

DNA - filament
http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2011/06/29/dna.html

======
ckrumb
The difficulty I have with this article is that it's more about rebranding
subordination than management. Managers have the power to do things like
organize a "DNA" team, rewarding the best technical minds. Creating an
elaborate organizational system with its own language is like deploying chaff.

Ultimately in any organization power originates from a legal source and fans
outward via a network of trust relationships. The structure of the network is
a hierarchy, with individuals closer to the source wielding more influence. It
can be explicitly codified, or left implicit as is often the case in "flat"
organizations. In either case, the best way to move up the ladder is to become
trusted by people closer to the source of power. This requires social
aptitude, there is no substitute.

I think the flat vs hierarchy debate is pointless. Instead the debate should
be about what kinds of people should have influence in a company? What
standards should be communicated to ensure that smart latecomers quickly
ascend the company's social network? Values, such as obedience and conformity,
tend to reinforce the social hierarchy. Values like dissent and diversity
create a more fluid social environment where trust relationships can be forged
across different social strata in a company.

I think this social fluidity should be emphasized over "flatness." I'd much
rather work in a fluid company than a flat one where people are binned into
overly formalized teams of influence. I suggest that if you want good people
to rise to the top, make fluidity the DNA of your company.

~~~
dkarl
It really misses the point in proposing a way to formalize non-hierarchical
power. Hierarchy is the form of formalized power that is easiest to understand
and the most efficient to work with, especially for technical people who have
other things on their minds besides politics.

The power of influence and respect can't really be formalized anyway. If
people think technical excellence and the company's technical success are
important to their personal success, then the best technical people will wield
power through their ability to inform and advise. If your best technical
people have less power in the organization than they ought to, it's because
other employees intuit, probably correctly, that technical quality has nothing
to do with their personal success.

------
pshapiro
Sounds great but,

"There is no amount of training that would make up for the talent we’d
extinguish by teaching them how to write annual reviews."

Leadership has nothing to do with writing annual reviews.

I heard that leadership means gathering people's power to accomplish a goal.

So while leadership may mean management, management is not inherently
leadership.

~~~
ben_straub
Leadership and management are orthogonal. There are managers who couldn't lead
their team out of a paper bag, and there are great leaders with "Intern" on
their business cards.

More importantly, there are leaders who aren't even _good_ at management
tasks. Just because everyone trusts your opinion on architectural design
doesn't mean you should be assigning tasks, or prioritizing the backlog.

------
VladRussian
so, you like flat, like Facebook's one ? :

<http://www.businessinsider.com/big-tech-org-charts-2011-6>

:)

~~~
dj_axl
Joking aside, one of the places I worked tried to hire an ex-Google CTO, He
basically wanted to be the CTO and then have 20-30 developers reporting
directly to him. That to me is flat. And that did not fly well with the
business people. "No! We must have 3-4 subordinates max under each role,
reporting up the hierarchy!" I imagine you can't grow to a large size without
hierarchy, but with 20-30 people it is possible to be flat.

