Background

In the first post of this series, I recalled feeling ashamed to use the term Manager for my new role, coming from a culture where the predominant motto was "We don't need Managers." At the time, we were a group of highly skilled developers in Extreme Programming (XP) Technical practices. Some of us were part of the Agile pioneers, deeply focused on solving customer problems without sacrificing code quality. The team was our center of gravity. We were focused, talented, and self-organized. The company (XPeppers, one of the leading Agile software development agencies) was small, with no intermediate level between the CEO and us. We were part of the XP community, where this sentiment towards managers was widely shared.

In retrospect, we were partially correct and partially naive.

We were correct because, in our previous experiences, we were exposed to an inefficient, bureaucratic, document-driven management style. All the conversations revolved around estimation, meeting, or missing deadlines that seemed to come from nowhere. On top of that, it always took a lot of work to make them understand the technical complexity present in the project as if we were speaking different languages. We definitely didn't need that kind of management. Except for a few enlightened managers, the vast majority were like that.

At the same time, we were naive because we were primarily focused on the team and the product we were developing; we were ignoring the rest of the complexity present in running an organization or the problems our customers were facing besides the one related to the product in development. In stating, "We don't need managers," we were throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Extreme programming (but Agile in general) started as a rebellion by tech people, especially developers, against the way of working present in the 90s and early 00s. One side effect of this good cause was creating a diffident sentiment towards management.

Management activities exist, no matter what

Another factor reinforced our sentiment at the time. The company was small, and everybody was engaged and willing to be involved in non-code activities; in essence, we were already performing some management activities without even noticing. We were able to redistribute and perform activities based on availability, personal interest, and inclination.

We were autonomous in team allocation, talent development, process improvement, process and organizational design, client management, awareness of financial aspects, etc.

Things started changing as the company grew. The number of interactions increased, the complexity of activities grew, and the time required to perform these tasks rose. The effort and skills needed demanded a form of specialization. That was an exciting path for me; I have always been curious to understand better how systems work, so I became a manager.

Going beyond my personal story, I saw this pattern reemerge while consulting and visiting other companies. Managerial activities are always present and need to be performed; the difference is that on a small scale, they are not explicit. At a larger scale, the processes become explicit, and we need someone who dedicates time, focus, and learning to the various aspects of running a company.

We missed that we need managers, but we need managers with a different approach than the one we were used to.

Some could argue that managers will be unnecessary if the company adopts a flat organizational model. This is not true; the specialization required to be a manager doesn't vanish in a flat organization. What is different is the hierarchical role of managers and (again) the type of manager needed. In the next section, some traits I will outline, like delegating and empowering people, make managers perfectly compatible with a flat organization.

What kind of manager do we need?

Regardless of the organizational model adopted, the complexity and uncertainty of the current era make the traditional management style inefficient. By traditional, I mean a style anchored in command and control, prediction, and the assumption that managers are the experts telling reports what to do and how to do it.

Therefore, a new style of management is needed and is rising. In part one, I introduced the metaphor of a company as an ecosystem. Following this concept, a manager should work on the environment, modeling a space where people and teams can perform at their best.

Leadership

The first step is to adopt a different leadership style. In the book "Lead without Blame," Diana Larsen defines the 4C as Courage, Compassion, Confidence, and Complexity. I want to add trust to the list. Only by building trust (trust is a two-way relationship; you give and receive trust) can responsibility be delegated and people empowered.

Systems Thinking

As previously stated, a Systems Thinking approach must be developed to work on the environment. It's essential to create the awareness that every part of the system company is connected and interrelated, people develop a network of information, and changes applied in part of the system have rippled effects on the rest of the company; nothing works in silos.

Complexity and Uncertainty

Complexity brings uncertainty, and managers today must accept and deal with uncertainty. This is a significant shift in mentality because it contrasts with the concept of predictability and stability so engrained in our culture.

Learning

Learning is another crucial aspect of remaining up to speed in this ever-changing landscape. Many companies adopt learning programs mainly focused on tech roles or, at best, on leadership training for managers. However, leadership is only one of the traits a manager should practice, and learning must not be confined only to training. Learning comes from feedback, experiments, and mistakes and must be encouraged when organizing a company. Managers can adapt and thrive in this ever-changing landscape, and companies prosper only through this learning mentality.

Specialization

Last, every manager has their area of specialization: Finance, organizational design, Marketing, People, etc. I will explore this topic further in part three of this series.

The one of you from a traditional management background could raise an eyebrow reading this. My suggestion is to look at the current market situation, the ripple effect of globalization and the post-pandemic, the incredible change speed of technology, and all the struggles that all of this implies and see if something I said resonates in this scenario.

Happy to discuss it further!