
Zappos to employees: Get behind our ‘no bosses’ approach or leave with severance - lambtron
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2015/03/31/zappos-to-employees-get-behind-our-no-bosses-approach-or-leave-with-severance/
======
geofft
Metafilter linked to this Re/code article about the holacracy yesterday:

[http://recode.net/2014/10/03/holacracy-or-hella-crazy-the-
fr...](http://recode.net/2014/10/03/holacracy-or-hella-crazy-the-fringe-ideas-
driving-the-las-vegas-downtown-project/)

A couple friends and I were talking about whether this is a cult. I said it
was missing a religion, because it had optimized out the unnecessary parts of
a cult. Another said it was the religion of messianic capitalism.

~~~
eropple
So ordinarily I'd just upvote this comment (and I did), but...this article is
so eye-poppingly terrifying that, if accurate--and I have no real reason to
believe it's not, it's written in the most kid-gloves style I can think of--
makes me genuinely worried about everyone involved.

Work is a social phenomenon. People aren't robots. What the heck are we doing
to ourselves?

~~~
geofft
If you're not worried enough, see the prior article about the suicides.

[http://recode.net/2014/10/01/the-downtown-project-
suicides-c...](http://recode.net/2014/10/01/the-downtown-project-suicides-can-
the-pursuit-of-happiness-kill-you/)

Fortunately, some smart-thinking entrepreneurs are there to, uh, disrupt
depression with a startup mental health clinic and a startup church. Or
something.

------
msoad
My company does this "no bosses/titles" bullshit too. We have, of course a
CEO, there is a CTO and a VP and a director of engineering and then me. When I
ask for a promotion to Principal Engineer from my current Senior Software
Engineer role(that was on my offer letter) they say "we don't have titles"!

It's all bullshit and there is always a hierarchy. My company did it really
badly by letting my bosses put titles in their LinkedIn profiles, Zappos may
do better in that regard but there would always be someone who overseas you.
As other comments mentioned the irony is "the CEO" said all of this!

~~~
andreasklinger
The problem is imho we as society are still shitty in management of knowledge
workers:

\- we still think in titles (hierarchy) vs roles (context) \- eg someone can
have the role product strategy and that gives him ownership about certain
decisions

\- we still thinking of "managing people" like of "managing resources" vs
setting up processes and communication when processes fail

~~~
tbrownaw
So, I'm one of the more highly-skilled developers working on X. I'm also
needed to help troubleshoot some emergency on Y for a week.

 _Someone_ has to figure out schedules priorities and whatnot. But I don't
give a _$#@%_ about that sort of boring people-stuff, because I only care
about interesting technical problems.

How does this get handled?

.

People do _not_ always follow the same process over and over again. When they
do, that's an excellent candidate for automation.

People can have multiple interests and skill sets, but those won't always
include negotiation and constraint optimization. Those tasks still have to get
handled _for_ everyone, even the people who won't handle them for themselves.

.

There will always be hierarchies. There are at least two fundamental ones:
skill, and scope. Neither maps exactly to management hierarchies.

~~~
andreasklinger
yes but we bundle a lot of things into the term management

hierarchy will always exist (if at least someone has to pay or fire you)

authority will always exist (if at least someone will be more experienced in a
topic)

processes will always exist (and someone has to put them in place)

you can have processes in place for emergencies, deciding if those emergencies
are worth dropping stuff, for boring bugduties etc

the shift is imho not so much about making everyone his own boss but about
pushing decisions as far as possible "down the chain" until you do no longer
need to think in "hierarchy chains" but roles and groups of people

------
mgmtbs
I worked for a company with a 'flat' hierarchy. There was actually a secret
hierarchy, and I got pushed out for defying the secret hierarchy. The
structure allowed the 'managers' to avoid any accountability.

~~~
snowwrestler
This is actually a fairly old and well-known idea, first proposed in the
1960s.

"this apparent lack of structure too often disguised an informal,
unacknowledged and unaccountable leadership that was all the more pernicious
because its very existence was denied."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessnes...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness)

People interested in ultra modern flat management structures would do well to
look up the history of communes, collectives, and other experiments in self-
organizing.

~~~
kirsebaer
Isn't there often "informal, unacknowledged and unaccountable leadership"
hiding within traditional hierachical structures? It's often not fully
apparent from the organizational chart who has real power and influence.

------
mblevin
The real question for me is: Has Tony Hsieh completely lost his fucking mind,
is this the future and we just don't know it yet, or is this all part of some
elaborate plan to fire everybody or stage some sort of internal company
cleansing?

Seriously - somebody please tell me.

I don't get it.

~~~
vasilipupkin
so what happens when there is a successful business, often times people
running that business think that just because they've had some good ideas and
successes, all their ideas must be good and profound :) I don't get it either,
but maybe I am wrong

~~~
vasilipupkin
I just love this:

"A new circle called Reinventing Yourself has been created to help guide
former managers to new roles that might be a good match for their passions,
skills, and experience. Hollie is the lead link of that new circle"

So, Hollie is a manager of managing former managers' efforts to no longer be
managers ?

~~~
Retra
No, not "manager," "lead link." You just don't get it, man. You just do what
you're told by the people who are better than you. They're not your managers!
They are just 'better' so they deserve to tell you what to do and how to do
it.

------
michaelchisari
There are democratic, non-heirarchical corporations out there, like Mondragon.

They grew a bit more organically than this, however, so the structural result
is very noticably different.

~~~
mercer
> They grew a bit more organically than this, however, so the structural
> result is very noticably different.

Perhaps this is similar to the often stated reason for 'failed' democracies:
they need to grow rather than be forced upon a population?

------
litha
So screw over anyone in a lower position than director. Next up, no more
hourly employees so they can work then without overtime pay. (oh wait that is
now standard)

------
Gustomaximus
How will they handle accountability without bosses? Decisions are likely to
get made by the more outspoken or celebrity personalities. How will they
accurately identify weaker decision makers in this category as where they
spread influence is a 'group decision'. At 1500+ employees this could easily
end up into some political minefield of power struggles and blame/credit
games.

------
trhway
who is going to write performance reviews? Titles or no titles, whoever writes
your review is your manager.

~~~
letstryagain
Valve has the 'Gabe / Everyone Else' structure. They seem to make it work ok.
Performance reviews are written by your peers, usually people who worked with
you in some way recently.

[http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1074301/Valve_Handbook_Low...](http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1074301/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf)

~~~
joezydeco
Jeri Ellsworth (ex-Valve employee) will disagree with you here.

 _" There is actually a hidden layer of powerful management structure in the
company," she claims.

"And it felt a lot like High School.

"There are popular kids that have acquired power, then there's the trouble
makers, and then everyone in between. Everyone in between is ok, but the
trouble makers are the ones trying to make a difference."_

[http://www.develop-online.net/news/valve-s-perfect-hiring-
hi...](http://www.develop-online.net/news/valve-s-perfect-hiring-hierarchy-
has-hidden-management-clique-like-high-school/0115316)

~~~
trhway
>"And it felt a lot like High School.

"Called "holacracy," the new system replaces the conventional command-and-
control workplace with a series of self-governed teams, known as "circles." "

i first read it as "cliques" :)

------
jackmaney
Holy crap. Zappos sounds like the unholy spawn of a pyramid scheme and a cult.

~~~
cowardlyLion
'Tis true. I worked there. They notoriously pay poorly and the only people who
move up to better pay are FOTs Friends of Tony. All of whom have been there
for a minimum of 10 years. BTW-Tony has not changed his title on his LinkedIn,
email or business card. He is still CEO. The rest are titleless and looking
for other jobs.

We had 3 suicides last year by entrepreneurs tony invested in and took under
his wing here in Vegas as part of the Downtown Project dystopian hell he makes
zappos employees live in here.

Cult. Pure and simple.

------
nazca
I think it is pretty clear Tony Hsieh isn't the right person to lead Zappos at
this scale. His craziness got it to where it is today, but what you need from
a CEO changes with scale.

------
pmcg
Does HN need a top banner saying that it's April 1?

------
tw04
>Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh

Oh the irony. So basically what I gather is Zappos is trying to find a way to
drive down the salary of all employees by removing their titles. Except for
the executives... because you HAVE to have executives, even with fuedalism...
er... "holacracies".

>Hsieh's memo says they will keep their salaries through the end of 2015 and
will get guidance for reinventing themselves into new roles at the company.

Yup... "We want to gut all the high paying jobs from our organization by
giving the rest of you the job your managers had before. Hope you enjoy the
additional job titles, we won't be increasing your salaries".

~~~
moron4hire
Look at yesterday's top topic here, the new Facebook office "largest open
floor plan office, ever". This sort of disrespect, this sort of complete
dehumanization of the worker, it's the new normal. "Our employees are our
greatest asset" is just something to print in the employee manual.

~~~
nostrademons
Eh, I don't see any problem with either open-floor-plan offices or with a lack
of managers. And I assure you, I'm quite human. The main reason I wouldn't
want to work for Zappos is because I don't give a damn about shoes.

These sorts of moves are usually filtering functions on the types of employees
you employ. They'll encourage everyone who doesn't fit the company culture to
quit - which, ultimately, makes the company stronger. The beauty of our market
economy is that you don't have to work in a company whose culture you find
offensive, you can find one whose culture is more to your liking.

~~~
comrh
> makes the company stronger

maybe. or just an echo chamber of like minded drones?

~~~
nostrademons
Like most things in life, it depends on how you look at it. If you see an echo
chamber of like-minded drones, it's pretty likely you aren't looking very
closely, as even the most homogenous cultures have plenty of room for
individual variation. (Although they may not let you, as an outsider, see it.)

~~~
comrh
Sure, but you have to admit it can also product Enron like negative feedback
loops where bad behavior is okay, and rewarded, due to culture.

------
kenko
As usual, Maciej was killing it:

[https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/582619098921603072](https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/582619098921603072)
"Anyone claiming there is structure, management, hierarchy, concentration of
power or obstacles to freedom at Zappos will be summarily fired"

[https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/582628592179232769](https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/582628592179232769)
"We’ll know that Holacracy truly works when even the lowliest janitor at
Zappos can threaten to fire everyone for not reading a certain book"

~~~
smsm42
Firings will continue until morale improves!

------
paulhauggis
Since there are 'no bosses', why does Tony Hsieh have a title like 'CEO'?

~~~
trhway
> why does Tony Hsieh have a title like 'CEO'?

even the ultimate flat organization - Borg - had Queen. The rest - no titles,
just roles, and pride themselves on efficiency.

Thinking about it, one can see how modern "open office in the name of
collaboration/communication" is just a cave man's replacement of Borg neural
field generators for mind-to-mind connection

------
michaelochurch
Even though I support open allocation, I don't really believe that "no
managers" works at all. I think that it's an overcorrection.

You need management, but what you need is a constitutional workplace where
there are real protections (e.g. people have the right to choose the team they
work on, within reason, and performance reviews are for compensation upgrades
_only_ and not part of the transfer packet) that employees get to vote on and
that limit management's power. I'd even consider extending that to a profit-
sharing model that's more transparent and fairer than startup equity, which is
based on some insultingly small percentage of some possibly-huge-but-how-
would-you-evaluate-that number in the future.

There are several problems with "no managers". First, many tech companies tell
_every_ engineer, down to the junior coming out of college, that he'll be
reporting directly to the CTO. Then he gets there and learns that he will
actually be evaluated by his tech lead, who answers to a (possibly titled,
possibly not) full middle manager... who answers to the CEO. It's dishonest as
fuck, but really common in the startup world to use "flatness" to make a
position sound closer to the action and to power than it actually is. "Flat"
organizations are often alluring lies that hide the real power structures. It
doesn't matter if Bob is an idiot who works 15 minutes per week; if the CEO
will take Bob's word over yours when it comes to your value to the company,
then Bob is your boss.

Second, if there are going to be power relationships anyway (and there are)
it's better to answer to a titled manager with a completely different job
description, than to someone who's technically same-rank and therefore also
competing with you for work. You won't win in that situation.

I'm skeptical because I feel like managers are akin to cops. There are some
really shitty cops out there, no question. But you need them, because the
alternative is... that a police-like force emerges (organized crime would
rather have order than violence) but it's not accountable to the public and
the costs are erratic. With public police, you pay taxes and can vote
officials out of office if they make bad calls. With emergent private police
(thugs) the extortions and bribes can go up from day to day for any reason or
no reason at all.

What's wrong in most companies is that the police are making the laws, rather
than enforcing them for public benefit. Because most companies don't have any
constitutional structure or real protection for workers, the law is "if you
have power, you can do it" so middle management ends up making the law up as
it goes, in pursuit of its own interests (maintaining and consolidating
power). Management is a fine concept if management is put in its place and
empowered to enforce but not legislate. I don't know how to put this into
practice. It's hard, because you have to fight human nature.

In other words, the problem is the lack of constitutionality in corporate
governance. Corporations are pretty much all run as dictatorships. That can
work surprisingly well (in terms of efficiency and competitive supremacy) when
the dictator has something unique to offer. It ages poorly, because the
dictatorial role gets handed over and eventually it's in the wrong hands and
everything goes to hell. Imagine what would have happened to Singapore if
anyone other than Lee Kuan Yew had been in that position. Dictatorship only
works when you have a very rare type of mind and get a true philosopher-king.
(It's not about pure intelligence, either. It takes charisma and focus, too.)
That doesn't describe most corporations or corporate leaders. For the most
part, this dictatorial model leads to low morale, stagnation, and mediocrity.

That's why people hate management: we've all picked up that it's serving its
own interests rather than that of the employees or of the company. All of this
said, "no management" tends either to produce an emergent and less accountable
management/police force or it tends to mean that power is concentrated at the
top. So I tend to think that this "no more bosses" movement is somewhat of an
overcorrection.

~~~
kyllo
I agree that official, legible management structure is usually probably better
than the unofficial management structure that will naturally emerge in a
supposedly "flat" company.

You mention that most companies don't have "constitutional structure," are you
talking about an employee bill of rights?

What would you think of the idea of running a company literally like a
representative democracy? A constitution and bill of rights, management as
elected officials, employee "voter initiatives", projects compete for talent
internally etc?

It might not be perfect either, but perhaps a good middle ground between
militaristic top-down bureaucracy and Zappos-style anarchy?

~~~
michaelochurch
Yes, an Employee Bill of Rights.

The middle ground you described is a brilliant idea. What you probably need to
enforce it, at first, is an enlightened dictator (i.e. the 1% who won't get
power-hungry and fuck everything up).

