Episode 21 – Management as a service?
/
RSS Feed
Traditional management is similar to traditional software installation. All activities badged as “management” are accessed through the “official channel” – an individual’s single manager. The assumption is that one manager can supply all functions for an extensive team. This is rooted in Scientific Management ideas that a manager is more experienced, competent and skilled in all areas than their workers.
However, Agile development looks to use the team’s skills and knowledge. We believe in lowest viable level decision making. Individuals and teams should be empowered to make their own decisions. This will improve speed, agility and responsiveness for the organization. The key word here is “viable”. The teams and individuals will not be able to do everything unaided. So we should look at what support they will need in order to succeed.
This podcast is AI-generated based on material from the “Agile Plays” website and book .
Transcript
Alright. Let's get into it today. We're, tackling organizational structures, you know, alternatives to that traditional hierarchy. Yeah. You know, you've been thinking about new ways to organize work.
Yeah. And, this playbook on scaling agile organizations, it has some pretty eye opening stuff. Yeah. It really does. Really makes you wonder if that old command and control model Right.
Still even works in today's, you know Yeah. Fast paced knowledge driven world. It's a great question, and the playbook actually jumps right into that Okay. By dissecting scientific management. You know?
It it emerged from the industrial revolution, you know, where everything was about efficiency Right. And repeatability. You know, think assembly lines, you know, optimizing physical tasks Yeah. Breaking them down and dictating the one best way Okay. Is all about control and predictability.
Makes sense for factories back then, but how does that even translate to the work we do today? You know? That's exactly the point Yeah. That the playbook makes, you know, for knowledge work. It's just a mismatch.
Things are so much more complex. They're constantly changing. Right. It requires adaptability and creativity. Yeah.
Trying to force knowledge work into that rigid process driven framework, it actually just stifles innovation and slows things down. So it's like trying to use a hammer to fix a computer. Perfect analogy. Yeah. The playbook actually quotes Laszlo Bok, former SVP of people operations at Google Who?
On this. And he said, the manager's job isn't to tell people what to do. It's to provide the context and support they need and to remove roadblocks and inspire her team. Wow. That's a huge mindset shift.
It is. You know, goes from manager as boss to almost management as a service. Exactly. Instead of control, it's about enabling the team to do their best work. Right.
The playbook spends a lot of time on this idea. I like that. And if we're thinking about, you know, what that service actually is, you know, Mintzberg's theories on management functions are a great place to start. Oh, that's The playbook breaks down that traditional management role into 10 functions. Yeah.
You know, figurehead leader, liaison monitor, disseminator, spokesperson, entrepreneur disturbance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator. Yes. And what's fascinating here Yeah. Is that it highlights the sheer diversity of what's needed for effective management. Right.
You know, it makes you realize that expecting a single manager to be responsible for everything Right. Might be setting them and the team up for failure Yeah. Instead of asking, you know, who does someone report to? Right. Maybe we should be asking what services do teams and individuals need to thrive?
Okay. I like that it's like building a toolbox specifically for what the team needs to succeed. Exactly. And this ties into another issue that the playbook raises. Okay.
The problem of escalation. Right. Now in a traditional hierarchy Yeah. Every decision seems to have to climb the ladder. And with every step up, it slows things down.
Correct. Crucial details get lost. Right. And the people closest to the work, they lose their voice. You know, imagine you have a team working on a new feature instead of making the call and moving forward.
Mhmm. They're stuck in a chain of approvals, meetings, and potentially conflicting priorities from different management levels. By the time the decision reaches the top, it's like a bad game of telephone. Right? Exactly.
The original message is completely distorted. It is. No wonder things move so slow. Exactly. And that loss of detail can be costly.
It leads to poor decisions and missed opportunities. Wow. That's where the concept of lowest viable level decision making comes in. You know? Yeah.
Pushing decision making down to those closest to the work. So trusting the team to use their expertise and make the call. Precisely. Okay. It's about empowering them and creating an environment where they can experiment, learn, and adapt quickly and remember.
Yeah. This is an anarchy. Right. It's about shifting from control to enablement. Okay.
But if we're not relying on that traditional manager as boss Right. How do we make sure teams have access to all those services that we talked about? Yeah. You know those Mintsberg functions? Mhmm.
It doesn't seem realistic for any single person to be able to wear all those hats effectively. That's the $1,000,000 question. Right. And it's where things get really interesting. The playbook suggests that instead of trying to cram everything into one person, we think about building more flexible structures that can scale along side the organization.
So moving away from that single point of failure and kinda spreading the load, so to speak. Exactly. It's about creating a more robust system where teams can access the expertise and support they need when they need it. Are there any real world examples of companies that are actually pulling this off? There are.
Okay. One example the playbook highlights is Hair. Okay. It's a Chinese company that's made this radical shift away from traditional hierarchy. Okay.
They've moved to a system of self managing, microenterprises. Microenterprise. That sounds intense. It is. They've essentially broken their massive organization into thousands of smaller independent units, each with its own profit and loss responsibility.
Wow. So it's like they've created this network of mini companies all operating under the hair umbrella. Precisely. And each of these micro enterprises has a high degree of autonomy. Okay.
They're closer to their customers, and they can adapt much faster to changes in the market. That's really interesting. It seems counterintuitive though. Wouldn't that much autonomy lead to chaos? You'd think so, but the results have been incredibly positive.
Oh, wow. They've seen major improvements in efficiency, innovation, and customer satisfaction. It's a powerful example of what happens when you push decision making down to the lowest viable level Right. And really empower people. Okay.
So hair is a pretty extreme example. Are there companies that are taking a less radical approach? Absolutely. Something that might feel a little bit more attainable. The playbook also discusses Spotify.
Okay. While they haven't gone as far as hair, they've still made some interesting moves toward flexibility and self management. Have you heard of the Spotify model? I have, but I always got the impression it was more hype than substance. That's understandable.
Spotify themselves are very clear that it's not meant to be a rigid framework or a blueprint. It's just a snapshot of how they were working at a particular point in time. So what can we learn from it even if we can't just copy paste their model? Well, one key aspect is their focus on autonomous cross functional teams called squads. Okay.
These squads have end to end responsibility for a specific product or feature, and they have a lot of freedom in deciding how to get the work done. Sounds a lot like those self managing teams we were talking about earlier. Exactly. And they've also created these chapters guilds, ways to connect people across different squads who share similar skills or interests. So it's like creating communities of practice where people can learn from each other and share knowledge almost like an internal mentorship network.
You got it. It's some another way to provide those management as a service functions without relying solely on traditional managers. They've also adopted a very transparent and open communication style, which is essential when you're moving towards self management. It all sounds great in theory, but how do you measure success in a system like this? If it's not about hitting deadlines or following a strict plan Mhmm.
How do you know if it's actually working? That's where we have to shift our thinking about metrics. It's less about velocity or hitting project milestones and more about aligning with the outcomes of self management. What kind of outcomes are we talking about? Think about things like team autonomy, employee engagement, customer satisfaction, and, of course, the actual value being delivered to the market.
You know, are teams making good decisions? Are they motivated? Are customers happy? Are we delivering the right things? So it's a more holistic view taking into account both the well-being of the team and the impact on the business.
Exactly. And that requires a shift in mindset from everyone, not just managers. It's about trusting teams to self organize, empowering them to make decisions, and creating an environment where they can experiment, learn, and adapt quickly. It definitely challenges a lot of assumptions about how work should get done. Yeah.
But are there downsides to all this? I mean, too much freedom could lead to inconsistency. Right? How do you keep everyone on the same page? You're hitting on a crucial point.
It's not a silver bullet, and there are certainly challenges that come with these alternative structures. One big one is that it requires a high level of trust and transparency. If you're giving teams that much autonomy, you have to trust them to make the right calls. Absolutely. And for organizations used to a more control oriented culture that can be a big leap of faith.
You also need clear communication and alignment around goals. Otherwise, you could have teams going off in different directions, which would be incredibly inefficient. Exactly. Everyone needs to be on the same page working towards a shared vision, Maintaining consistency and coordination across a decentralized organization is another hurdle. So how do you address that?
Are there ways to provide structure without going back to the rigid hierarchies we're trying to move away from? That's the key, you know, finding that balance between autonomy and alignment. Right. And there are definitely ways to do that. You know, think about establishing clear guidelines, processes, and communication channels to keep everyone connected.
You know, for example, having a well defined decision making framework or a shared set of principles can help teams make consistent and aligned choices even when they have a lot of freedom. So it's like providing the guardrails without dictating the exact route they have to take? Exactly. It's about setting boundaries without stifling creativity and initiative, and it requires a shift in leadership style too. Okay.
Leaders in this kind of organization need to be more like coaches and facilitators rather than command and control bosses. It's about empowering people, not just telling them what to do. Absolutely. It's about providing guidance and support, removing obstacles, and creating an environment where teams can truly thrive. Right.
It's about trusting them to figure things out even if it means making mistakes along the way. It sounds like a lot of letting go for leaders who are used to being in control. It can be, but it's also incredibly liberating when you empower your teams. Yeah. You free yourself up to focus on higher level tasks like strategy vision and creating the conditions for success.
So what are some practical steps listeners can take to start moving towards this model? Well, it starts with small but meaningful changes. You can begin by giving your team more autonomy in their day to day work. Okay. Let them make more decisions, encourage them to experiment, and create a safe space for them to learn from their mistakes.
It's about building that trust we talked about earlier. Exactly. And you can also start shifting the focus from outputs to outcomes. Okay. Be clear about the goals you want to achieve and give teams the freedom to figure out the best way to get there.
And how do we make sure that teams have access to those management as a service functions they need without relying on a single overburdened manager? That's where you start getting creative. Think about building those services into the fabric of your organization. Oh, wow. Maybe you create a rotating management support role where team members take turns handling certain functions, or you could establish communities of practice where people with specific expertise can share their knowledge and provide support to others.
So it's about distributing those responsibilities and creating a more collaborative and supportive environment. Exactly. It's about moving away from the traditional hierarchy and building a system where everyone can contribute their best work and where the organization can adapt and thrive in the face of constant change. It's about changing the mindset from me to we. You got it.
And remember, this is a journey, not a destination. Right. There will be bumps along the way, and you'll need to be constantly learning and adapting, but the rewards are worth it when you create a culture of trust, empowerment, and continuous improvement. You unlock a whole new level of creativity, innovation, and effectiveness within your organization. This deep dive has been eye opening.
Right. I'm already thinking about how I can apply some of these ideas in my own work. That's great. It's definitely challenging my assumptions about how organization should be structured and how work should get done. And that's what it's all about, challenging the status quo, experimenting with new approaches, and finding what works best for you and your team.
So to wrap things up, what's the one key takeaway you want listeners to walk away with? Don't be afraid to experiment. Start small. Build trust. Focus on outcomes.
And remember that the goal isn't to eliminate management altogether. It's about redefining it, making it a service that empowers teams to do their best work and helps organizations thrive in today's complex world. This deep dive is just the beginning. Keep exploring, keep learning, and keep pushing the boundaries of what's possible. Thanks for joining us.
We'll be back soon with more deep dives into the world of work and organizations.
Leave a Reply