“Until there is a monumental shift in the leadership dynamic from the old fashioned command and control to a collaborative, status free, matrix way of working, then the debate about the need for an office (in the traditional sense) will be a long one.” – Tracey Johnson commenting on Why The Death Of The Office Can’t Come Too Soon
For lots of people the traditional office – a place many go to simply to attend meetings and do emails – has become toxic.
But many readers of my recent post thought I was overstating the problem, believing if we tackled those two big time wasters it could be restored to a former grandeur.
I personally favour more radical solutions – as alluded to by Tracey in her full comment here.
Emails and meetings, together with outdated reporting and approval systems, are part of a wider hierarchical culture that is at odds with the onset of truly social business.
One of the barriers to adopting more transformational ways of working is often not the executive leadership of the organisation but the point at which it can all start to go very wrong.
Management is the greatest inefficiency in any organisation.
Many of you will be familiar with the work of Gary Hamel – but it’s worth revisiting his examples on management waste in the context of the death of the office.
Typically a small organisation might start off simply – one manager and 10 employees.
But as it grows it will often keep this ratio and sometimes reduce it. So an organisation with 100,000 employees will have at least 11,111 managers. Because an additional 1,111 managers will be needed to manage the managers.
And that’s before you go near management related functions whose entire function is , well , management.
It’s very easy to make yourself busy as a manager:
- The one to ones and appraisals.
- The team meetings and management meetings.
- The reports you have to write and the reports you have to read that other managers have to write.
- Authorising peoples annual leave and expenses or explaining why you won’t authorise peoples annual leave and expenses.
You could fill up 40 hours a week with just being a manager.
This multi-tiered management model piles inefficiency upon inefficiency. Decision making slows. People become less empowered.
Unsurprisingly, a number of organisations are now exploring the manager-less organisation. And it’s a trend that will only grow as social technology enables very different ways of working, both across the organisation and even across sectors.
Here’s how Tony Hsieh (who was CEO before they all gave up job titles) describes his vision:
“Research shows that every time the size of a city doubles, innovation or productivity per resident increases by 15 percent.
But when companies get bigger, innovation or productivity per employee generally goes down.
So we’re trying to figure out how to structure Zappos more like a city, and less like a bureaucratic corporation. In a city, people and businesses are self- organising.
We’re trying to do the same thing by switching from a normal hierarchical structure to a system which enables employees to act more like entrepreneurs and self-direct their work, instead of reporting to a manager who tells them what to do.”
Rather than by managers, Zappos is being run via a series of self organising teams. Instead of going up the chain of command, decision-making is entrusted to groups of employees, called circles. People can assume whatever roles they want within these circles to focus on the task in hand.
Whether it’s successful or not – it marks a shift in how large organisations are dismantling long established models to encourage greater agility and innovation.
Here are some other organisations that are worth looking at:
Valve, the video game developer , have a culture built on the premise that there are no managers, with each colleague able to choose the project he or she is working on. Don’t like the project? Fine , just get up and move to one you like. Valve also have a wonderful employee handbook which is a must-read.
Medium, the blog publishing platform, have adopted a philosophy of “No people managers. Maximum autonomy”. Adopting a form of holocracy, people can build versatile roles for themselves that speak to their whole skill sets — rather than just a single ability. This goes against the standard , and completely wasteful , practice of recruiting for roles rather than people.
Treehouse , the online interactive education platform, have not only adopted the #NoManager philosophy but have also combined it with a four day working week. Over 90% of employees voted to adopt a manager less structure (the other 10%, presumably, were managers) with the rules of the new organisation being written by collaboration on a Google doc.
And it can be done at really large companies. At WL Gore – a multi-billion dollar company with 10,000 staff, people choose their own bosses – or “sponsors” as they call them. There are “no chains of command” and instead associates communicate directly with each other.
It’s interesting to contemplate why the public sector – most of which requires far more radical transformation than the likes of Zappos – has not explored the #NoManager principle.
Social media has distributed knowledge across countless networks. On Twitter , for example, you can connect and learn from anyone. The unlikeliest people can become leaders, knowledge sharers and super-connectors.
Exactly the same thing will happen in organisations as people seek out people who inspire them rather than who manages them on a structure chart. And just like social media , you will not be able to control it.
The traditional manager , just like the traditional office, has to adapt or die.