :)

The difference is that the band manager is clear he works _for_ the band. His
goal is to help the band do what the band does best.

A bad SW manager often operates under the idea that he's in _charge_. He gets
to set what the people do, when they do it, and _how_ they do it. He doesn't
really care what skills or experience his team has. He's the boss, and they
better shut up and do what they're told.

A good manager plays with the team. A bad manager plays _against_ the rest of
the team.

~~~
SubuSS
> He's the boss, and they better shut up and do what they're told.

Hypothetically let's assume you are a manager. You have a team of smart people
and like any other team, everyone wants to work on the hardest problem.
Particularly two guys want to do the same thing: How do you handle this?

The most important thing I advocate in a manager / employee relationship is
trust. You should be able to trust that your manager has your best interests
in mind and vice versa. If you do trust each other, I don't see why there will
be a problem in doing what is told. In fact you won't even see it as being
told to. The managers on the 'good end' of the spectrum will also make it
appear as if it is a suggestion, but any smart person should be able to see
through that for what it is: an order to do X or Y.

Most of the issues happen because of the lack of trust. This is the prime
thing I tell new folks: Choosing a manager who is exactly on the same page is
prime directive. Get the human element out and build trust. You miss out on
that / settle, you are just settling for a life of misery.

~~~
psaintla
Easily, I once worked at a place where everyone wanted to work on the hardest
problems. I could have done that also but instead I recognized that there was
a lot of grunt work that needed to be done in order to get our product out and
meet our deadlines so I volunteered to get that stuff done. The director of
our department took note of this and when bonus time came around I received a
significantly larger bonus than everyone else and was thanked for my
dedication to doing what needed to be done. The lesson being that, you reward
people who do what it takes to get the job done not people who are self-
serving glory hounds looking to boost their resume with hard problems.

------
edw519
Tech billionaire checklist:

    
    
      - security detail
      - private jet
      - yacht
      - professional sports franchise
      - foundation
      - once respected media outlet as personal mouthpiece
    

Once again, Jeff Bezos leads the way.

(Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, parent company of Zappos, owns the Washington
Post.)

~~~
svantana
I was most surprised that they don't include disclosure of this relationship
when mentioning Amazon in the article. I thought that was comme-il-faut of
serious journalism.

~~~
smackfu
I see this at the end now:

Note: Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post

~~~
halviti
With no mention of the article being edited. Terrible.

------
endeavor
This no-managers movement strikes me as disingenuous. The manager is still
there -- there's just fewer of them. Big conflicts just get escalated all the
way to the CEO/founder/owner.

There was a recent HBR article about Google's management structure. They tried
eliminating managers in 2002, but too many people just came directly to Larry
when they had a problem (1). Holacracy doesn't scale.

1) [http://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on-
mana...](http://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on-
management/ar/1)

------
lps41
I find it interesting that the number of Amazon-related articles in the
Washington Post seems to have increased since Jeff Bezos' purchase of the
Post.

Note that Zappos is owned my Amazon.

~~~
gtCameron
So your theory is that Bezos spent $250 million of his own money to buy the
Washington Post so that he could get more coverage of Amazon in one newspaper?

~~~
josefresco
More like; if you spent $250 million of your own cash to buy the WP you _might
as well_ use it to get more coverage of your other companies.

Just because it's not the _primary reason_ does not mean it's not happening.

------
makecheck
If there are people in the organization who are still tasked with organizing
people then they _are_ bosses (or at least, they will eventually act like
bosses again).

It is possible to remove the management role, at least at a project level, by
using technology. For instance, the first time I saw Trac our team effectively
did this.

To be practical however, a technology solution really does require the _right_
group of people. You can’t have people who are uncomfortable logging into web
sites, or too lazy to write good descriptions for things, and so forth. You
need people who are (frankly) professionals, who look at something like a
giant task list and do a fair job of distributing things sensibly amongst
themselves. A solution like Trac _really_ starts to shine when people learn
the little niceties, like additional formatting in wiki entries or the magic
sequences that set up links between things. Again though: you need a team that
is willing to work with such a tool in the “right way”. If they do then you
don’t really need a manager at all.

------
colinbartlett
I'm pleased to see more and more companies shedding more traditional
management structures. I think they are the source of pain for a lot of people
who flee corporate life to pursue their own ideas.

~~~
aestra
Traditional management structures have their downsides, but I think they can
be done well. I have also seen companies do non-traditional management
structures that have just been a huge clusterfuck in implementation. It's all
about implementation, I believe. I think it is important to keep metrics so we
can see what works best for most organizations.

~~~
vvvVVVvvv
Data, not metrics.

Data is facts, it's not opinionated.

Metrics, on the other hands are built upon data but are often carrying an
agenda with them, they're political (whether it's office or nation politics)
tools.

~~~
jessaustin
I see what you're saying, but data don't exist in some sort of pure state. All
data are collected in a particular fashion. You can get most of the
shenanigans you're implying for metrics with data collection as well.

------
stingraycharles
For more information about this particular management style, see:

[http://holacracy.org/](http://holacracy.org/)

It's linked from the article, but it deserves to be more prominently noted.

------
ionforce
Does anyone have a plain English explanation or infographic for Holacracy?
Sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors and happy thoughts.

What is the secret sauce in Holacracy that makes it different from
hierarchies?

~~~
nomade0
I work with HolacracyOne, the company behind Holacracy. We definitely have a
_lot_ of work to do to explain Holacracy outside of our trainings & consulting
services - we're a young company and haven't focused on that as much so far,
but it's definitely something on our radar (especially after this press
storm).

To answer your question, the secret sauce of Holacracy is the Holacracy
Constitution – it replaces the CEO in deciding how decisions get made and how
we organize. See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=31MljhiyxZ8

Also, you might be interested in two blog posts published in the past couple
days in reaction to the often-inaccurrate press: \- "Five Misconceptions About
Holacracy" [https://medium.com/about-
holacracy/da84d8ba15e1](https://medium.com/about-holacracy/da84d8ba15e1) \-
"Holacracy at Zappos" by a Zappos' employee:
[http://rianschmidt.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/holacracy-at-
zap...](http://rianschmidt.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/holacracy-at-zappos/)

------
methodin
I just can't see this working. People are different. Some need to be led more
than they can lead, some have a strong voice and others are quiet. Does anyone
have any evidence to the contrary?

By work I mean, inevitably it will settle into a more informal hierarchy but
still there in practice (just not in title).

~~~
gms7777
I agree that it will settle into an informal hierarchy, but I think that is
exactly what they are looking for. They mention that they are looking for
natural leaders to step up and such. I think the beauty of this plan, if it
works, is that people will gravitate towards the roles that they are naturally
good at and the heirarchy that emerges could be far better formed than
anything that could have been built by hiring managers top down. Not to
mention it will be fluid and can adapt with the company as it grows and
changes and new projects come along.

That said, I think this can go either way. Not having defined roles and
relationships might cause more friction that it relieves. And to quote Douglas
Adams, "It is a well-known fact that those people who want to rule are, ipso
facto, those least suited to do it". This might just cause a lot of
uncertainty with those willing to yell the loudest trampling those around
them.

I'll be watching curiously.

------
talmand
So, poor performers can be identified if "they don't have enough roles" or
"they're not a good fit for the company culture". What happens to them? I
guess there are executives at a higher level that have the authority to fire
these poor performers?

These "lead links" sound like managers with less authority to me.

If they are hoping for natural leaders to step forward then that seems how you
become a manager in that company, you ask for it. Which, in some cases, is
probably a better system than what many companies have in place that places
people in roles they shouldn't be in.

The roles are still there, some of the requirements and responsibilities are
shifted a bit, but they just removed the titles.

~~~
nhangen
Makes me wonder if part of the intent is to reduce salaries. No managers = no
manager salaries. Kind of like getting a promotion without the salary
increase, or increased duties without increased pay.

------
Uchikoma
I'm pro new org structures and ways to work together. I'm interested in Valve
and Zappos and others.

But the nagging feeling is what this Valve employee (who was fired) described:
The company is led by the bullies just like in highschool.

~~~
nomade0
Yep, it's definitely the risk when you get rid of an explicit structure – it
gets replaced by a new, implicit one. In contrast, Holacracy doesn't just get
rid of hierarchy, it REPLACES it with another structure – and in many ways,
it's MORE structure (unlike what the press says). See more in these two blog
posts that were published in reaction to the press buzz and the
misinformation: \- Five Misconception About Holacracy:
[https://medium.com/about-holacracy/da84d8ba15e1](https://medium.com/about-
holacracy/da84d8ba15e1) \- Zappos at Holacrach (by Zappos' Head of Labs Tech):
[http://rianschmidt.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/holacracy-at-
zap...](http://rianschmidt.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/holacracy-at-zappos/)

~~~
Uchikoma
Thx, highly appreciated.

------
sasvari
previous submission and discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7016107](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7016107)

------
VLM
I miss the associate -vs- employee meaningless fad. I guess its inevitable
that some other group gets a meaningless renaming fad.

------
helenislovely
We're doing the same thing at Gamevy. We're small at the moment which makes it
(fairly) easy. As for how it goes as we grow - you can check out our blog on
the "experiment"! [http://giantleap.me/](http://giantleap.me/)

------
mindcrime
I recently read an absolutely fascinating book called _The Origin of
Wealth_.[1] Nominally the topic is economics, but it's far broader than that,
talking about how all components of the economic system of wealth creation
(including "firms") are part of a Complex Adaptive System, and are often CAS's
themselves. The author makes the argument that a firm is a CAS using evolution
to explore a "fitness landscape" in terms of it's "Business Plan" (his term
that encompasses strategy at various levels within the firm). IF you buy this
theory, it has some very interesting implications in terms of how firms should
be managed, and the author provides some interesting thoughts.

One point that stood out to me, is that all firms face a constant, internal
tension between the need to do "operational stuff" that actually works very
well with a traditional hierarchical management approach, and the need to do
"exploratory work" which does NOT map well to hierarchy. Failing to understand
and manage this tension may be why many firms feel so dysfunctional.

The other point that stood out to me, is the idea that instead of a strict
hierarchy - or complete undirected chaos - the best way to combine efforts
towards both goals is by having individuals with _a high degree of autonomy
and empowerment_ coupled with a _strong shared vision and common goals_.

In this model, the primary purpose of leadership is to imbue the members of
the organization with that "strong shared vision and common goals". Or to put
it more simply, you tell people what needs to be accomplished, not how to
accomplish it, and trust them to use their judgment.

On a related note, the book _Adaptive Enterprise_ [2] makes a strong case for
the idea of high decentralized teams, connected to each other through what the
author calls a "Commitment Management Protocol".[3]

I would say that both of these books have some useful ideas that could be
applied to construct a better management structure than what most present-day
firms use.

[1]: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Wealth-Remaking-
Economics/d...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Wealth-Remaking-
Economics/dp/1422121038)

[2]: [http://www.amazon.com/Adaptive-Enterprise-Creating-Sense-
And...](http://www.amazon.com/Adaptive-Enterprise-Creating-Sense-And-Respond-
Organizations/dp/0875848745)

[3]:
[http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/conversations-...](http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/conversations-
for-action-commitment-management-protocol/)

------
farginay
Is there some result in the theory of random graphs that says that you can't
have a graph of a certain size without developing hubs? It seems to happen in
most systems.

~~~
brg
There are a number of results about a giant connected component emerging as a
Erdos-Renyi random graph increases in size.

A hub however will simply arise as the result of variance.

~~~
farginay
You say "a hub" but I wonder whether it would be many? How close would such an
effect be to hubs we see in scale free networks? In those, preferential
attachment seems to induce hubs. Airline hubs are a good example - there's
more value in connecting to a well-connected hub.

------
wil421
>show me any group of five human beings or five apes or five dogs, and I want
to see the one where a status difference does not emerge. It’s who we are as
creatures.

This. The need for management arose once we stopped being nomads and started
to organize ourselves into collective groups. Look at Native Americans, even
they had Chieftains.

~~~
mjewkes
[http://www.waketech.edu/sites/default/files/libraryfiles/ere...](http://www.waketech.edu/sites/default/files/libraryfiles/ereserves/ant220/kalahari.pdf)

"Yes, when a young man kills much meat he comes to think of himself as a chief
or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. We
can't accept this... So we always speak of his meat as worthless. This way we
cool his heart and make him gentle."

~~~
wil421
Managers get chosen to be managers they dont all of the sudden come in after
they do something important and say I am a manger or team lead or what have
you.

------
juddlyon
Nice gimick, straight from the Tim Ferriss school of language.

