seanmcdirmid parent
I would go one step further and say if you have full of go getters, some might get bored when the inevitable “just execute the assigned tasks” work comes up. This is what I hear happening at Google a lot: they only hire A players, but many get bored (and eventually leave) when they are assigned B or C-level work that needs to get done.
I was visiting a large successful startup that had a "no managers" mantra--they hired engineering A players who were expected to work on the right things.
It turns out that people want to work on the fun and challenging tasks. Nobody put the effort into the billing system and they were doing a poor job of collecting money from their customers.
That's the thing about any organization, there's plenty of grunt work and "boring" tasks to go around, but they need to get done. Scaling up any organization is an exercise in making sure that the right things get done.
I once interviewed at a place that had "no managers' yet kept referring to the "MGMT" team. Made me laugh.
I’ve yet to see a company with no managers work out. Usually it signals lack of bandwidth to set up management, low perceived value, or pessimistically a cost-cutting measure to double up on responsibilities.
Valve.
Rumor has it that the environment is toxic, and that a hierarchy and tribalism formed in the vacuum of leadership and a defined culture.
https://www.reddit.com/r/valve/comments/8zmp07/former_valve_...
Perhaps true... but they are wildly successful as a company (if profits == success). There are a few other examples of flat organizations out there that have been successes, including Github (for a while).
Well, that can still work out if an A player is hired that thinks billing is an interesting problem to work on (Money! Whoo!), and in general, folks that, when given "boring" grunt work, will automate the heck out of it.
This does require attention to diversity of thought and background, but not necessarily the sort that results in B and C players being hired.