►
Description
For more information, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/leadership/book-clubs/#high-output-management
A
Recording
again,
okay,
so
this
is
part
three
of
the
high
output
management
book
club
we've
been
running
this
part
it's
described
as
team
or
teams,
so
a
large
part
of
it
is
about
organizational
structure.
Just
a
quick
administrative
note
as
well.
We
always
/
with
a
group
conversation.
Today
we
clash
with
an
engineering
group
conversation
and
most
of
the
people
on
this
call
today
are
in
engineering.
So
if
you
want
to
join
that
go
ahead,
I
will
be
around
for
the
phone
call,
so
yeah
do
whatever
you
want.
A
But
we
don't
need
to
talk
specifically
about
the
notes
were
around
organizational
structure
specifically,
like
you
know
whether
your
mission
oriented
or
functional,
and
then
you
know
the
book
says
that
most
organizations
are
and
officer
or
all
large
organizations
with
a
common
business
purpose,
end
up
in
a
hybrid
organizational
form,
and
then
the
chapter
following
that
is
about
how
you
manage
that
with
a
matrix
structure,
which
we
explicitly
try
not
to
have
do
anybody
did
anything
jump
out
to
anybody
from
those?
Oh.
B
Eventually,
people
are
just
going
to
get
super
frustrated
and
leave,
and
it
was
just
nice
to
actually
see
to
see
him.
Lay
it
out
so
clearly
and
say:
well,
it
can
work.
If
you
do
this
and
like
in
hindsight,
that
seems
completely
obvious.
Yes,
you
just
give
them
different
pieces
of
the
person's
time
to
be
responsible
for
and
I
thought.
B
A
C
I
was
gonna,
say
something
similar
I
think
in
software,
especially
there's
so
much
overlap
that
you
can't
have
those
completely
separate
roles
that
were
outlined
in
the
book
that
makes
the
separation
of
duties
clear
and
managing
lines
clear.
Even
when
you
have
dual
reporting
so
I
think
the
most
common
scenario
for
us
in
software.
Sorry,
Leslie
of
kind
of
excluding
you
on
this
one
dish
is
the
QA
engineering
reporting
right,
often
as
an
engineering
manager.
You
have
QA
folks
reporting
up
to
you
and
the
well.
The
goals
are
similar.
C
A
Yeah
I
think
the
example
given
in
the
book,
if
I
remember
rightly,
I,
read
it
by
full
disclosure.
I
read
this
section
of
the
book
yesterday
evening,
so
I
should
remember
it,
but
I
think
one
of
the
examples
given
was
like
a
security
manager
at
like
a
specific
facility
where,
like
you,
want
the
security
organization
to
be
consistent
across
the
company
as
a
whole,
but
because
they're
in
different
places,
it
makes
sense
to
have
someone
manage
that
person
on
sites
you
make
and
the
book
gives,
like.
D
Yeah,
when
I
worked
at
Siemens,
we
had
gia
reporting
structures,
but
then
also
global
reporting
structures,
and
so
the
u.s.
I
mean
it
over
recording
this.
So
it
didn't
really
work
that
great,
because
you
ended
up
adding
a
bunch
of
margin
too
and
a
lot
of
time
with
decision-making
and
I
mean
from
my
role
within
the
field.
Marketing
I
report
into
marketing,
but
work
very
closely
with
sales
and
so
having
the
sales
and
marketing
alignment
really
tight
within
this
organization
has
really
helped
that
go
smoothly.
D
So
you
know,
hopefully
we're
not
gonna
ever
get
to
a
point
where
I'm
not
having
conversation
where
it's
not
smooth
but
but
I
kind
of
am
in.
Oh,
we,
it's
not
exact
matrix
and
dual
reporting,
but
I
do
I.
Guess
sales
is
my
customer,
but
it's
just
you
know,
maybe
a
little
bit
more
so
than
than
what
y'all
have
and
from
an
engineering
standpoint
you.
A
So,
for
instance,
I
can't
remember
the
example
given
in
the
book,
but
within
this
call,
for
instance,
like
Dahlia,
is
senior
to
Rachel
and
I,
but
within
this
call
Rachel
and
I
are
running.
The
call,
like
that's
a
simple
example,
but
that's
that
sort
of
a
basic
explanation
of
how
it
works.
So
does
that
sort
of
feel
like
how
it
works
for
you
with
sales
and
marketing
where
you
sort
of
you
have
this
position
within
the
marketing
structure?
A
E
I
just
wanted
I
I
think
most
might
be
familiar
with
this,
but
the
when
I
was
reading
this
section,
one
I
also
had
not
had
a
great
experience
with
dual
management.
I
think
the
the
biggest
gap
was
was
always
who
is
focused
on
the
career
development
of
the
individual.
So
with
this
you
know
multiple
manager
responsibilities,
but
to
get
back
to
the
the
point
here,
I
just
put
a
link
to
the
Spotify
model.
E
It
is
sort
of
a
new
way
or
a
new
attempt
to
address
you,
know,
individuals
who
contribute
to
multiple
functions
and
how
you
might
structure
your
team.
So
it's
less
about
you
know
like
you,
would
still
end
up
with
one
people
manager
that
you
report
to
so
not
reporting
to
multiple
folks.
But
when
it
comes
to
areas
of
expertise
you
would
have
you
know
the
guild
model
or
the
tribe
model,
and
so
on.
I
know
we.
This
is
not
something
that
that
we
will.
C
I
was
gonna,
say
it
almost
felt
like
that
section
of
the
book
switch
from
how
you
manage
others
to
how
you
manage
yourself
right
how
you
deal
with
being.
You
know
at
some
point
in
time,
you're
managing
direct
reports,
and
then
you
switch
mode
to
where
you're
being
managed
by
other
folks.
It
seemed
less
about
how
you
manage
in
a
matrix
environment
and
more
focused
on
how
you
are
managed
in
a
matrix
environment.
At
least
that
was
kind
of
my
impression.
While
I
was
reading,
it
yeah.
A
I
see
that
this
is
a
different
book,
so
I
would
go
too
deep
into
it,
but
I
read
a
book
called
the
managers
past
awhile
ago,
and
what
I
found
interesting
about
that
is
the
first
chapter
of
that
is
how
to
be
managed
before
it
tells
you
how
to
be
a
manager
because,
like
obviously,
there
are
two
sides
of
the
same
coin
and
I
think
that
part
also
applies
here.
I
think
also
a
good
lab.
We
do
have
some
of
these,
like
parallel
planes
as
well.
A
A
Well,
you
know
we
have
a
product
manager
who
reports
into
the
product
organization
a
back-end
team
who
reports
into
a
back-end
manager
a
front-end
team
into
a
front-end
manager
on
both
those
reports,
the
same
director
of
engineering,
quality
of
a
quality,
engineered
reports
and
so
a
quality
engineering
manager
and
a
UX
product
designers,
whatever
they
call
now
who
report
into
a
UX
manager,
so
I,
don't
think
that's
exactly
the
same,
because
you're
not
reporting
to
people,
they
did
not
other
structure.
But
it's
just
attempt
to
solve
the
same
problem.
I
think
and.
B
Also,
the
structure
is
about
the
you
know:
the
the
temporary
working
group
structures
as
well
also
completely
separate
from
that,
like
those
what
you've
described,
other
almost
permanent
structures
and
then
every
now
and
then
people
from
all
over
the
company
get
thrown
together
to
do
to
meet
some
specific
goal
for
everyone
across
any
department.
Any
label
everything
it's
just,
it's
just
a
whole
bunch
of
people
they
get
together
to
solve
something
specific,
and
then
they
disbanded
game
and
that's
a
that's
completely
again,
an
another
plane
itself.
Writing.
B
A
Yeah
I
love
the
example
just
like
that.
They
used
to
really
make
the
point
there
about
like
how
this
can
seem
confusing
that
you
have
these
two
planes
with
different
organizational
charts.
But
if
you
think
about
it
as
like
someone
just
in
a
completely
different
context
like
at
their
church
or
whatever
they
might
have
like,
you
know
a
completely
different
set
of
responsibilities
there
and
you
can.
A
You
know
you
can
very
easily
imagine
that,
because
you
know
you
know
the
same
role
in
every
part
of
your
life
and
you
might
not
be
the
same
role
in
every
part
of
how
you
work
within
a
company
as
well.
So
I
thought
that
was
a
really
great
example
to
just
like
just
like
made
me
think
alright,
yeah,
that's
so
obvious,
like
I,
don't
really
see
a
way
to
like
dispute
that.
A
Did
everybody
else
feel
that
these
two
chapters
that
I'm
talking
about,
went
together,
or
is
that
just
me,
while
we're
talking
about
first
of
all
the
organizational
structure
and
then
about
how
the
reporting
works?
Cuz
Craig
mentioned,
like
you,
know
the
reporting
on
being
more
about
how
you
are
managed
and
how
you
manage
people
I.
B
Did
get
the
sense
that
they
go
together,
because
if
you
didn't
have
a
hybrid
organization,
you
wouldn't
have
to
really
concern
yourself
too
much
with
a
dual
reporting
structure.
If
everything
was
just
straight,
it
would
be
straight
lines
all
the
way
to
the
top
and
making
it
hybrid
introduces
that
sort
of
certain
elements
of
complexity,
and
then
it
becomes
about
wahala.
How
do
you
correctly
report
for
that?
So
I
think
in
a
sense
they
were.
They
were
somewhat
related.
A
C
A
A
For
me
personally,
as
someone
who
doesn't
manage
managers
but
manages
individuals,
the
most
interesting
part
I
thought
was
how
these
concepts.
Obviously
this
book
is
mentioned
on
my
leadership
page,
but
it
might
not
be
this
book
specifically,
but
rather
these
concepts
in
general
I've
like
informed,
get
labs
organizational
structure
like
we
have
a
thing
on
our
leadership
page
which
I
think
to
them
explicitly
says
no
matrix
organization.
A
It
mentions
cultural
values,
a
lot
in
the
next
chapter
and
obviously
that's
a
thing
that
we
take
very
seriously,
and
it
was
interesting
to
me
to
see
how
that
all
mapped
out
in
the
context
of
a
company
I'm
very
familiar
with,
because
I
work
there
and
like
Leslie
I've,
worked
in
a
company
before
that
sort
of
switch
between
sort
of
geo
and
functionary
Oakes
every
18
months
couple
years
and
some
I
don't
feel
like
they
ever
found.
The
sweet
spot
and
I
don't
know
because
I.
A
Well,
yeah.
That
was
also
an
interesting
quote
that
I
wrote
down
as
well
was
that
we
should
not
expect
to
escape
from
complexity
by
playing
with
reporting
arrangements.
I
thought
the
word
playing.
There
was
quite
interesting
like.
Obviously
this
is
important
stuff
you've
got
to
treat
it
as
important
stuff.
You
can't
just
like
play
around
with
it,
so
you
have
modes
of
control.
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
going
to
work
very
well
on
the
recording,
but
I
want
to
try
it.
So
there's
this
diagram,
which
I
really
liked,
which
is
on
two
quadrants.
A
A
It's
about
whether
the
motivation
is
coming
from
self-interest
or
group
interest
and
obviously
both
I
needed
in
a
longer
and
then
what
it
calls
a
CUA
factor,
which
is
complexity,
ambiguity
and
uncertainty,
so
that
the
more
well-defined
something
is
the
easier
it
is
to
like,
explain
how
you
align
that,
like
you,
know,
use
a
contract.
You
use
free
market
forces.
A
In
some
cases
it
mentioned
like
the
case
of
flying
a
tire
at
the
lowest
price
or
whatever,
but
then
in
the
the
intersection
between
self-interest
and
high
complexity,
ambiguity
and
uncertainty,
you
have
nothing
works
and
the
intersection
between
group
interest
and
the
high
sea
you
a
factor.
You
have
cultural
values,
so
I
wonder
what
people
thought
about:
how
that
sort
of
related
to
how
they
use
get
labs
values
to
sort
of
navigate
those
those
situations
where
it's
not
really
clear
like
how
you
should
proceed.
B
C
I'm
trying
to
click
through
to
find
the
graph
again
myself,
but
I,
really
like
it
I've
in
past
companies,
while
a
past
company,
whenever
we
had
ambiguity,
I
tried
that
pull
out
the
company
cultural
values,
and
it
was
interesting.
The
company
was
kind
of
a
downward
trend
and
early
in
the
days
that
I
was
there.
We
could
apply
the
values
and
come
up
with
an
answer
right.
C
C
We're
sure
yeah,
especially
like
smaller
companies
that
are
really
struggling
for
the
next
paycheck.
You
know
they
want
to
want
to
meet
their
quarterly
goals,
to
impress
the
investors
or
whatever
outside
influences.
There
might
not
necessarily
be
about
money,
but
if
there's
something,
that's
really
pushing
them
in
a
direction
that
goes
away
from
their
values.
It's
that's
a
value
in
the
number
itself.
Do
we
stick
with
our
core
values
and
apply
those,
or
do
we
go
with
lets?
A
And
the
external
force
is
pretty
much
always
money
in
this
case.
I
guess
right.
Thank
you.
Revenue,
any
board
pressure,
yeah,
yeah,
I
think
it's
especially
common
in
startups
right,
because
it's
easy
in
the
early
days
to
be
very
idealistic,
and
then
it's
it's
hard
to
like
map
that
there's
obviously
examples
in
the
news
about
places
where
maybe
the
company
culture
hasn't
survived
a
change
it
some
executive
level,
for
instance,
absolutely
I.
B
Have
enjoyed
throughout
the
book
how
he
keeps
talking
about
values
and
also
we
landed
I
put
in
the
values
just
at
the
bottom
of
the
section,
because
I
realized
that
he
talks
so
much
about
values.
But
we
didn't
actually
know
what
Intel's
values
were,
but
I
have
really
appreciated
how
much
he
talks
about
it
and
how
intrinsic
he
feels
that
those
values
are
through.
How
successful
the
organization
is
and
having
worked
for
an
organization
where
the
values
are
so
important.
B
What
they
really
give.
You
is
a
way
of
figuring
out
how
people
will
behave
in
certain
circumstances,
because
they
will
always
operate
according
to
the
values,
and
that
means
there's
something
that
certain
things
become
more
predictable,
because
you
can
almost
anticipate
it.
If
you
evaluate
it
against
that
set
of
values
and
what
I'm
enjoying
about
get
lab
is
it
feels
like
the
values
are
holding
as
we
grow
and
are
getting
more
voice
to
them.
B
Also,
as
we
go
I
think,
that's
part
of
what
the
leadership
is
trying
to
do
is
just
instill
the
values
I'm
over
and
over
and
over
again
and
I.
Think
that
that
also
helps
when
you
think,
when
you
talk
about
your
reporting
or
you
talk
about
hybrid
organizations,
because
you
can
almost
hope
that
people
will
behave
according
to
those
values,
regardless
of
where
they
sit
in
their
structure.
C
Yeah
that
that
part
reminded
me
of
the
book
tribal
leadership
and
get
loud.
It's
the
same
way
too
right
it's
more
of
a
well.
The
values
typically
come
from
top-down.
They
are
held
tightly
by
everybody
right
and
if
someone
within
the
the
tribe
in
this
case
is
not
living
up
to
the
values,
everybody
holds
them
accountable,
instead
of
it's
just
being
top-down
and
we
all
blow
all
that
this
way
so
I
agree,
I,
think
it's
great
that
it's
so
pervasive
within
the
get
Lab
culture.
D
I
kept
kind
of
going
back
between
you
know,
have
you
seen
it
urgent
and
the
important
matrix
where
it
talks
about?
You
know
when
things
are
urgent
and
when
they're
important
and
how
people
respond,
I
kind
of
was
thinking
about
those
two
charts
in
my
mind
and
and
I
will
probably
use
this
chart
more.
So
as
I'm
scaling,
my
team
for
a
while
in
the
u.s.
was
just
myself
and
another
good
marketing
manager
and
we've
hired
two
people
within
the
last.
A
Yeah
I
think
I
think
it
is
really
important
in
hiring
and
also
I,
really
like
that.
It
mentioned
that
the
two
main
ways
you
you
get
these
values
across
to
people
at
first
of
all,
like
writing
them
down
like
telling
telling
people
what
they
are,
which
is
obviously
like
super
important,
but
the
second
one
is
even
more
important,
which
is
by
actually
following
them
like
by
doing
them
and
I.
Think
it
mentioned
earlier
in
the
book
about
time
management.
A
A
Another
interesting
thing
I
found
here
was
a
comment
about
promotion
from
within
where
it
says
it
tends
to
be
favored
by
corporations
with
strong
corporate
cultures,
because
you
expect
people
to
I
guess
let
me
check
what
she
said.
I
think
it
was
it
was
about.
Like
you
know,
the
culture
itself
is
an
important
part
of
how
the
company
works
and
that's
an
important
aspect
of
like
coming
into
those
positions
and
obviously
we
we
get
a
rate
where
that's
not
possible
for
every
position,
and
you
know
we
hire
people
at
sites.
C
You
know
it's
kind
of
agree,
but
also
disagree
and
being
flaky.
Basically
is
what
I'm
saying
I
think
it
depends
on
the
position
so
going
back
to
engineering,
I
think
for
the
more
senior
technical
roles.
I
am
much
more
in
favor
of
promotion
right
because
you
have
the
technical
skills.
You
know
the
product
well
and
I've
been
in
companies
where
they
brought
in
a
lot
of
like
principal
staff.
C
They
didn't
bring
any
English,
English
or
above
but
above
senior
from
the
outside,
and
that
really
upset
those
that
we're
trying
to
get
to
that
level,
because
it
was
such
a
there's
such
a
barrier
to
entry
for
that
position,
and
it
wasn't
well-defined.
So
it
caused
some
some
discord
within
the
company
and
often
like
a
management
role.
There's
there
may
be
some
that
had
the
ability,
but
very
few
pure
engineers
have
the
desire
to
be
manager.
C
So
you
often
have
to
go
outside
to
find
managers
that
can
do
the
job
well
and
I
think
there's
a
balance
to
be
held.
There
was
the
other
point
in
trying
to
make,
because
often
the
new
man
in
your
new
engineer
can
bring
in
new
technology
new
innovations
that,
while
you're
in
the
mode
of
your
company
and
doing
things,
the
company
way,
may
not
necessarily
go
out
and
look
at
right,
because
you
have
a
way
of
doing
things
and
it's
the
way.
You
always.
A
C
A
No
I
think
that's
a
very
good
and
nuanced
way
of
putting
it.
I
think
especially
hiring
the
senior
technical
staff
can
be
difficult
for
them
as
well,
because
it's
a
difficult
position
to
come
into
where
you're
expected
sort
of
exhibit
that
sort
of
leadership,
but
in
a
I
guess
what
the
book
calls
a
know-how
manager
position
rather
than
the
people
manager
position
where
you
have
less
sort
of
contractually
defined
stuff.
A
E
I
like
go
back
to
the
values
when
I
when
I
look
at
candidates,
especially
you
know
as
we're
hiring
so
much
and
we
have
aggressive
targets.
It's
been
really
refreshing,
especially
hearing
Eric,
say
focus
on
the
quality
like
we
can.
We
can
justify
not
meeting
our
targets,
but
we
can't
justify
bringing
someone
who's.
You
know
not
aligned
or
we
don't.
A
A
A
That's
the
bigger
challenge:
yeah
yeah,
some
sort
of
unrelated
slightly
related
anecdote
at
the
end
of
that
chapter
about
like
how
they
were
missing
a
bunch
of
targets,
Intel
for
a
while
and
the
salespeople
were
all
you
know
missing
their
Commission,
not
because
of
their
fault
because
because,
like
engineering
or
whatever
wasn't
delivering
and
they
they
stayed
with
Intel
anyway,
which
he
puts
down
to
sort
of
trust
that
the
system
works
as
well.
I'm,
not
sure
I,
don't
have
the
context.
There
I'm
not
sure
like
how
much
you
can
attribute
to
that
I.
D
A
It
was
in
modes
of
control,
I
think
it
was
right
at
the
end
he's
talking
about
at
one
time,
one
of
our
divisions
had
serious
problems,
leaving
the
sales
engineers
with
no
products
cellphone
nearly
a
year
they
could
have
left
in
felon
immediately
got
another
job,
some
quick
Commission's
elsewhere,
but
by
and
large
they
stayed
with
us.
They
stayed
because
they
believed
in
the
company
and
had
faith
eventually,
things
would
get
better
belief
and
faith
in
I
expect
at
the
market
mode
that
stem
from
adherence
to
cultural
values
yeah.
A
D
A
A
So,
for
me,
I
was
talking
about
this
with
Rachel
earlier,
because
we
do
hope
you
do
a
quick
prep
call
before
each
one
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
both
sort
of
on
the
same
page
and
we're
both
ready
to
step
in,
if
nobody's
wanting
to
say
something
basically
and
I
mentioned
that
for
me
personally,
like
the
first
section
of
this
book
has
been
the
sectional
area.
I've
been
most
like.
E
Yeah
I
mean
I
I,
found
it
reassuring
when
he,
when
he
was
talking
about
the
hybrid
model,
because
that's
one
of
the
things
I
really
enjoy
is
coming
into
a
startup,
and
you
know,
help
mature,
an
engineering
team
or
like
I,
have
a
lot
of
passion
for
that
phase.
So
it
was
assuring
to
see
that
yes,
this
hybrid
model
is
somewhat
necessary
and
and
in
all
fairness,
I've
seen
it
across
most
organizations
I'm
trying
to
think
of
one
that
didn't
have
it.
So
that
was
good.
E
E
A
It
was
quite
funny
coming
about
from
sort
of
get
live
context
where
we're
like.
No,
we
really
don't
want
to
do
that.
He's
like
you
can
totally
do
this.
It's
fine
yeah!
Well,
that's
good
about
the
next
section
as
well.