How Medium Is Building a Manager-Free Company

Eliminate the management rung to empower teams; grant clear decision rights and direct data access. A ladder-based structure replaces hierarchy with accountable squads that own outcomes. We run an experiment to validate decisions in real time and ignore processes that slow teams down when market signals are changing, prioritizing speed and clarity over permission culture. By codifying rules and the terms of ownership, we align actions with company goals and reduce friction across disciplines.

Across teams, seen patterns show that autonomy improves alignment and speeds decision-making. In practice, nested squads deliver features with end-to-end accountability within times of weeks rather than months. The absence of a top-down command center reduces hand-offs, so engineers, designers, and product managers truly feel ownership. We counter risk with a lightweight prioritization framework and rules for escalation; this yields expected clarity and genuinely faster responses, and teams are ever more capable as needs change across customers and markets.

To keep teams happy, leaders must feel confident in the solution rather than micromanaging. We publish a compact rules set and a public rubric for success that teams own, so they can react quickly when customer feedback arrives. This structure reduces the lack of clarity, sets the expected outcomes, and lets teams iterate without fear. In pilot months, autonomous groups reported a 25% gain in customer impact and a noticeable rise in team genuinely engaged sentiment, showing that autonomy paired with accountability drives durable performance and more successful outcomes.

Practical steps for managers and teams: map decision rights to domains with a short terms document; run a 60-day experiment to remove approvals on routine items; create a nested cadence where each squad reviews outcomes weekly; track a minimal set of metrics–cycle time, throughput, and customer impact–and ignore vanity metrics that don’t reflect user value; adjust rules every quarter based on what teams see oraz feel. By repeating these actions, organizations can shift from top-down oversight to self-organizing teams that deliver reliable results across changing business contexts.

Roadmap to a Manager-Free Organization: Steps, Roles, and Governance

Adopt a three-layer holarchy where small, autonomous squads own projects, lines of work, and decision rights; codify governance through a rotating facilitator and a public cadence to watch progress and adjust quickly.

In practice, implement a fundamental framework that yields advantages in speed and alignment. Three core layers–squads, projects, and governance circles–keep decisions local while ensuring cross-team coherence. Each squad designates a leader who rotates every quarter; a small group of writers captures decisions and outcomes; an employer-wide call surfaces priorities and trade-offs. For teams and stakeholders, a garden mindset helps people understand how pieces fit together. Here are signals to watch and actions to take: look at project throughput, cycle time, and customer-facing metrics; almost always the fastest improvements come from narrowing scope and tightening feedback loops. steve to speak up during calls to surface constraints and priorities, define clear decision rights, and ensure vested interests align with the greatest value for customers.

Highlights for governance design include transparent rituals, published owners, and a cadence that fits your context. The structure should be simple enough to understand in under an hour, yet robust enough to handle cross-project dependencies. Embrace a culture where writers document choices, ears stay open to feedback, and teams can adjust direction without hesitation. This approach emphasizes practical ownership, frequent learning, and continuous improvement rather than formal approvals that stall momentum.

Map Roles and Circles: define roles, domains, and circle ownership

Define roles and circle ownership now by mapping domains and appointing circle leads who are vested in outcomes. Keep the model lean and observable; this reduces firing decisions later and helps teams move with clarity.

This approach is driven by outcomes and kept closely aligned along a clear metrics set; it minimizes huge misalignments and makes decision-making smoother.

Whether you are trying to scale or protect culture, mapping roles helps reduce worried moments and unknown responsibilities.

• Roles: define each circle’s purpose, the core participants, and the primary owner plus a deputy to ensure coverage.
• Domains: list domains such as product, platform, community, and operations; map each domain to a circle and outline cross-domain handoffs.
• Circle ownership: assign an owner per circle with clear decision rights; create a concise sign-off guide to avoid ambiguity when priorities shift.

Implement a cadence to keep this map accurate. Over months, refresh the domains and owners as teams evolve, and capture changes in a shared log. Use a simple journal to track decisions, outcomes, and next steps; this sign helps teams hear and react quickly.

1. Cadence: establish a monthly check-in and a quarterly review for role clarity and circle alignment; record outcomes in the journal; adjust owners as needed.
2. Feedback and signals: gather feedback from founders and teams, hear concerns, and review concise notes; when problems emerge, reallocate responsibilities promptly.
3. Onboarding and alignment: provide a one-page map and a brief circle guide; ensure williams and the york circle stay connected to the core priorities and the garden of contributors. Encourage new members to read the journal and reviews before joining.

This approach reduces friction in firing or role conflicts, keeps lives and teams motivated, and supports momentum across circles. The signal is clear, and the map remains usable even as teams scale.

Rollout Plan: implement a 90-day Holacracy rollout with governance and tactical meetings

Start with two pilot circles–domain 1: product/designers and domain 2: sales–each with a lead link, a circle facilitator, and a rep link. Given growth and distributed work, this creates clear responsibilities and accelerates decision-making without a permanent boss. Set a cadence: governance meetings weekly to update roles and policies, and tactical meetings weekly to drive work in each circle. The goal is a tight loop where tensions are raised, scoped, and resolved within a single cycle.

Before kickoff, conduct interviews with core teams to gather input and expectations. An american team setting should be aware of how decisions ripple across domains; use those insights as input for circle purpose, domains, and role definitions. In these interviews, note examples of friction, such as unclear ownership or duplicated work, so you can craft a proper governance spine that prevents them from recurring. This learning feeds role clarity and reduces rework when the rollout begins.

Phase 0 (Days 0–30): design the structure and train facilitators. Define circles, domains, and roles with explicit accountabilities. Assign a lead link and a rep link for each circle, and create a simple tension-logging process to capture issues in real time. Hold a series of short, focused training meetings to teach the governance and tactical meeting formats, the cadence, and the meeting hygiene. Write a lightweight policy set to cover decision rights, meeting cadences, and tension handling so teams are aware of how to raise a tension and how it moves through governance.

Phase 1 (Days 31–60): run the cadence, tighten the mechanics, and expand participation. In governance meetings, freeze and adjust role scopes, add or retire roles, and refine policies that misalign with actual work. In tactical meetings, practice with real work items, keep a strict focus on next actions, and ensure owners take clear ownership with deadlines. Use a simple scorecard to track attendance, tension resolution, and cycle time from tension raise to resolution. The example of early wins should include a 48-hour response to a raised tension and a documented policy change within one cycle.

Phase 2 (Days 61–90): scale with discipline and guardrails. Add one more circle or expand an existing domain, keeping governance lean and focused on outcomes, not artifacts. As you scale, formalize a tiny design review ritual in the tacit cadence to prevent backlog growth. Measure impact with concrete metrics: reduction in handoffs, faster decision delivery, and a noticeable lift in team alignment on priorities and goals. If a tension surfaces in sales or product that slows revenue, escalate through the proper channels and resolve within the same cycle to reap efficiency gains that show up in forecast accuracy and customer responsiveness. The process should feel innovative yet practical, with real data to guide the next steps and clear signals for teams to continue learning and improving.

Hiring for Holacracy: role-based recruiting, transparent criteria, and candidate fit

Publish explicit, clear Holacracy role cards and recruit against them. For each role, define the purpose, the expected outcomes, and the decision rights it carries, so the audience including hiring managers, team leads, and candidates can assess fit. This model not only helps but shows that taking a role-based lens can scale; not impossible to implement broadly, basecamp transparency helps.

Set transparent criteria beyond technical skills: include measurable indicators tied to governance participation, peer accountability, and initiative. Use a clear rubric with explicit benchmarks; exclude vague impressions, except for legally required checks.

During interviews, ask scenario questions that reveal the candidate’s ability to operate without a traditional supervisor, take ownership, and adapt as roles evolve. Speak with the candidate about whose values align with autonomy and collaboration; I myself look for signals of practical autonomy and an employee who can contribute across teams. The candidate should be able to deliver measurable impact in real projects and handle many things at once.

Design a repeatable interview loop, keeping it tight: role-based exercises, short discussions, and a transparent timeline; share the decision with candidates and log feedback in a shared system.

Take cues from basecamp: publish criteria, invite candor, and keep the pool tight with a clear handoff process.

Many teams worry about misfit; there is risk, but back decisions with data: first-year retention by role, onboarding time, and observed collaboration in cross-functional squads; obviously, this approach protects current employee morale.

Managerial responsibility stays with the organization but is distributed; ensure the decision is documented with a rationale aligned to explicit criteria; this clarity helps candidates decide.

Reap benefits: stronger onboarding, faster alignment, and healthier team dynamics after onboarding.

Keep improving: gather feedback from hires and teams, refine role cards, and tune the criteria so the basecamp approach scales across audience segments.

Onboarding in a Holacracy: training, shadow roles, and early circle participation

Implement a 14-day onboarding plan that pairs each newcomer with two shadow roles inside a pilot circle and a guided governance quickstart. This setup allows someone to practice decision-making in a safe environment, giving early feedback on how authority realigns as tensions arise.

Study and terms: Build a concise study track with formal sessions, paired tasks, and a glossary of terms that anchors holacracy language. Capture core words in a shared file so you yourself can study them and verify understanding against quick quizzes.

Shadow roles rotate every round, and after each shift the newcomer writes a short reflection to think about what worked and what didn’t. This rotation helps you decide how you would handle tensions and where you seem to disagree with prior assumptions.

Early circle participation invites the newcomer to join a governance circle as an observer, then contribute on a controlled basis. This broader exposure helps an insider share context, equalize voice across roles, and keep terms moving toward concrete progress.

Assessment occurs through a small set of assessors. williams oraz wozniak-inspired examples show how creation and clear role expectations push progress toward outcomes. Use an apples-to-apples checklist to compare setups across circles and ensure favor of transparent learning.

Tools and cadence include a digital board for governance decisions, shadow role logs, and a lightweight daily check-in. This digital routine keeps everyone informed and makes progress easy to share, whether inside the company or on a public channel like twitter.

By the end of the program, the newcomer should be able to decide on a set of roles and participate in a full round of governance, while assessors provide objective feedback to accelerate change and alignment. The process tends to favor clear, documented decisions and reduce friction for future onboarding.

Culture note: document a short glossary for future hires with words and examples; list terms like roles, circles, tensions, governance, and policies. This practice makes creation of new onboarding flows faster and helps yourself think in terms of shared outcomes. Also, track feedback from insider and external mentors such as williams lub wozniak to keep improving the cycle. Include apples for apples-to-apples comparison.

Organizing around Biology: team topology, decision flows, and adaptive scaling

Start by mapping the product value stream into bounded pods of 6–12 people and give each pod a decision owner. Use lightweight decision cards to capture what is decided, who is responsible, and by when. This keeps work running, reduces handoffs, and makes change visible. In addition, align pod goals with customer outcomes so insiders and colleagues share a common purpose. The approach is taught by famous teams and scales without adding layers of management. Going forward, establish a regular cadence for cross-pod synchronization to preserve autonomy while maintaining cohesion.

Topology mirrors biology: core pods hold the primary capability, satellites extend to adjacent domains, and connectors coordinate cross-pod work. Each pod owns a value-stream slice; connectors sustain lightweight feedback loops to users. A simple figure maps pods to product areas, helping teams see dependencies without flooding reviews. This structure reduces coupling and speeds integration.

Decision flows keep authority close to impact. Document decisions in cards: what is decided, who will do it, by when, and why. Assign a clear decision owner for scope, releases, and customer segments. Connect teams through short, asynchronous updates to avoid clogging the calendar; ignore stale rituals that slow progress. Don’t let meetings drag on over decisions. If a decision stalls, theyyll trigger a predefined escalation path rather than bloating governance. andy notes that insiders benefit when decisions stay visible and traceable; the thought of centralized control quickly erodes trust. Avoid stupid handoffs.

Adaptive scaling rests on measurable signals. Use an application to surface pod health: cycle time, decision lead time, backlog size, and cross-pod dependency counts. If a pod reaches a threshold, spin up a new pod tied to the same value stream, preserving vested responsibility and avoiding overload. The literature argues that this modular growth reduces risk. Colleagues and managers connect to the data instead of relying on gut feel, and the difference shows in faster delivery, clearer ownership, and fewer rework cycles. This approach keeps the system flexible while maintaining momentum over growth.

Implementation steps you can take this quarter: map current value streams into 3–5 pods per product area; appoint decision owners and draft the first set of cards; deploy the internal application for observation; run a 2-week review to adjust topology and decision rights; iterate and publish simple dashboards for colleagues to inspect.

Monitoring Governance Health: tensions log, metrics, and continuous improvement

Set up a tensions log for governance health and track tensions as they emerge. Capture who, what, why, when, and impact, linking each item to data from operations, incidents, audits, and surveys. If you are trying to stay ahead, keep the log real-time since feedback loops drive faster actions, and make it visible to insiders, sponsors, and key stakeholders such as andy and stirman. Focus on known issues and near-misses to prevent surprises.

Create a compact metrics framework that teams own. Core indicators include tensions closed rate, average time to close, time to detect, policy adherence score, escalation count, data quality, and cross-team alignment. Pull data from operations dashboards, change logs, audits, and surveys from insiders. In the latest quarter, we logged 12 tensions, 8 closed, 2 reopened, data quality 92%, sponsor feedback improved by 15%. Most numbers reflect known risks; produce a broader view by comparing by team and sponsor group.

Set a cadence: weekly tensions reviews, monthly metrics deep-dives, and quarterly governance audits. Require owners to sign off on actions, attach due dates, and state expected impact. Use a shared dashboard so sponsors and insiders can track progress and hold teams accountable.

Close the loop: after each review, translate insights into concrete actions, update the tensions log, and re-check data to confirm progress. Keep action owners accountable, reallocate resources when needed, and maintain momentum for the next cycle. If progress stalls, escalate to sponsors and senior leadership.

Nurture a culture that values transparency and learning. Distinguish friction from misalignment, label issues clearly, and publish praise for teams that move quickly. When a messy data point appears, present glass-clear visuals to illustrate risk and set expectations for the next cycle.

Done right, a tensions governance loop produces learning that grows capability across broader parts of the organization. The most effective teams keep data fresh, stay motivated, and avoid trying to hide issues. Known patterns emerge when insiders and sponsors collaborate with andy and stirman on particular improvements.