Why are bad management experiences the norm? There's a good reason for the desire for flat structures. My question is whether they can be made to work; I think they can.
Bad management is the norm, especially in Silicon Valley/Startups because:
1) No training for managers.
2) No measurement of managers against what actually makes a good manager (ie- only rewarded for results, ignoring if your team hates you and is quitting left and right).
3) First time Founders may not have had great role models or training themselves so they won't set a great example either.
4) First time managers are common because you were an early employee or around longer, so I guess you should manage.
5) Misaligned incentives: the only way to get a raise is to go into management
6) Being a manager isn't for everyone, but few companies make it safe to go back after
7) Turnover is tolerated more in the Valley than other places which can hide management problems others companies could never afford (it costs about 2/3rds of a salary to replace someone).
Re: Being able to be flat sounds great, but at scale creates a lot of challenges when you need decisions made and you don't all fit in a conference room anymore. Having someone who can make a final call (and ideally does take input from everyone involved) is more efficient than having 50+ people all moving in independent directions.
I'd add to this, someone is more likely to be promoted if they are great at managing up, than managing down. Ideally you would have someone that does both well, or is stronger on managing down. I'm sure we're all seen that weaker results/contribution employee that seems to fail upwards.
I wonder if companies have tried doing promotions via a 360 selection rather than managers putting in their choice. It would be interesting to see people from lower ranks push for promotion and how this effects dynamics/results if weighted in the decision? Might work or just be a popularity contest.... I guess like everything it would be more about execution than idea.
Great added point, Gustomaximus. If you don't create a good feedback loop in your company, then people at the top making the final call for a promotion are going to go on the only info they have: their personal experience.
Deloitte got rid of performance reviews recently and one of the things they replaced it with was asking managers who they thought was ready for promotion and why. They also asked if you had to start a team over again, would you want this person on your team. I think all of those questions cut through the BS and are exactly the kinds of 360 questions you're suggesting.
Imagine a manager is up for a director role and each person they manage is anonymously asked "Would you work for them again if they were building a new team?" It could be a great way to understand how much people really like working for them.
Google actually does this with their questions every manager's teams are asked it affects compensation and promotions for managers:
1) My manager gives me actionable feedback that helps me improve my performance
2) My manager does not “micromanage” (i.e., get involved in details that should be handled at other levels).
3) My manager shows consideration for me as a person.
4) My manager regularly shares relevant information from his/her manager and senior leadership.
5) My manager has had a meaningful discussion with me about my career development in the past six months.
6) I would recommend my manager to other Googlers.
