### The impact of people and leadership on scalability 人员和领导力对可扩展性的影响 > Fighting with a large army under your command is nowise different from fighting with a small one; it is merely aquestion of instituting signs and signals. > 指挥大军作战与指挥小军作战没有什么不同。这只是建立标志和信号的问题。 People, organizational structure, management, and leadership all have an impact onthe scalability of your organization, your processes, and (as a result) the scalability ofyour product, platform, or systems. They are at the heart of everything you do andthe core of everything you need to scale a company and a platform. Paradoxically,they are the things we overlook most often when attempting to scale large systems:Our people are overlooked and underappreciated; organization structure is a once-ayear, check-the-box exercise written in haste in PowerPoint and managed by HR; andour managers and leaders are often untrained or undertrained in the performance oftheir duties. In this chapter, we will explain why the people of your organization, thestructure of the organization, the management, and the leadership in your organization all have an enormous impact on your ability to scale your product, platform, orservices. 人员、组织结构、管理和领导都会对组织、流程的可扩展性以及（结果）产品、平台或系统的可扩展性产生影响。它们是您所做的一切的核心，也是您扩展公司和平台所需的一切的核心。矛盾的是，在尝试扩展大型系统时，它们是我们最常忽略的事情：我们的员工被忽视和低估；组织结构是一项每年一次的、在 PowerPoint 中匆忙编写并由 HR 管理的复选框练习；我们的经理和领导者在履行职责方面往往未经培训或培训不足。在本章中，我们将解释为什么组织中的人员、组织结构、管理阶层和领导力都会对您扩展产品、平台或服务的能力产生巨大影响。 #### Introducing AllScale AllScale 简介 Throughout The Art of Scalability, we will refer to a fictional company, AllScale.AllScale started out as a custom software development company, contracting individual developers out by the hour for projects. Over time, the company started to bid onspecial custom development projects for both back office IT systems and Webenabled Software as a Service (SaaS) platforms. As the company matured, it starteddeveloping tools for its own internal usage and then started selling these tools as aservice to other companies using the SaaS model. 在《可扩展性的艺术》中，我们将提到一家虚构的公司 AllScale。AllScale 最初是一家定制软件开发公司，按小时承包项目的个人开发人员。随着时间的推移，该公司开始竞标后台 IT 系统和网络软件即服务 (SaaS) 平台的特殊定制开发项目。随着公司的成熟，它开始开发供自己内部使用的工具，然后开始使用 SaaS 模式将这些工具作为服务出售给其他公司。 The tool with which AllScale has had the most traction is the human resourcesmanagement (HRM) system. The tool is an employee life cycle management system,covering everything from recruiting to termination. The recruiting process is automated, with resumes held online and workflows depicting the status of each recruitand notes on the interview process. After an employee is hired, all corporate trainingmaterial is performed online through the system. Employee reviews are performedwithin the system and tracked over time. Associated merit increases, notes from oneon-one sessions, previous jobs, and performance information are all contained withinthe system. When an employee leaves, is terminated, or retires, the notes from theexit interview are retained within the system as well. AllScale 最受欢迎的工具是人力资源管理 (HRM) 系统。该工具是一个员工生命周期管理系统，涵盖从招聘到终止的一切。招聘过程是自动化的，简历在线保存，工作流程描述每个招聘人员的状态以及面试过程的注释。员工入职后，所有企业培训材料均通过系统在线执行。员工审核在系统内进行并随着时间的推移进行跟踪。相关的绩效加薪、一对一会议的笔记、以前的工作和绩效信息都包含在系统中。当员工离职、被解雇或退休时，离职面谈的记录也会保留在系统中。 AllScale is a private company with a majority ownership (51%) obtained by a single venture capital (VC) company after a B-series round. The VC firm invested inboth rounds, having decided to make its initial investment after the company startedbuilding SaaS product offerings and seeing how AllScale鈥檚 HRM software started torapidly penetrate the market with viral adoption. AllScale 是一家私营公司，其多数股权 (51%) 由一家风险投资 (VC) 公司在 B 轮融资后获得。这家风险投资公司在两轮融资中都进行了投资，在公司开始构建 SaaS 产品并了解 AllScale 的 HRM 软件如何通过病毒式应用迅速渗透到市场后，决定进行初始投资。 AllScale is an aggregation of our experience with our clients and our experiencerunning technology organizations within Fortune 500 and startup companies. Wedecided to focus on one imaginary company for the sake of continuity across people,process, and technology issues. The evolution of AllScale from job shop contractor tothe developer of multiple SaaS offerings also allows us to take a look at severalunique challenges and how the management team might overcome them. AllScale 是我们与客户合作的经验以及我们在财富 500 强和初创公司中运营技术组织的经验的集合。为了在人员、流程和技术问题上保持连续性，我们决定专注于一家虚构的公司。 AllScale 从作业车间承包商发展为多种 SaaS 产品的开发商，这也让我们能够了解一些独特的挑战以及管理团队如何克服这些挑战。 #### Why People 为什么是人 In our introduction, we made the statement that people are important when attempting to scale nearly anything; they are especially important when trying to scale technical platforms responsible for processing transactions under high user demand andhyper growth. 在我们的介绍中，我们声明，在尝试扩展几乎任何事物时，人都很重要。当尝试扩展负责在高用户需求和高速增长下处理交易的技术平台时，它们尤其重要。 Here, we are going to go out on a limb and assert that people are the most important aspect of scale. First and foremost, without people, you couldn’t possibly havedeveloped a system that needs to scale at all (at least until such point as the HAL9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey becomes a reality). Without people, who designedand implemented your system? Who runs it? Following from that, people are thesource of the successes and failures that lead to whatever level of scale you haveachieved and will achieve. People architect the systems, write or choose the software,and they deploy the software payloads and configure the servers, databases, firewalls,routers, and other devices. People make the tradeoffs on what pieces of the technology stack are easily horizontally scalable and which pieces are not. People design (orfail to design) the processes to identify scale concerns early on, root cause scalerelated availability events, drive scale related problems to closure, and report on scaleneeds and initiatives and their business returns. Initiatives aren’t started without people and mistakes aren’t made without people. People, people, people . . . 在这里，我们将大胆地断言，人是规模中最重要的方面。首先，如果没有人，你根本不可能开发出一个需要扩展的系统（至少在《2001：太空漫游》中的 HAL9000 成为现实之前是这样）。没有人，谁来设计和实施你的系统？谁运行它？由此可见，人是成功和失败的根源，决定了你已经达到和将要达到的规模水平。人们构建系统、编写或选择软件，然后部署软件有效负载并配置服务器、数据库、防火墙、路由器和其他设备。人们会权衡技术堆栈的哪些部分可以轻松水平扩展，哪些部分不可以。人们设计（或未能设计）流程来尽早识别规模问题、规模相关可用性事件的根本原因、推动规模相关问题得到解决，并报告规模需求和计划及其业务回报。没有人就不会发起倡议，没有人就不会犯错误。人，人，人。 。 。 All of the greatest successes in building scalable systems have at their heart a greatset of people making many great decisions and every once in awhile a few poorchoices. Making the decision not to look at people as the core and most critical component of scaling anything is a very large mistake and a step in a direction that will atthe very least make it very difficult for you to accomplish your objectives. 构建可扩展系统的所有最伟大成功的核心都是一群伟大的人做出了许多伟大的决定，但偶尔也会做出一些糟糕的选择。决定不将人视为扩展任何事情的核心和最关键的组成部分是一个非常大的错误，并且朝着至少会使您很难实现目标的方向迈出的一步。 As people are at the heart of all highly scalable organizations, processes, and systems,doesn’t it make sense to attract and retain the best people you can possibly get? As wewill discuss in Chapter 5, Management 101, it’s not just about finding the people withthe right and best skills for the amount you are willing to pay. It’s about ensuring thatyou have the right person in the right job at the right time and with the right behaviors. 由于人是所有高度可扩展的组织、流程和系统的核心，因此吸引和留住最优秀的人才是否有意义？正如我们将在第 5 章“管理 101”中讨论的那样，这不仅仅是为了您愿意支付的金额找到拥有合适和最佳技能的人。这是为了确保让合适的人在合适的时间担任合适的工作并采取正确的行为。 The VC firm backing AllScale has a saying amongst its partners that the “fish rotsfrom the head.” Although the firm’s representative on AllScale’s board of directorsand the remainder of the board feel that the current CEO and founder did a great jobof growing the company and identifying the HRM market opportunity, they alsoknow that the competencies necessary to run a successful SaaS company aren’talways the same as those necessary to run and grow a successful consulting company.After several quarters of impressive growth in the HRM market, the board becomesconcerned over stalling growth, missed numbers, and a lack of consistent focus onthe HRM product. The board brings in a seasoned SaaS veteran as the new CEO,Christine E. Oberman, and moves the previous founder and CEO to the position ofchief strategy officer. Christine promises to bring in and retain the best people, structure the company for success along its current and future product offerings, andfocus on management and leadership excellence to supercharge and maximize shareholder wealth. 支持 AllScale 的风险投资公司在其合作伙伴中流传着这样一句话：“鱼从头开始腐烂”。尽管 AllScale 董事会中的公司代表和董事会其他成员认为现任首席执行官和创始人在发展公司和识别人力资源管理市场机会方面做得很好，但他们也知道运营一家成功的 SaaS 公司所需的能力并不总是存在的。与运营和发展一家成功的咨询公司所必需的相同。在人力资源管理市场经历了几个季度的令人瞩目的增长之后，董事会开始担心增长停滞、错过数字以及缺乏对人力资源管理产品的持续关注。董事会聘请了经验丰富的 SaaS 资深人士 Christine E. Oberman 担任新任首席执行官，并将前任创始人兼首席执行官调任首席战略官。克里斯汀承诺引进和留住最优秀的人才，构建公司以使其当前和未来的产品取得成功，并专注于卓越的管理和领导力，以增强和最大化股东的财富。 The right person speaks to whether the person has the right knowledge, skills, andabilities. Putting this person in the right job at the right time is about ensuring that heor she can be successful in that position and create the most shareholder value possible while tending to his or her career and offering the things that we need to feel goodabout and comfortable in our jobs. The right behaviors speaks to ensuring that theperson works and plays well with others while adhering to the culture and values ofthe company. Bad behaviors are as good a reason for removing a person from theteam as not having the requisite skills, because bad behavior in any team member creates a vicious cycle of plummeting morale and productivity. 合适的人是指这个人是否拥有合适的知识、技能和能力。在正确的时间让这个人担任正确的工作是为了确保他或她能够在该职位上取得成功并创造最大的股东价值，同时关注他或她的职业生涯并提供我们需要感到满意和满意的东西我们的工作很舒服。正确的行为意味着确保该人能够与他人良好地合作和相处，同时遵守公司的文化和价值观。不良行为与不具备必要技能一样，都是将某人从团队中除名的好理由，因为任何团队成员的不良行为都会造成士气和生产力直线下降的恶性循环。 #### Why Organizations 为什么选择组织 It should follow that if people are important to the scalability of a system, their organizational structure should also be important. If this isn’t intuitively obvious, weoffer a few things to consider regarding how organizational structure and responsibilities can positively or negatively impact your ability to scale a system. 由此可见，如果人员对于系统的可扩展性很重要，那么他们的组织结构也应该很重要。如果这不是直观上显而易见的，我们提供了一些需要考虑的事项，涉及组织结构和职责如何对您扩展系统的能力产生积极或消极的影响。 An important concept to remember when considering organizational design as itrelates to scale or any situation is that there rarely is a single right or wrong organizational structure. Once again, this is an art and not really a science. Each organizationalstructure carries with it pros and cons or benefits and drawbacks relative to the goalsyou wish to achieve. It’s important when considering options on how to structureyour organization to tease out the implicit and explicit benefits and drawbacks of theorganizational design relative to your specific needs. 在考虑与规模或任何情况相关的组织设计时要记住的一个重要概念是，很少有单一正确或错误的组织结构。再次强调，这是一门艺术，而不是真正的科学。每种组织结构都相对于您希望实现的目标有利有弊或有利有弊。在考虑如何构建组织的选项时，重要的是要根据您的特定需求梳理出组织设计的隐式和显式优缺点。 Some questions you should ask yourself when developing your organizationaldesign are 在开发组织设计时，您应该问自己的一些问题是 * How easily can I add or remove people to/from this organization? Do I need toadd them in groups, or can I add individual people? * Does the organizational structure help or hinder the development of metrics thatwill help measure work done by the organization? * How easily is this organization understood by the internal and external stakeholders of the organization (i.e., my customers, clients, vendors, etc.)? * How does this organizational structure minimize the amount of work I lose on aper person basis as I add people to the organization? * What conflicts will arise within the organizational structure as a result of thestructure and how will those conflicts hinder the accomplishment of my organization’s mission? * Does work flow easily through the organization or is it easily contained within aportion of the organization? 我可以轻松地在该组织中添加或删除人员吗？我需要将他们分组添加，还是可以添加个人？ * 组织结构是否有助于或阻碍有助于衡量组织所做工作的指标的制定？ * 该组织的内部和外部利益相关者（即我的顾客、委托人、供应商等）是否容易理解该组织？ * 当我向组织中添加人员时，这种组织结构如何最大限度地减少个人损失的工作量？ * 由于该结构，组织结构内会出现哪些冲突？这些冲突将如何阻碍组织使命的实现？ * 工作是否可以轻松地在组织中流动，或者是否可以轻松地包含在组织的一部分内？ These aren’t the only questions one should ask when considering organizationalstructure, but each has a very real impact to the scalability of the organization. Thequestion of how easily people are added is an obvious one as it is very difficult to significantly increase the amount of work done by an organization if your organizationalstructure does not allow the addition of people to perform additional or differenttypes of work. Additionally, you want the flexibility of adding people incrementallyrather than in large groups and the flexibility of easily removing people as market situations demand, such as a sudden increase in demands on the company or a marketrecession requiring constriction of expenses. 这些并不是人们在考虑组织结构时应该问的唯一问题，但每个问题都对组织的可扩展性产生非常实际的影响。添加人员的难易程度是一个显而易见的问题，因为如果您的组织结构不允许添加人员来执行额外的或不同类型的工作，则很难显着增加组织完成的工作量。此外，您还希望能够灵活地逐步增加人员，而不是大规模增加人员，并能够根据市场情况的需要轻松地裁减人员，例如公司需求突然增加或市场衰退需要削减开支。 The question regarding metrics is important because while you often need to beable to scale an organization in size, you also want to ensure that you are measuringthe output of both the organization and the individual people within the organization. An important point to remember here is that as you add people, although thetotal output of the team increases, the average output per person tends to go downslightly. This is the expected result of the overhead associated with communicationbetween people to accomplish their tasks. Each person can only work so many hoursin a day and certainly no more than 24. If an organization consisting of a single person were to work the maximum possible hours in a day, constrained either by law orexhaustion, doing his or her primary task and absolutely nothing else, it stands toreason that the same person when required to interface with other people will haveless time to accomplish his or her primary task and as a result produce less in thesame amount of time. Therefore, the more people with whom an individual needs tointerface to complete any given task, the more time it will take for that person tocomplete that task as increasing amounts of time are spent interfacing and decreasingamounts of time are spent performing the task. 关于指标的问题很重要，因为虽然您经常需要能够扩大组织的规模，但您还希望确保衡量组织和组织内个人的产出。这里要记住的重要一点是，当你增加人员时，尽管团队的总产出增加，但每个人的平均产出往往会略有下降。这是人们为完成任务而进行的沟通所产生的开销的预期结果。每个人一天只能工作这么多小时，当然不能超过 24 小时。如果一个由一个人组成的组织要在一天内工作尽可能多的时间，无论是受到法律的限制还是精疲力尽，完成他或她的主要任务并且绝对没有别的，这就是为什么同一个人在需要与其他人打交道时将没有足够的时间来完成他或她的主要任务，从而在相同的时间内产生更少的成果。因此，一个人需要与越多的人交互来完成任何给定的任务，该人完成该任务所需的时间就越多，因为用于交互的时间越来越多，而用于执行任务的时间则越来越少。 The way to envision this mathematically is that if a single person can produce 1.0unit of work in a given timeframe, a two-person organization might produce 1.99units of the same work in the same timeframe. Each person’s output was slightlyreduced and while the team produced more overall, each person produced slightlyless on an individual basis. The resulting relative loss of .01 units of work in theaforementioned timeframe represents the inefficiencies caused by coordination andcommunication. We will cover this concept in more detail in Chapter 3, DesigningOrganizations, where we discuss team size and how it impacts productivity, morale,and customer relations. 从数学上设想这一点的方法是，如果一个人可以在给定的时间范围内生产 1.0 单位的工作，那么两人组织可能会在相同的时间范围内生产 1.99 单位的相同工作。每个人的产出都略有减少，虽然团队总体产出更多，但每个人个人的产出略有减少。在上述时间范围内导致的 0.01 个工作单元的相对损失代表了协调和沟通造成的低效率。我们将在第 3 章“设计组织”中更详细地介绍这个概念，其中我们讨论团队规模及其如何影响生产力、士气和客户关系。 If the structure of your organization is such that it disallows or makes difficult theestablishment of measurements on individual performance, you will not be able tomeasure output. If you cannot measure the output of individuals and organizations,you can’t react to sudden and rapid deteriorations in that output resulting from anincrease in size of the organization or a change in organizational structure. 如果您的组织结构不允许或难以建立个人绩效衡量标准，那么您将无法衡量产出。如果你无法衡量个人和组织的产出，你就无法对因组织规模扩大或组织结构变化而导致产出突然迅速恶化的情况做出反应。 “How easily is this organization understood by the internal and external stakeholders of the organization” addresses the need for intuitive organizational constructs.Written another way, this question becomes “Are you aligned with your stakeholdersor do you waste time getting requests from stakeholders to the right teams?” If youwant an organization to scale well and easily, you don’t want the external teams withwhich you interface (your customers, vendors, partners, etc.) to be scratching theirheads trying to figuring out with whom they need to speak. Worse yet, you don’twant to be spending a great deal of time trying to figure out how to parcel work outto the right groups based on some stakeholder request or need. This might mean thatyou need to develop teams within your organization to handle external communication or it might mean that teams are developed around stakeholder interests andneeds so that each external interface only works with a single team. 组织的内部和外部利益相关者对这个组织的理解有多容易”满足了对直观组织结构的需求。换句话说，这个问题变成了“您是否与利益相关者保持一致，或者您是否浪费时间将利益相关者的请求发送给正确的团队” ？”如果您希望组织能够轻松轻松地扩展，您不希望与您打交道的外部团队（您的客户、供应商、合作伙伴等）摸不着头脑，试图弄清楚他们需要与谁交谈。更糟糕的是，您不想花费大量时间试图弄清楚如何根据某些利益相关者的请求或需求将工作分配给正确的团队。这可能意味着您需要在组织内开发团队来处理外部通信，或者可能意味着团队是围绕利益相关者的兴趣和需求开发的，以便每个外部接口仅适用于单个团队。 We discussed the question of “How does this organization structure minimize theamount of work I lose on a per person basis as I add people to the organization?”within our explanation of our question on metrics. You might have been in organizationswhere you receive hundreds of internal emails a day and potentially dozens of meeting invites/requests a week. If you’ve been in such a situation, you’ve no doubt spenttime just to eliminate the emails and requests that aren’t relevant to your job responsibilities. This is a perfect example of how as you add people, the output of each individual within an organization goes down (refer back to our example of one personproducing 1.0 unit of work and 2 producing 1.99 units of work). In the precedingexample, as you add people, the email volume grows and time dedicated to readingand discarding irrelevant emails goes up. Figure 1.1 is a depiction of an engineeringteam attempting to coordinate and communicate and Table 1.1 shows the increase inoverall output, but the decrease in individual output between an organization ofthree individuals and an organization consisting of one individual. In Table 1.1, weshow an individual loss of productivity due to communication and coordination of.005, which represents 2.4 minutes a day of coordination activity in an 8-hour day.This isn’t a lot of time, and most of us intuitively would expect that three peopleworking on the same project will spend at least 2.4 minutes a day coordinating theiractivities even with a manager! One person on the other hand need not perform thiscoordination. So, as individual productivity drops, the team output still increases. 在我们对指标问题的解释中，我们讨论了“当我向组织中添加人员时，这种组织结构如何最大限度地减少我在每个人的基础上损失的工作量？”的问题。您可能曾经所在的组织每天收到数百封内部电子邮件，每周可能收到数十封会议邀请/请求。如果您遇到过这种情况，那么您无疑会花时间来消除与您的工作职责无关的电子邮件和请求。这是一个完美的例子，说明随着人员的增加，组织内每个人的产出都会下降（请参阅我们的示例，一个人生产 1.0 个工作单位，两个人生产 1.99 个工作单位）。在前面的示例中，当您添加人员时，电子邮件量会增加，并且用于阅读和丢弃不相关电子邮件的时间也会增加。图 1.1 描述了一个试图协调和沟通的工程团队，表 1.1 显示了由三人组成的组织和由一个人组成的组织之间总体产出的增加，但个人产出的减少。在表 1.1 中，我们显示了由于沟通和协调而导致的个人生产力损失为 0.005，这代表在每天 8 小时的工作中每天需要 2.4 分钟的协调活动。这并不是很多时间，而且我们大多数人直觉上会认为预计从事同一个项目的三个人每天至少会花 2.4 分钟来协调他们的活动，即使是与经理一起！另一方面，不需要一个人来执行这种协调。因此，当个人生产力下降时，团队产出仍然会增加。  Figure 1.1 Coordination Steals Individual Productivity 图 1.1 协调窃取个人生产力  You can offset but not completely eliminate this deterioration in a number ofways. One possibility is to add management to limit interpersonal coordination.Another possibility is to limit the interactions between individuals by creating smallerself-sufficient teams. Both of these approaches have benefits and drawbacks that wewill discuss in Chapter 3. Many other approaches are possible and anything thatincreases individual throughput without damaging innovation should be considered. 您可以通过多种方式抵消但不能完全消除这种恶化。一种可能性是增加管理以限制人际协调。另一种可能性是通过创建较小的自给自足的团队来限制个人之间的互动。这两种方法都有优点和缺点，我们将在第 3 章中讨论。许多其他方法也是可能的，并且应该考虑任何在不损害创新的情况下提高个人吞吐量的方法。 Another important point in organizational design and structure is that anywhereyou create organizational or team boundaries, you create organizational and teamconflict. The question “What conflicts will arise within the organizational structureas a result of the structure and how will those conflicts hinder the accomplishment ofmy organization’s mission?” attempts to address this problem, but there is really noway around boundaries causing friction. Your goal then should be to minimize theconflict created by organizational boundaries. The greatest conflict tends to be created when you have organizations with divergent missions, measurements, and goals,and an easy fix to this drawback is to ensure that every organization shares some setof core goals that drive their behaviors. We’ll discuss this in more detail in Chapter 3where we will cover the two basic types of organizational structures and what purposes they serve. 组织设计和结构中的另一个重要点是，无论在哪里创建组织或团队边界，都会产生组织和团队冲突。问题“由于该结构，组织结构内会出现哪些冲突，这些冲突将如何阻碍组织使命的实现？”试图解决这个问题，但边界周围确实不存在引起摩擦的途径。那么你的目标应该是尽量减少组织边界造成的冲突。当您的组织具有不同的使命、衡量标准和目标时，往往会产生最大的冲突，而解决此缺点的一个简单方法是确保每个组织都有一些驱动其行为的核心目标。我们将在第 3 章中更详细地讨论这一点，其中我们将介绍组织结构的两种基本类型以及它们的用途。 “Does work flow easily through the organization or is it easily contained within aportion of the organization?” is meant to focus on the suitability of your organizational design to the type of work you do. Does work flow through your organizationas efficiently as a well-defined assembly line? Does the type of work you do lend itselfeasily to a pipeline, where one team can start its work at a predefined place markedby where another team completes its work without a lot of communication overhead? Or is the work largely custom and highly intellectual, requiring a single teamto work on it from start to finish without interruption? Are the components of whatyou build or produce capable of operating through a well-defined interface such thattwo teams can work on subcomponents at the same time? 工作是否能够轻松地在组织中流动，或者是否能够轻松地包含在组织的一部分内？”旨在关注您的组织设计是否适合您所做的工作类型。您的组织中的工作流程是否像定义明确的装配线一样高效？您所做的工作类型是否很容易适合管道，其中一个团队可以在预定义的位置开始工作，而另一个团队则在该位置完成其工作，而无需大量通信开销？或者这项工作主要是定制的且高度智能化，需要一个团队从头到尾不间断地工作？您构建或生产的组件是否能够通过定义良好的接口进行操作，以便两个团队可以同时处理子组件？ Let’s take a look at our company, AllScale. AllScale recognizes that it has a need toscale the number of people within the engineering team that is supporting the HRMsoftware in order to produce more products. Over the course of the last year, AllScalehas added several engineers and now has a total of three managers and ten engineers.Each of the three managers reports to the chief technology officer (CTO) of AllScale.These engineers are broken down into the following teams: 让我们看看我们的公司 AllScale。 AllScale 认识到需要扩大支持 HRM 软件的工程团队的人数，以便生产更多产品。在过去的一年里，AllScale增加了几位工程师，现在总共有三名经理和十名工程师。三名经理中的每一位都向AllScale的首席技术官（CTO）汇报。这些工程师分为以下团队 * Two engineers responsible for the provisioning of systems, networking devices,databases, etc. for AllScale’s HRM product. This is the Operations team. * Six engineers responsible for developing the applications that make revenue forAllScale’s HRM product. This is the Engineering team. * Two engineers responsible for testing AllScale’s HRM product for defects andother quality related issues. This is the QA team. 两名工程师负责为 AllScale 的 HRM 产品配置系统、网络设备、数据库等。这是运营团队。 * 六名工程师负责开发为 AllScale 的 HRM 产品带来收入的应用程序。这是工程团队。 * 两名工程师负责测试 AllScale 的 HRM 产品是否存在缺陷和其他质量相关问题。这是 QA 团队。  At a high level, we can intuit a few things from the structure of this organization.The designer of the organization believes that the separation into teams by skill set orfunctional job responsibility will not have an adverse impact on his or her ability todevelop and launch new product functionality. The designer evidently sees greatvalue in dedicating a group of people to testing the product to ensure it conforms tothe company’s quality standards. Benefits we would expect from such an organization are the ability to recruit top talent with focused skill sets such as software engineering in one or more programming languages, hardware/infrastructure experience,and quality/testing experience. At a high level, it appears that we should be able torelatively easily add engineers, operations/infrastructure engineers, and quality assurance engineers—at least until a manager is saturated with direct reports. This organization should be easily understood by all of the stakeholders as it is structured byrelatively easily understood skills. Finally, work would seem to be able to flow easilybetween the organizations as we should be able to define measurable criteria that willqualify any given work product as being “ready” for the next phase of work. Forinstance, code might be ready for QA after it has passed a peer review and all unittesting is completed, and it might be ready for launching to the site and the Operations team after all priority one bugs are fixed and at least 90% of all other defectsfound in the first pass are resolved. 在较高的层面上，我们可以从这个组织的结构中直观地看出一些事情。组织的设计者相信，按技能组合或职能工作职责划分团队不会对其开发和推出新产品的能力产生不利影响。产品功能。设计师显然看到了专门一组人来测试产品以确保其符合公司质量标准的巨大价值。我们期望从这样的组织中获得的好处是能够招募具有集中技能的顶尖人才，例如一种或多种编程语言的软件工程、硬件/基础设施经验以及质量/测试经验。从较高的层面来看，我们似乎应该能够相对轻松地添加工程师、运营/基础设施工程师和质量保证工程师——至少直到经理的直接报告饱和为止。该组织应该容易被所有利益相关者理解，因为它是由相对容易理解的技能构成的。最后，工作似乎能够在组织之间轻松流动，因为我们应该能够定义可衡量的标准，使任何给定的工作产品合格，为下一阶段的工作“做好准备”。例如，代码在通过同行评审并完成所有单元测试后可能已准备好进行 QA，并且在修复所有优先级 1 的错误以及至少 90% 的其他错误后，代码可能已准备好发布到站点和运营团队第一遍中发现的缺陷已得到解决。 There are some potential drawbacks of such an organizational structure, however.For instance, how are you going to measure the throughput of the teams? Who isresponsible for causing a slowdown of new initiative (feature or product) development? Will you measure your operations/infrastructure team by how many new features are launched to the site; if not, what keeps them from slowing down featuredevelopment in an attempt to increase a metric they will likely covet such as availability? When do you determine that something is “completed” for the purposes ofmeasuring your engineering throughput? Is it when the feature launches live to siteand if so, have you calculated the bug induced rework time in developing the feature? 然而，这种组织结构存在一些潜在的缺点。例如，您将如何衡量团队的吞吐量？谁应该对导致新计划（功能或产品）开发放缓负责？您是否会通过向网站推出多少新功能来衡量您的运营/基础设施团队？如果不是，是什么阻止他们放慢功能开发以试图增加他们可能渴望的指标（例如可用性）？为了衡量工程吞吐量，您什么时候确定某件事已“完成”？是在该功能实时发布到站点时吗？如果是，您是否计算过在开发该功能时由错误引起的返工时间？ Will the structure minimize the work loss on a per person basis as you grow theteam? To know this, we probably need to dig into exactly how the software engineersare structured but we can probably also guess that coordination across teams is goingto be a source of some work. Who will perform this coordination? Are the managersresponsible for shepherding something from engineering to QA (Quality Assurance)and finally into the production team (Operations)? Who is responsible for setting theguidelines and criteria for when something moves from one place to another? Shouldyou create a project management team responsible for helping to do this or shouldyou instead reorganize your teams into self-contained teams that have all the skill setsnecessary to complete any given task? 随着团队的发展，该结构能否最大限度地减少每个人的工作损失？要知道这一点，我们可能需要深入研究软件工程师的结构，但我们也可能猜测团队之间的协调将成为一些工作的来源。谁来进行这种协调？经理是否负责引导从工程到 QA（质量保证）并最终进入生产团队（运营）的工作？谁负责制定某物从一个地方转移到另一个地方的指导方针和标准？您应该创建一个项目管理团队来负责帮助完成此任务，还是应该将您的团队重组为拥有完成任何给定任务所需的所有技能的独立团队？ There are likely to be a great many conflicts in this proposed structure, many ofthem across the organizational boundaries we’ve defined. Operations will likely haveconcerns over the quality of new code or systems deployed, QA is likely to have concerns over the level of quality initially presented to them by Engineering, and Engineering will complain that Operations does not meet their needs quickly enough withrespect to the creation of new systems, installation of new databases, and provisioning of new network devices. Who will be responsible for helping to resolve these conflicts, as each conflict takes time away from doing “real work.” 在这个拟议的结构中可能存在大量冲突，其中许多冲突跨越了我们定义的组织边界。运营部门可能会担心新部署的代码或系统的质量，QA 可能会担心工程部门最初向他们提供的质量水平，而工程部门会抱怨运营部门在创建新代码或系统方面没有足够快地满足他们的需求。新系统、安装新数据库以及配置新网络设备。谁将负责帮助解决这些冲突，因为每次冲突都会占用进行“实际工作”的时间。 Other, larger questions we might have of such an organizational structure mightbe “Who is responsible for ensuring that the product or platform has an appropriatelevel of scale for our needs?” or “Who is responsible for identifying and resolvingissues of scale?” When considering the answer to this question, please note that ascale issue might be the result of a network capacity constraint, a database capacityconstraint, or a software capacity constraint. Moreover, that constraint isn’t going tobe easily bucketed into one of these areas every time it comes up. 对于这样的组织结构，我们可能会遇到其他更大的问题，可能是“谁负责确保产品或平台具有适合我们需求的规模？”或“谁负责识别和解决规模问题？”在考虑此问题的答案时，请注意规模问题可能是网络容量限制、数据库容量限制或软件容量限制的结果。此外，这种限制不会每次出现时都轻易地归入其中一个领域。 #### Why Management and Leadership 为什么管理和领导力 In our experience, relatively few managers and leaders have ever had a course onmanagement or leadership. Few universities offer such classes, unless you happen tohave been a management major or have attended an MBA program with a management curriculum. Given the lack of management and leadership courses in our universities, most people learn how to manage and how to lead informally: you watchwhat others do in peer positions and positions of greater responsibility and youdecide what works and what doesn’t. Over time, we start to develop our own “toolboxes” and add tools from our professional readings or discard tools as they age andbecome less relevant to our younger generations of employees. This general “life as alab” approach is how we’ve developed managers for years and, although it has itsbenefits, it is unfortunate that the two areas don’t get better treatment in structuredcurriculums within universities and within larger corporations. 根据我们的经验，很少有管理者和领导者参加过管理或领导力课程。很少有大学提供此类课程，除非你恰好主修管理学或者参加过管理课程的 MBA 课程。由于我们的大学缺乏管理和领导力课程，大多数人都在非正式地学习如何管理和领导：你观察其他人在同行职位和责任更大的职位上做了什么，然后决定什么有效，什么无效。随着时间的推移，我们开始开发自己的“工具箱”，并从我们的专业读物中添加工具，或者随着年龄的增长和与年轻一代员工的相关性降低而丢弃工具。这种普遍的“实验室生活”方法是我们多年来培养管理者的方式，尽管它有其好处，但不幸的是，这两个领域在大学和大公司的结构化课程中没有得到更好的对待。 Management and leadership either multiply or detract from your ability to scaleorganizations in growth environments. They are often spoken of within the samecontext, but they are really two very different disciplines with very different impacton scalability. Many times, the same person will perform both the functions of aleader and a manager. In most organizations, one will progress from a position of anindividual contributor into a primarily management focused role; and over time withfuture promotions, that person will take on increasing leadership responsibilities. 管理和领导力要么会增强要么会削弱您在增长环境中扩展组织的能力。它们经常在相同的上下文中被提及，但它们实际上是两个截然不同的学科，对可扩展性的影响截然不同。很多时候，同一个人会同时履行领导者和管理者的职能。在大多数组织中，一个人将从个人贡献者的职位晋升为主要以管理为中心的角色；随着时间的推移，随着未来的晋升，该人将承担越来越多的领导责任。 In general and at a very high level, you can think of management activities as “pushing” activities and leadership as “pulling” activities. Leadership sets a destination and“waypoints” toward that destination; management gets you to that destination.Leadership would be stating “We will never have a scalability related downtime inour systems” and management would be ensuring that it never happens. You absolutely need both and if you are going to scale your organization, your processes, andyour systems well and cost effectively, you need to do both well. 一般来说，在很高的层次上，您可以将管理活动视为“推”活动，将领导视为“拉”活动。领导力设定一个目的地和通往该目的地的“路标”；管理层会带你到达目的地。领导层会说“我们的系统永远不会出现与可扩展性相关的停机”，而管理层会确保这种情况永远不会发生。您绝对需要两者，如果您想以成本有效的方式很好地扩展您的组织、流程和系统，那么您需要两者都做好。 Far too often, we get caught up in the notion of a “management style.” We mightbelieve that a person’s “management style” makes them more of a leader or more ofa manager. This notion of style is our perception of an individual’s bias toward thetasks that define either leadership or management. We might believe that a person ismore operationally focused and is therefore more of a “manager” or more visionaryand therefore more of a “leader.” Although we all have a set of personality traits andskills that likely make us more comfortable or more capable with one set of activitiesover the other, there is no reason we can’t get better at both disciplines. Recognizingthat they are two distinct disciplines is a step toward isolating and developing bothour management and leadership capabilities to the benefit of our shareholders. 我们常常陷入“管理风格”的概念之中。我们可能认为一个人的“管理风格”使他们更像一个领导者或者更像一个管理者。这种风格的概念是我们对个人对定义领导力或管理的任务的偏见的看法。我们可能认为一个人更注重运营，因此更像是一个“经理”，或者更有远见，因此更像是一个“领导者”。尽管我们都有一系列的性格特征和技能，这些特征和技能可能会让我们在一组活动中比另一组活动更自在或更有能力，但我们没有理由不能在这两个方面都做得更好。认识到它们是两个不同的学科，是朝着分离和发展我们的管理和领导能力以造福股东的方向迈出的一步。 As we have indicated, management is about “pushing.” Management is aboutensuring that people are assigned to the appropriate tasks and that those tasks arecompleted within the specified time interval and at an appropriate cost. Managementis about setting individual contributor goals along the path to the greater leadershipgoals and helping a team to accomplish both the individual contributor and teamgoals. It is also about ensuring that people get performance-oriented feedback in atimely manner and that the feedback includes both praise for great performance andinformation regarding what they can improve. Management is about measuring andimproving everything that ultimately creates shareholder value, examples of whichare reducing the cost to perform an activity or increasing the throughput of an activity at the same cost. Management is communicating status early and often and clearlyidentifying what is on track and where help is needed. Management activities alsoinclude removing obstacles or helping the team over or around obstacles where theyoccur on the path to an objective. Management is important to scale as it is how youget the most out of an organization, thereby reducing cost per unit of work performed. The definition of how something is to be performed is a managementresponsibility and how something is performed absolutely impacts the scale of organizations, processes, and systems. 正如我们所指出的，管理就是“推动”。管理的目的是确保将人员分配到适当的任务，并确保这些任务在指定的时间间隔内以适当的成本完成。管理是指沿着实现更大领导目标的道路设定个人贡献者目标，并帮助团队实现个人贡献者和团队目标。它还涉及确保人们及时获得以绩效为导向的反馈，并且反馈既包括对出色绩效的赞扬，也包括有关他们可以改进的信息。管理是衡量和改进最终创造股东价值的一切，例如降低执行某项活动的成本或以相同成本增加某项活动的吞吐量。管理层会尽早、经常地传达状态，并清楚地确定哪些内容已步入正轨以及哪些地方需要帮助。管理活动还包括消除障碍或帮助团队克服或绕过实现目标的道路上出现的障碍。管理对于规模化非常重要，因为它是您充分利用组织的方式，从而降低每单位工作的成本。某件事如何执行的定义是一项管理职责，而某件事如何执行绝对会影响组织、流程和系统的规模。 Management as it relates to people is about the practice of ensuring that we havethe right person in the right job at the right time with the right behaviors. From anorganizational perspective, it is about ensuring that the team operates well togetherand has the proper mix of skills and experiences to be successful. Management asapplied to an organization’s work is about ensuring that projects are on budget, ontime, and meeting the expected results upon which their selection was predicated.Management means measurement and a failure to measure is a failure to manage.Failing to manage in turn is a guarantee to miss your organizational, process, andsystems scalability objectives as without management, no one is ensuring that you aredoing the things you need to do in the timeframe required. 与人相关的管理是确保我们在正确的时间让正确的人担任正确的工作并采取正确的行为。从组织的角度来看，这是为了确保团队能够良好地合作，并拥有适当的技能和经验组合以取得成功。应用于组织工作的管理是为了确保项目按预算、按时进行，并达到其选择所依据的预期结果。管理意味着衡量，未能衡量就是管理失败。反过来，管理失败也是一种失败。保证无法实现您的组织、流程和系统可扩展性目标，因为没有管理，没有人可以确保您在所需的时间范围内完成您需要做的事情。 Leadership has to do with all the pulling activities necessary to be successful in anyendeavor. If management is the act of pushing an organization up a hill, leadership isthe selection of that hill and then being first up it to encourage your organization tofollow. Leadership is about inspiring people and organizations to do better and hopefully great things. Leadership is creating a vision that drives people to do the rightthing for the company. Leadership is creating a mission that helps codify the aforementioned vision and creating a causal mental roadmap that helps employees understand how what they do creates value for the shareholder. Finally, leadership is aboutthe definition of the goals on the way to an objective. Leadership is important toscale as it not only sets the direction (mission) and destination (vision) but it inspirespeople and organizations to achieve that destination. 领导力与任何努力取得成功所必需的所有拉动活动有关。如果说管理是将一个组织推上一座山的行为，那么领导力就是选择那座山，然后率先登上这座山，鼓励你的组织效仿。领导力就是激励人们和组织做得更好，并希望做伟大的事情。领导力正在创造一个愿景，驱使人们为公司做正确的事。领导力正在创建一个使命，帮助将上述愿景编成法典，并创建一个因果心理路线图，帮助员工了解他们的工作如何为股东创造价值。最后，领导力是关于实现目标过程中目标的定义。领导力对于规模化非常重要，因为它不仅设定方向（使命）和目的地（愿景），而且还激励人们和组织实现该目的地。 Any initiative lacking leadership (including initiatives meant to increase the scalability of your company), while not doomed to certain failure, will likely only achievesuccess through pure dumb luck and chance. Great leaders create a culture focusedon ensuring success through highly scalable organizations, processes, and products.This culture is supported by incentives structured around ensuring that the companyscales cost effectively without user perceived quality of service or availability issues. 任何缺乏领导力的举措（包括旨在提高公司可扩展性的举措）虽然不会注定失败，但很可能只能通过纯粹的运气和机会才能取得成功。伟大的领导者创造了一种专注于通过高度可扩展的组织、流程和产品确保成功的文化。这种文化得到了激励措施的支持，这些激励措施围绕确保公司以成本效益的方式进行扩展，而不会引起用户感知的服务质量或可用性问题。 #### Conclusion 结论 We’ve asserted that people, organizations, management, and leadership are all important to scalability. People are the most important element of scalability, as withoutpeople there are no processes and there is no technology. The effective organizationof your people will either get you to where you need to be faster or hinder yourefforts in producing scalable systems. Management and leadership are the push andpull, respectively, in the whole operation. Leadership serves to inspire people togreater accomplishments, and management exists to motivate them to the objective. 我们断言，人员、组织、管理和领导力对于可扩展性都很重要。人是可扩展性中最重要的元素，因为没有人就没有流程，也没有技术。有效的员工组织要么会让您更快地到达您需要的地方，要么会阻碍您生产可扩展系统的努力。管理和领导分别是整个运作的推力和拉力。领导力的作用是激励人们取得更大的成就，而管理的存在是为了激励他们实现目标。 ##### Key Points 关键点 * People are the most important piece of the scale puzzle. * The right person in the right job at the right time and with the right behaviors isessential to scale organizations, processes, and systems. * Organizational structures are rarely “right or wrong.” Any structure is likely tohave pros and cons relative to your needs. * When designing your organization, consider + The ease with which you can add people to the organization + The ease with which you can measure organizational success and individualcontributions over time + How easy the organization is to understand for an outsider + How the organizational structure impacts individual productivity + What “friction” will exist between teams within the organization + How easily work flows through the organization * Adding people to organizations may increase the organizational throughput, butthe average production per individual tends to go down. * Management is about achieving goals. A lack of management is nearly certain todoom your scalability initiatives. * Leadership is about goal definition, vision creation, and mission articulation.An absence of leadership as it relates to scale is detrimental to your objectives. 人是规模拼图中最重要的部分。 * 合适的人在合适的时间担任合适的工作并采取正确的行为对于扩展组织、流程和系统至关重要。 * 组织结构很少有“对错”之分。任何结构都可能根据您的需求有利有弊。 * 设计组织时，请考虑 + 向组织添加人员的难易程度 + 衡量组织成功和个人长期贡献的难易程度 + 外部人员理解组织的难易程度 + 组织结构如何影响个人生产力 + 组织内团队之间会存在什么“摩擦” + 工作在组织中流动的难易程度 * 向组织中添加人员可能会增加组织的吞吐量，但每个人的平均产量往往会下降。 * 管理是为了实现目标。缺乏管理几乎肯定会导致您的可扩展性计划失败。 * 领导力涉及目标定义、愿景创造和使命阐明。缺乏与规模相关的领导力会对您的目标产生不利影响。
没有评论