Leadership: at Amazon, Apple and Facebook

Published: 2011-11-28   There are 2 comments ... please add yours below

Amazon’s amazing. Apple’s the apple of everyone’s eye. Facebook’s the face everyone wants to know. In a recent blog, Seth Godin copied their org. charts as seen by Manu. Perhaps these charts also sum up their leadership styles. If so, what can you and I learn from each – and their differences. Here are some characteristics and then my takeaway.

1. The Amazon pyramid: is traditional command-and-control with a single boss at the apex. And, direct reports, who oversee ever wider groups of subordinates through the layers below. Each person has a single upward relationship. It’s therefore low on ambiguity but often inflexible and slow. The boss is a five-star general in charge of serried ranks of troops, who march into battle in orderly fashion. It's a world of consistent policies but where seniority can sometimes trump talent. Is this your current or preferred model?
2. The Amazon pyramid: is traditional command-and-control with a single boss at the apex. And, direct reports, who oversee ever wider groups of subordinates through the layers below. Each person has a single upward relationship. It’s therefore low on ambiguity but often inflexible and slow. The boss is a five-star general in charge of serried ranks of troops, who march into battle in orderly fashion. It’s a world of consistent policies but where seniority can sometimes trump talent. Is this your current or preferred model?
3. The Apple hub and spoke: had a Wizard at its centre with everyone else (and their teams) scattered at the periphery. A single, wide range of direct reports in a ring around the magician. This format speeds action on his or her ideas and allows them to create multiple exploratory groups working on the same or different projects. Also, to get fast feedback from the market (just outside the wheel) and from direct reports within it. However, any Wizard creates a key-person risk. And, competition between those at the periphery (to join the inevitable inner court) can be destructive. Is this more you?
4. The Facebook net: has many, many nodes and countless cross linkages. Everyone is in touch – instantly, incessantly. But no-one is necessarily in charge or responsible. It supports cooperation, synergy and swarming but also chaos and feuds. Attention may go to those, who send the most emails and make the most noise. Others, less sociable but perhaps more talented, may be cut out of the flow. Do you prefer this buzzing village square?

Manu also offers charts for Google, Microsoft and Oracle*. But, to my mind these are just better or worse variants of command-and-control. For our purpose, the three above are sufficient.

Each of the three models offers positives and negatives. So, what’s right for leading and managing your business: considering its technology, change demands and economics? And, what’s right for your people: in light of their skills, personalities and expectations? Under the three numbered sections above, I asked how you felt about each approach. But, sadly, the solution lies not in what you like but in the needs of the business and your people. So, perhaps you may need to adapt – assuming you want the business to grow and, to that end, need to earn and hold the support of your people. As always in leadership, there’s no single right answer. It’s all about what’s needed in particular circumstances. So, going forward in your present job, which approach makes most sense? Please, share some thoughts below.

Dr. Timothy Pascoe AM
PhD (Cambridge), MBA (Harvard), BE & BEc (Adelaide)
Creator, V|E|C|T|O|R Leadership^®