Poking through 12+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

I was looking for a particular post that tied to one I’m writing for tomorrow, but couldn’t find it. However, I did find three I think worth sharing, because they also apply, albeit indirectly I hope you enjoy them..

Read other Golden Oldies here.

A look at education, especially MBAs.

From a Harvard-educated CEO.

Excellent  article. Very true. It took me years to unlearn what I’d been taught at business school…

From a post about why companies need managers and how to build them.

Good managers aren’t born; they are developed through a learned set of skills combined with the right attitude and culture.

The importance of accurate org charts.

Historically, companies’ reluctance to publish simple, accurate, current org charts has been anchored in a fear that “they”—whether headhunters or competitors—would steal their best and brightest. But when corporate (or managerial) paranoia leads to withholding information making the job more difficult, there’s no need to worry about people being recruited because they’ll be out actively looking!

Image credit: Ron Kroetz

Jim Heskett is a very smart guy. At the beginning of each month he asks a question of his readers, then publishes a summation of the general ideas expressed the comments at the end of it.

The topics are always timely, of great interest and the conversation lively.

This month he asked about something that is on many founders’ minds thanks to Tony Hsieh actions at Zappos.

The question was, Is the Time Right for Self-Management.

Here is the summary. I believe you will find it of great value to read all the comments if you are considering adopting/adapting it for your company or just intrigued by the idea.

When and Where Will Holacracy Work Best?

Holacracy, or self-management, is an interesting concept and not entirely new. It can work, but only under the right conditions. And its applications will be limited. That’s what one might conclude from reading responses to this month’s column.

The more thoughtful of them provide a primer on applying the concept. Deborah Nixon’s comment echoed several others when she said the idea has been around a long time in other forms, by other names. “The larger an organization becomes, the tougher one model is to implement. The time has always been ripe for self-management and there are always people who will poke up their heads and insist on managing themselves. But it isn’t a quick fix.” Others cited its long-time application in the London taxi system (Andrew Campbell), the hospital ER (M Iqbal Gentur B), and even Aboriginal societies in ancient Australia (Kai Akerberg).

Stephens Jr., who loves the idea, said, it does not come without extensive time, cost, and involvement in employee development. “I not only say yes (to the question of whether the time is right for self-management), but ‘it’s about time.'” Dyan Porter added, “Holacracy strikes me as a positive way to manage professionals, especially in flat organizations where job advancement is limited.” Brooks Tanner commented, “Regardless of its level of success at Zappos, this form of organization is the way of the future. The rapidly increasing complexity and unpredictability of our world is such that only a highly distributed decision-making structure will be able to adapt and respond effectively, she continued. “Most of us don’t think a centralized planning type economy makes sense. Why should it make the most sense for organizations?”

Others saw limited potential in the concept. As Edward Hare put it, “There are some people capable of managing themselves in a larger organization … but many who can’t… This strikes me as another of those ‘ideas’ promoted by consultants and academics. ” Frank Fabela added, “Holacracy in its form of each individual taking responsibility for their own self-management is absolutely necessary, however it is the responsibility of ‘managers ‘ to ensure effectiveness of the organization through coordination of those objectives. Pure holacracy … absent management is destined to fail.” Krishnan Mak was more succinct when he said: “Culture will eat Holacracy for breakfast.”

Many comments addressed conditions under which Holacracy might work best. “It might not be for everybody,” wrote Maria Rosa Serra, “but if you hire employees aligned with your values and pay them fairly, it seems an interesting proposal for both the company and the individual.” Juan Manuel Salas Guevara commented that the challenge in Holacracy “is a strong communication process from the top level of the organization that enables each member to understand the company’s vision.” Charlie Efford added that “The key to self-management becoming embedded is changing the mindset of the management team. Most corporations haven’t made this shift.” Denis Collet suggested “it’s all about clear goals and deliverables, and the metrics for success. Absent of these it’s bound to fail.”

Personally, I agree with Krishnan Mak when he said, “Culture will eat Holacracy for breakfast.”

Image credit: HBSWK

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

Many founders are considering following in Medium’s footsteps and eliminating all management from their company.

As one of the fiercest and most faithful adopters of Holacracy – a radical new theory of corporate structure — Medium is experimenting with a completely management-free environment that’s laser focused on getting things done.

Before you join the rush, you may want to consider Google, which tried the same thing before scrapping the idea.

That experiment lasted only a few months: They relented when too many people went directly to Page with questions about expense reports, interpersonal conflicts, and other nitty-gritty issues. And as the company grew, the founders soon realized that managers contributed in many other, important ways—for instance, by communicating strategy, helping employees prioritize projects, facilitating collaboration, supporting career development, and ensuring that processes and systems aligned with company goals.

Google is still pretty flat, considering it has 37,000 employees—5,000 managers, 1,000 directors, and 100 vice presidents.

Google started by doing what it does best—using analytics to prove to its engineers that managers have value.

Another is that managers often have 30 direct reports; a simple way to avoid micromanaging and encourage a focus on creating the best conditions in which to produce.

The effort starts at the recruiting stage; top grades and schools are not the guarantee they once were.

There is a major emphasis on cultural fit and a true understanding that it is the power of the individual, as opposed to a job title, that lifts the organization.

And, according to Eric Clayberg, a software-engineering manager, one big difference is that Google works at building managers’ skills; it doesn’t just promote and tell them to get on with it.

That is something that many companies, from startup to Fortune 50, still haven’t learned.

Good managers aren’t born; they are developed through a learned set of skills combined with the right attitude and culture.

Image credit: HikingArtist

Image credit: asifthebes

Be sure to read yesterday’s post for background on ‘fair’.

When setting compensation, never forget that credentials are well known, promotions are public and salary news travels faster than naughty gossip, so secret is not an option.

Problems start when a person doing the same work and with a similar background as the person in the next cube gets X more dollars or a promotion for reasons that have nothing to do with skill, experience, attitude or actual work, but rather for charm, politics, or managerial whim.

This approach also works for companies with flat organizations, such as the one Phil Gerbyshak described over at Slacker Manager, where most people have the same title.

For convenience we’ll call them knowledge workers.

1. Department heads are responsible for establishing title categories, including the parameters for education, experience, skills, etc. The fineness is dependent on the size of your organization and the difference experience-wise between entry level and senior. For example,

• Knowledge worker I
• Knowledge worker ll
• Knowledge workers lll
• Senior knowledge worker
• Principle
• Fellow

2. Each category carries its own salary range, ideally a spread around $20K. Again, depending on your business it can be less, but rarely more.

3. Each category has different responsibilities with the actual work structured so your people enjoy solid challenges and opportunities to grow.

4. Working together, department heads and their managerial reports (if any) assign all current employees to the correct level.

5. The department head then meets with the entire department and explains the new system.

6. The department head and any other managers involved meet with their direct reports to explain to what category they’ve been assigned and why.

Here’s an example to help you visualize it.

Let’s say that you decide on a three-level structure in your department because the senior title is given only rarely.

You currently have two people who are Analyst l, range $40K-$60K,

• Craig, who just graduated was hired at $48K; and
• Julie at $55K, who has three years, two of them with you.

You have five people who are Analyst II, range $60K-$80K,

• Trudy was recently promoted and is at $62K;
• Jason, $68K, and Craig, $72K, both have been working for six years. Although Jim has an MBA, he started in sales, while Craig had three years’ experience in a specifically needed skill when he was hired;
• Terry is making mid-seventies with five years of direct experience; and
• Kim, at $80K and due for promotion to Analyst lll, has a Masters’ and 17 years of experience, 5 of them in directly in your field.

Along with keeping the structure transparent and honest, it’s imperative to be sure that every new hire clearly understands the structure and the career path it offers.

What compensation techniques do you use?