[j_baker]

As much as I like the idea of not having middle managers, I think it's impossible at a certain point. I mean, Google would love nothing better than to do away with middle managers altogether, and they have them. I think the best counter-point comes from Joel Spolsky: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20080901/how-hard-could-it-be-ho...

[shadowsun7]

Thank you for sharing that article, Jason. :) Paraphrasing Joel Spolsky in response to DHH:

A final thought: You have to be careful when it comes to embracing the latest business idea. A single anecdote filtered through the eyes of a founder about a new cool philosophy for running a company has to be considered in the light of other evidence, such as the way thousands of other companies are set up and operate.

I sometimes wonder why DHH and Spolsky are so different. DHH speaks as if what he says is law, will work for everyone, Spolsky seems to constantly pad his advice with warnings about context.

[RickHull]

In this case, DHH seems to have provided the appropriate hedge:

> You might be thinking, "This is crazy -- it would never work at my company." And you may be right. But I think there’s a greater chance that it would work. If you’re apprehensive, try experimenting with one team or division.

[jessedhillon]

I wouldn't consider that a hedge, I would consider it lip-service to the idea of "I might be wrong here." It seems almost completely disconnected from reality.

What do you think would happen at Acme Inc., a company with more than 1000 employees, if one division suddenly demoted/relieved the manager, gave each teammate a gratuitous sick/vacation policy, and rotated frontline employees through the management roles?

I work at a company of over 300 employees, where we implement many of these kinds of ideas: we don't count sick or vacation days, our management hierarchy is extremely flat, and we have no policy about what time people come in to work. Despite that, I think this method of management-via-non-management is not something that every company can try on. It has to be built into the culture from day one. DHH is really only describing the trappings of a fun company culture, not the core of it.

You can't take the outward symbols of that culture and pin them on a company which doesn't approach employee trust and management in the same way.

[j_baker]

What's ironic is that you're doing the same thing. You pay lip service (using phrases like "I wouldn't consider" and "It seems") to the fact that you might be wrong about DHH paying lip service to the fact that he might be wrong. And then when you actually change over to the main topic, you do the same thing. The majority of this comment explains how DHH is undeniably and completely missing the point.

If you want to criticize DHH, be my guest. I might agree with what you're saying. Just don't criticize him and then turn around and do the exact same thing as you accuse him of doing.

[jessedhillon]

Not really. The implied point is that DHH has an obligation to explain not only why a company should consider his radical changes. But also, because of the magnitude of the changes he proposes, he has an obligation to explain seriously why a company shouldn't. Otherwise, it's just cheerleading.

I was calling out that he failed to do the latter, and my obligation is to explain why a company might not want to, or be able to, implement those changes.

The fact is that I'm not wrong about him glancing over an important part of his proposal. If you write an article advocating companies undergo radical shifts in their organizational structures, then as someone who is regarded as an informed commenter, you have an obligation to tell people the pitfalls of such a large change. Again, when you don't do that, it's called cheerleading.

He didn't include any discussion of the downsides, or the upsides of hierarchical organization, so I'm not wrong. I should have used a more tactful phrase than "lip-service," however: it's more loaded -- perhaps even derogatory -- than I intended.

[j_baker]

I wasn't trying to say that you were being disrespectful. I was just saying that the way I interpreted it was logically inconsistent. It came off that you were saying "DHH isn't admitting that there might be a downside to his plan. He needs to provide a balanced argument. Oh, and by the way he's completely wrong about everything too."

Whereas after reading this post (and rereading the last one), it sounds like you might have meant to say "DHH isn't admitting that there might be a downside to his plan. He needs to provide a balanced argument. For example, here's one potential hole that I see" which is a reasonable thing to say. Remember, we humans are dumb animals who are prone to completely misinterpreting your argument. Sometimes you have to beat a dead horse to make your point. :-)

[RickHull]

> You can't take the outward symbols of that culture and pin them on a company which doesn't approach employee trust and management in the same way.

My first reaction is that you are very much correct. In fact, it's clear that the article's advice applies moreso to smaller companies than larger. I don't think that anyone would question that it doesn't scale.

> What do you think would happen at Acme Inc., a company with more than 1000 employees, if one division suddenly demoted/relieved the manager, gave each teammate a gratuitous sick/vacation policy, and rotated frontline employees through the management roles?

Divisional consistency is a concern for a large company. However, it is simultaneously possible to maintain a "skunkworks". It comes down to (unsurprisingly) the overall culture / mandate.