345:: Hierarchies of people (which frequently duplicate efforts) are replaced with conceptual hierarchies, but extra-hierarchical collaboration (the norm, in an open-allocation company) allows cross-domain knowledge to be formed and deployed. An employee who wants to start a new project that may add value to the business can do so immediately, but those that require investment of others' resources and time require convincing them that the idea is valuable. In essence, workers are trusted with their own time, but disallowed from attempting to control others' time.
63:
389:
with incompatible managers, and therefore tends to reduce turnover (voluntary and involuntary) dramatically, it doesn't provide a mechanism for getting rid of severe under- or non-performers who "hide" in the organization. This has not been an issue to this point, if only because the companies using open allocation have been highly selective ones that can hire people with strong track records. Furthermore, the increase in performance among high performers under open allocation is typically
208:
leadership arrangements existing permanently in a company, such relationships form as they are needed (around important projects) and disband when they are no longer necessary. Additionally, open allocation implies that projects are not unilaterally created and staffed by executive mandate. Rather, the person forming the project (who might not be an official manager) is responsible for convincing others to invest their time, energy, and careers into the effort.
238:, in which - in theory - employees have freedom over one-fifth of their working time, which may be put into a personal project or a high-priority internal effort outside of management's direction. However, the other 80% of the time employees would be still working under closed allocation, and also may not in practice be able to use their 20% time all of the time, for example due to deadline pressures.
125:
22:
290:
temporary distinctions and largely by choice; one may choose to follow in order to learn more about a different part of the business, for example. Ideally, the leader for each project will be the most committed, capable or passionate person involved, and companywide rank (which may not exist at all) has little to no bearing on the selection.
357:: One theory on the causes of corporate efficiency is that much unused or low-quality work is the "promotion-oriented" kind, directed by a manager for his or her career goals while generating little or no value for the company. Under open allocation, it is difficult to staff such projects. However, unpleasant but important work
314:
In a closed-allocation company, the people doing the work and those deciding what is to be worked on are typically disjoint sets. This means that impractical projects are often proposed because the people responsible for the firm's executive function are deprived of important knowledge—in particular,
285:
employees or deprive them of opportunity, better projects and leaders (those that can convince, rather than coerce) will emerge. Middle management may play roles, however, in mentoring, handling of conflict (as an absolute last line of dispute resolution), and (especially) ensuring that new hires are
384:
Additionally, open allocation's strongest successes are in businesses in the areas of science, technology, and in particular, software - the most successful of which are typically staffed by highly competent and educated people. Whether the successes of open allocation apply more generally to other
388:
Finally, terminating employees in an open-allocation environment can be challenging, because establishing a performance-based case in such a flexible environment is difficult. While open allocation generally creates fewer of the "unlucky" low-performers who landed on the poorly-fitting projects or
245:
vary wildly in work environment quality and employee autonomy, one of the main selling points of technology startups in the early 21st century has been a claim - demonstrably true of the best startups, but not of all of them - that employees enjoy a high level of autonomy, at a level traditionally
289:
Leadership in an open-allocation organization is typically organic; the person to propose the project will lead it, if he or she can convince others to follow. When projects end, the leaders may rotate back into being "followers", and there is no stigma attached to this. Leading and following are
376:
Because open allocation is an unusual organizational style, it can be at odds with external demands on an organization. For example, consulting companies that promise a certain number of staff will work on a project must assign work to people in order to meet those commitments. Additionally,
207:
between projects regardless of headcount allowances, performance reviews, or tenure at the company, as long as they are providing value to projects that are useful to the business goals of the company. Open allocation has been described as a process of self-organization. Rather than teams and
367:: Open-allocation companies typically have low turnover. People rarely leave, because the work environment is considered superior to the norm; they are rarely fired, because there are so many avenues toward success that most people can find a project where they can perform well.
280:
unilateral control over their reports' work. People management, product direction, and project-specific leadership are, in this way, decoupled. One argument in favor of this is that when the people defining projects no longer have the unilateral ability to
202:
refers to a style of management in which employees are given a high degree of freedom in choosing what projects to work on, and how to allocate their time. They do not necessarily answer to a single manager, but to the company and their peers. They can
562:
Treehouse allows any team member to switch teams at any time, but says that it is "not cool" to leave a team at a critical time or when you are needed by your team-mates, and such an action would be reflected in poor performance reviews.
339:: People can no longer blame bad project assignments or inept immediate managers for underperformance, since those are results of their own choices. A person who worked on a bad project, in an open-allocation environment, is at fault.
301:
to determine raises and bonuses, but unlike the hated stack-ranking regimes of some other technology companies, these do not initiate termination or interfere with internal mobility, but are strictly used to determine compensation.
547:
At Valve, employees' desks have wheels under them, allowing them to move to another team with ease - a symbolic as well as practical marker of Valve's open allocation approach - and physically reorganize as their projects demand.
315:
whether the people doing the work consider the project worth investing their time, energy, and reputation. (If the answer is negative, the person doing the work typically cannot communicate it to the manager, especially in
333:
Employees who have chosen their projects are more likely to be productive and highly motivated. There is more personal pride at stake when the person selected or defined where to put his or her efforts.
327:
can be used and encouraged not only for source code, but also design, business strategy, and publicity. More people are allowed input into the issues they consider important.
351:: In the ideal open-allocation environment, anyone can communicate with anyone else in the company, without having to pass a message up and down a management relay.
828:
709:
628:
653:
Roach, Michael (24 September 2014). "Founder or Joiner? The Role of
Preferences and Context in Shaping Different Entrepreneurial Interests".
84:
265:
186:
168:
106:
49:
135:
35:
897:
806:
775:
361:
get done, because performing it well will lead to more esteem among peers, and make it easier to lead others in the future.
832:
592:
150:
77:
71:
956:
719:
146:
940:
689:
480:
282:
225:
88:
876:
714:
525:
504:
910:
587:
582:
41:
390:
780:
461:
961:
316:
261:
933:
674:
670:
572:
421:
293:
Performance reviews in open allocation companies are handled in a variety of ways. Valve uses
257:
928:
662:
242:
204:
807:"How to set priorities, create budgets and do project management in a #NoManager company"
378:
277:
247:
950:
854:
294:
694:
749:
552:
426:
323:
298:
268:
in which he spoke about the importance of open allocation to GitHub's success.
260:, in the early 2010s, became well known for having such environments. In 2013,
629:"Inside GitHub's Super-Lean Management Strategy--And How It Drives Innovation"
577:
556:
235:
221:
666:
753:
442:
253:
231:
153:. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
499:
393:
as to counteract any risk of decline among the lower performers.
520:
224:
in 1967. He used the term to describe the company he founded,
118:
56:
15:
555:, so team membership is to some extent determined by which
286:
appropriately "onboarded" into the open allocation system.
381:
may require that people are assigned to certain duties.
220:
for an organization using open allocation was coined by
142:
750:"Valve: How going boss-free empowered the games-maker"
234:introduced and publicised an unusual perk known as
829:"No Managers: Why We Removed Bosses at Treehouse"
276:Organizations using open allocation do not give
776:"Harassment claims make startup GitHub grow up"
8:
898:Cutting Edge Agile, Part II: Open Allocation
677:– via Social Science Research Network.
622:
620:
618:
616:
614:
612:
610:
608:
385:types of organizations is an open question.
800:
798:
743:
741:
739:
737:
50:Learn how and when to remove these messages
400:
187:Learn how and when to remove this message
169:Learn how and when to remove this message
107:Learn how and when to remove this message
70:This article includes a list of general
604:
690:"Gore-Tex gets made without managers"
7:
397:Organizations using open allocation
857:. W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc
827:Carson, Ryan (17 September 2013).
805:Carson, Ryan (18 September 2013).
710:"Why There Are No Bosses at Valve"
688:Caulkin, Simon (2 November 2008).
76:it lacks sufficient corresponding
14:
748:Kelion, Leo (23 September 2013).
627:Dannen, Chris (18 October 2013).
31:This article has multiple issues.
272:Leadership under open allocation
123:
61:
20:
718:. 27 April 2012. Archived from
39:or discuss these issues on the
913:. Targetprocess. October 2016.
855:"The Gore Story > Overview"
774:Rusli, Evelyn (17 July 2014).
1:
879:. W. L. Gore & Associates
377:regulatory pressures such as
911:"How we (un)plan the future"
494:1958 (founding year) - date
456:2008 (founding year) - 2014
437:1996 (founding year) - date
306:Benefits of open allocation
149:the claims made and adding
978:
551:Many GitHub employees are
941:W. L. Gore and Associates
900:Agile SD. 5 January 2015.
481:W. L. Gore and Associates
226:W. L. Gore and Associates
593:Workers' self-management
337:Personal responsibility
91:more precise citations.
943:, amongst other topics
715:Bloomberg BusinessWeek
667:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2100
526:Software as a Service
505:Software as a Service
475:June 20, 2013 - date
416:Used open allocation
835:on 21 September 2013
588:Open source software
583:Internal recruitment
413:Number of employees
218:lattice organization
781:Wall Street Journal
559:an employee is in.
939:- which discusses
655:Management Science
317:at-will employment
262:Tom Preston-Werner
134:possibly contains
957:Management theory
934:The Tipping Point
722:on April 30, 2012
573:Flat organization
540:
539:
197:
196:
189:
179:
178:
171:
136:original research
117:
116:
109:
54:
969:
938:
929:Malcolm Gladwell
915:
914:
907:
901:
895:
889:
888:
886:
884:
873:
867:
866:
864:
862:
851:
845:
844:
842:
840:
831:. Archived from
824:
818:
817:
815:
813:
802:
793:
792:
790:
788:
771:
765:
764:
762:
760:
745:
732:
731:
729:
727:
706:
700:
699:
685:
679:
678:
661:(9): 2160–2184.
650:
644:
643:
641:
639:
624:
530:Private company
509:Private company
500:Monk Development
488:Private company
469:Private company
450:Private company
431:Private company
401:
192:
185:
174:
167:
163:
160:
154:
151:inline citations
127:
126:
119:
112:
105:
101:
98:
92:
87:this article by
78:inline citations
65:
64:
57:
46:
24:
23:
16:
977:
976:
972:
971:
970:
968:
967:
966:
947:
946:
927:
924:
922:Further reading
919:
918:
909:
908:
904:
896:
892:
882:
880:
875:
874:
870:
860:
858:
853:
852:
848:
838:
836:
826:
825:
821:
811:
809:
804:
803:
796:
786:
784:
773:
772:
768:
758:
756:
747:
746:
735:
725:
723:
708:
707:
703:
687:
686:
682:
652:
651:
647:
637:
635:
626:
625:
606:
601:
569:
545:
399:
374:
308:
278:middle managers
274:
264:gave a talk at
214:
200:Open allocation
193:
182:
181:
180:
175:
164:
158:
155:
140:
128:
124:
113:
102:
96:
93:
83:Please help to
82:
66:
62:
25:
21:
12:
11:
5:
975:
973:
965:
964:
959:
949:
948:
945:
944:
923:
920:
917:
916:
902:
890:
868:
846:
819:
794:
766:
733:
701:
680:
645:
603:
602:
600:
597:
596:
595:
590:
585:
580:
575:
568:
565:
553:remote workers
544:
541:
538:
537:
534:
531:
528:
523:
517:
516:
513:
510:
507:
502:
496:
495:
492:
489:
486:
485:Manufacturing
483:
477:
476:
473:
470:
467:
464:
458:
457:
454:
451:
448:
445:
439:
438:
435:
432:
429:
424:
418:
417:
414:
411:
408:
405:
398:
395:
379:Sarbanes-Oxley
373:
370:
369:
368:
362:
352:
346:
340:
334:
328:
320:
307:
304:
273:
270:
248:basic research
213:
210:
195:
194:
177:
176:
131:
129:
122:
115:
114:
69:
67:
60:
55:
29:
28:
26:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
974:
963:
960:
958:
955:
954:
952:
942:
936:
935:
930:
926:
925:
921:
912:
906:
903:
899:
894:
891:
878:
877:"Our Culture"
872:
869:
856:
850:
847:
834:
830:
823:
820:
808:
801:
799:
795:
783:
782:
777:
770:
767:
755:
751:
744:
742:
740:
738:
734:
721:
717:
716:
711:
705:
702:
697:
696:
691:
684:
681:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
649:
646:
634:
630:
623:
621:
619:
617:
615:
613:
611:
609:
605:
598:
594:
591:
589:
586:
584:
581:
579:
576:
574:
571:
570:
566:
564:
560:
558:
554:
549:
542:
535:
532:
529:
527:
524:
522:
521:Targetprocess
519:
518:
514:
511:
508:
506:
503:
501:
498:
497:
493:
490:
487:
484:
482:
479:
478:
474:
471:
468:
465:
463:
460:
459:
455:
452:
449:
446:
444:
441:
440:
436:
433:
430:
428:
425:
423:
420:
419:
415:
412:
409:
406:
404:Organization
403:
402:
396:
394:
392:
386:
382:
380:
371:
366:
363:
360:
356:
353:
350:
349:Communication
347:
344:
341:
338:
335:
332:
329:
326:
325:
321:
318:
313:
310:
309:
305:
303:
300:
296:
295:stack ranking
291:
287:
284:
279:
271:
269:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
249:
246:only seen in
244:
239:
237:
233:
229:
227:
223:
219:
211:
209:
206:
201:
191:
188:
173:
170:
162:
152:
148:
144:
138:
137:
132:This article
130:
121:
120:
111:
108:
100:
90:
86:
80:
79:
73:
68:
59:
58:
53:
51:
44:
43:
38:
37:
32:
27:
18:
17:
932:
905:
893:
881:. Retrieved
871:
859:. Retrieved
849:
837:. Retrieved
833:the original
822:
810:. Retrieved
785:. Retrieved
779:
769:
757:. Retrieved
724:. Retrieved
720:the original
713:
704:
695:The Observer
693:
683:
658:
654:
648:
636:. Retrieved
632:
561:
550:
546:
536:2016 - date
515:2013 - date
387:
383:
375:
365:Low turnover
364:
358:
354:
348:
342:
336:
330:
322:
319:situations.)
312:Information:
311:
292:
288:
275:
252:
240:
230:
217:
215:
199:
198:
183:
165:
159:October 2013
156:
133:
103:
97:October 2013
94:
75:
47:
40:
34:
33:Please help
30:
726:1 September
466:Technology
447:Technology
427:Video games
391:so dramatic
331:Motivation:
324:Peer review
299:peer review
89:introducing
951:Categories
883:2 November
839:2 November
812:2 November
638:28 October
633:Fastcolabs
599:References
557:chat rooms
355:Less waste
343:Efficiency
297:driven by
143:improve it
72:references
36:improve it
962:Workplace
759:1 October
578:Holacracy
543:Mechanics
462:Treehouse
407:Industry
283:terminate
222:Bill Gore
216:The term
147:verifying
42:talk page
931:(2000).
861:July 30,
754:BBC News
567:See also
372:Problems
243:startups
236:20% time
205:transfer
787:18 July
675:2170954
491:12,000
212:History
141:Please
85:improve
673:
512:25-30
443:GitHub
254:GitHub
250:labs.
241:While
232:Google
74:, but
422:Valve
410:Type
266:Oscon
258:Valve
885:2013
863:2022
841:2013
814:2013
789:2014
761:2013
728:2013
671:SSRN
640:2013
533:110
453:175
434:400
359:will
256:and
663:doi
472:60
145:by
953::
797:^
778:.
752:.
736:^
712:.
692:.
669:.
659:61
657:.
631:.
607:^
228:.
45:.
937:.
887:.
865:.
843:.
816:.
791:.
763:.
730:.
698:.
665::
642:.
190:)
184:(
172:)
166:(
161:)
157:(
139:.
110:)
104:(
99:)
95:(
81:.
52:)
48:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.