Chapter 1: Rethinking Management Structures

The notion of operating without managers poses a compelling question. Is it feasible to manage a large organization without traditional managerial roles?

Having spent over two decades in the technology sector, along with experience in Finance, Healthcare, Hospitality, and Retail, I’ve encountered managers in every industry.

Some may assume I am advocating for Holocracy—a decentralized management approach where authority is distributed among self-organizing teams rather than resting in a hierarchy established by management, initially introduced by Brian Robertson in his book, “Holocracy: New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World.” However, that’s not my aim.

Instead, I propose a framework called Renew, which aims to dismantle conventional command-and-control structures prevalent in most organizations.

Renew advocates for multi-functional teams, ideally comprising no more than nine members, to oversee all decisions related to the intake and outtake processes of a product. These teams would autonomously determine which new features to develop and what to deploy, eliminating the traditional role of a singular manager who often holds the final say and the authority to dismiss dissenting voices.

In this model, all decision-making authority lies within the team itself.

As I contemplate the dynamics of these self-managing teams, several questions arise. How would they address conflicts that require objective resolution? Who would evaluate their communication effectiveness both within the team and across the organization? What happens if the existing culture is rooted in a command-and-control hierarchy? What role would managers play in this scenario? Would we really dismiss all managers and let their valuable institutional knowledge exit the organization?

Certainly not.

Organizations wishing to transition from a command-and-control culture to one characterized by flexible, rapid decision-making have three options for their current managers. The first option is for the team manager to transition into a Product Owner or Product Manager role, depending on the organization’s size, which is more oriented towards business than technology.

The second option allows the manager to shift into a People Operations role (which I prefer to call “People Operations”), focusing on team coaching, conflict resolution, development, and embodying the organization’s culture, without direct responsibility for product outcomes.

Lastly, if a manager wishes to retain a technical focus, they could be integrated back into the team as a member or transition to an Architecture role, focusing on enabling and supporting multiple product teams.

This revamped structure empowers teams to make key product decisions, rather than leaving such responsibilities solely in the hands of executives who are often disconnected from the operational realities.

While the People Operations role may still resemble a hierarchical structure, the product aspect functions more like a network, akin to what is described in “Team Topologies” by Matthew Skelton and Manuel Pais. In this networked model, product teams can efficiently align with the tasks at hand, while People Operations maintains a stabilizing traditional corporate hierarchy to support the organization.

This dual-structured organization allows for swift decision-making while providing the necessary framework to stabilize and support the distributed nature of the product teams.

So long, traditional management!

The first video titled "What if there is no management commitment from my leaders?" explores the implications of lacking managerial commitment in organizations, discussing potential outcomes and strategies to foster autonomy and self-management within teams.

The second video, "5 secrets your manager doesn't want you to know!", reveals insights into common managerial practices and offers guidance on navigating workplace dynamics for greater team autonomy and effectiveness.