Under New Management

Under New Management Plot Summary

Introduction

Picture yourself walking into an office where there are no assigned desks, where your boss encourages you to take as much vacation as you need, and where everyone knows exactly what everyone else earns. Sounds revolutionary, doesn't it? Perhaps even a bit uncomfortable? This is precisely the kind of workplace transformation happening in some of the world's most successful companies today. For decades, we've accepted certain management practices as gospel: annual performance reviews, closely monitored vacation policies, and the sanctity of the corner office. But pioneering organizations are challenging these long-held assumptions, discovering that when they trust their employees more, monitor them less, and create environments that foster autonomy and transparency, something remarkable happens. People become more engaged, more productive, and more fulfilled. Through fascinating stories of companies that dared to reimagine the rules of management, we'll explore how breaking from tradition isn't just possible—it's often the key to building extraordinary organizations where both people and profits can flourish.

Chapter 1: The Email Rebellion: When Disconnecting Creates Connection

In February 2011, Thierry Breton, CEO of the France-based technology company Atos SE, made a shocking announcement that sent ripples through the business world. He declared that his company would become an "email-zero" organization within three years. This wasn't just a minor policy adjustment—it was a bold statement against what Breton called "email pollution." At the time, Atos was no small operation with over 70,000 employees across more than forty countries. When Breton examined how his staff communicated, he discovered that in just one week, a sample of 300 employees had sent or received more than 85,000 messages. Surveys revealed that most employees felt overwhelmed by their inboxes and believed that the time spent managing email was preventing them from focusing on more important tasks. Rather than merely limiting email use, Breton took the radical step of eliminating internal email entirely. In its place, Atos built an internal social network organized around 7,500 open communities where employees could collaborate. Unlike email, these communities were transparent, allowing newcomers to see the entire history of discussions. Most importantly, conversations weren't pushed to employees' inboxes, interrupting their focused work. Instead, staff could choose when to engage with discussions on their own terms. The results were impressive. By the end of 2013, Atos had reduced overall email by 60 percent, going from an average of 100 email messages per week per employee to fewer than 40. Employees reported feeling more productive and collaborative. The company saw tangible benefits too: operating margins increased, earnings per share rose by more than 50 percent, and administrative costs declined significantly. This email rebellion highlights a truth that research increasingly confirms: our constant connectivity often diminishes rather than enhances our productivity. Studies show that email occupies about 23 percent of the average employee's workday, with that employee checking their inbox 36 times an hour. When researchers from the University of California at Irvine cut off email for thirteen information workers, they found participants were more focused, less stressed, and reported feeling more productive without email than under normal working conditions. The lesson from Atos and similar companies is that sometimes disconnection is the best path to meaningful connection. By reimagining how we communicate, organizations can create spaces where ideas flow more naturally and work happens more efficiently, proving that sometimes the most innovative approach is to let go of tools we've long considered essential.

Chapter 2: Salary Transparency: Breaking the Taboo of Pay Secrecy

"I have been downright abusive," confessed Dane Atkinson, reflecting on his previous approach to setting employee salaries. As a serial entrepreneur who started his first company at seventeen, Atkinson had mastered the art of paying as little as possible to acquire talent. "Many times I paid two people with the very same qualifications entirely different salaries, simply because I negotiated better with one person than another," he admitted. When recruiting, he would probe candidates for their salary expectations, using that information to minimize what he offered them, considering it a shareholder value tactic. But when Atkinson launched SumAll, a Manhattan-based data analytics company, he decided to try something radically different: complete salary transparency. From day one, every employee would know exactly what everyone else earned. The company assigned new hires to one of nine fixed salary levels, ranging from around $35,000 to $160,000, based on their position. Every employee's name and corresponding salary was posted on the company's internal network for all to see. This approach required some adjustment. New hires accustomed to negotiating were sometimes uncomfortable with fixed, non-negotiable offers. But once inside the company, employees saw that sharing salaries ensured fairness. If an employee felt underpaid compared to colleagues in similar positions, they could raise the issue. Once, an engineer on a hiring panel discovered a new candidate would be offered more than he was making despite having less experience. He brought this to Atkinson's attention, and SumAll responded by raising his salary. Buffer, a social media management company, took transparency even further. In 2013, founder Joel Gascoigne not only shared all employee salaries within the company but published them publicly on the internet. Buffer also revealed the formula used to calculate each salary, based on job type, seniority, experience, location, and equity. This allowed employees to understand exactly why they earned what they did and created clear paths for advancement. Research supports the benefits of such transparency. Studies show that pay secrecy is associated with decreased employee performance, while revealing pay information can actually increase productivity. In one experiment, researchers found that participants who were shown their earnings relative to others worked harder and significantly improved their performance in a second round of work. The improvements were especially notable among high performers, who worked harder to maintain their status. The psychology behind this is straightforward: humans have a strong desire for fairness. When salary information is hidden, we often incorrectly estimate what others earn – typically overestimating the pay of those below us and underestimating the salaries of those above. This skewed perception creates unnecessary stress and dissatisfaction. Transparency corrects these misperceptions and builds trust, creating a workplace where employees feel valued for their contributions rather than their negotiation skills. The radical honesty about compensation pioneered by companies like SumAll and Buffer demonstrates that when we eliminate secrecy, we often eliminate many of the problems it was meant to hide.

Chapter 3: The Power of Autonomy: Companies Without Managers

Walk into Valve Software's offices in Bellevue, Washington, and you'll find something unusual: no bosses telling employees what to do. This highly successful gaming company, valued at between $3-4 billion and creator of the popular Half-Life series and Steam distribution platform, operates with a completely flat structure. "When you're an entertainment company that's spent the last decade going out of its way to recruit the most intelligent, innovative, talented people on Earth, telling them to sit at a desk and do what they're told obliterates 99 percent of their value," explains the company's employee handbook. At Valve, new employees rotate around various projects, talk to colleagues, and then decide which project to join full-time. No manager assigns them tasks or evaluates their performance. Every desk is equipped with wheels and organized so that only two cords need to be unplugged before it can be rolled anywhere in the office. "It is a bit disconcerting for people who enter Valve, because there is no one there to tell them what to do," observed economist Yanis Varoufakis, who once worked with the company. Projects begin when an employee or group pitches an idea and recruits a team. If enough people wheel their desks over, the project launches. While someone might be referred to as a "leader," this simply means they're coordinating information, not giving orders. Performance management happens through peer review, where employees evaluate each other's contributions, and compensation is determined by ranking team members on factors like skill level, productivity, and contributions to the group and product. This approach isn't unique to Valve. Morning Star, the world's largest tomato processor, has operated without managers for over forty years. Employees write their own mission statements describing how they'll contribute to the company's goals, then negotiate with colleagues to create "Colleague Letters of Understanding" that define their responsibilities. If employees need equipment, they buy it. If they feel overloaded, they hire someone to help. The company has seen growth rates ten times the industry average. Research on human motivation helps explain why these seemingly radical approaches work. Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, professors at the University of Rochester, found that autonomy—the universal urge to control choices in our lives and work—is a primary driver of intrinsic motivation. In one study of employees at an American investment bank, they discovered a significant correlation between perceived autonomy and overall performance. Simply put, the more managers cede control over what to do and how to do it, the better employees perform. The managerless revolution teaches us that hierarchies aren't always necessary for order and productivity. By trusting employees to make decisions, companies can unlock levels of motivation, innovation, and performance that traditional command-and-control structures often suppress. The success of companies like Valve and Morning Star suggests that perhaps the best management is sometimes no management at all.

Chapter 4: Rethinking Space: How Office Design Shapes Performance

In the mid-1990s, advertising legend Jay Chiat had a radical vision for the workplace. While skiing in Telluride, Colorado, he reflected on how traditional offices reinforce hierarchy and isolation: "You go to work and you only leave your office when you have to go to the bathroom," he observed. "That sort of thing breeds insularity and fear, and it's nonproductive." His solution? Tear down all walls and cubicles at his agency Chiat/Day, removing desks and desktop computers—anything that might cause employees to become territorial. In this revolutionary space, employees would receive only a locker and a mobile phone and laptop they could check out daily. They would work wherever they wanted in a vast open area filled with tables, couches, and common areas. Personal effects and family photos would stay in lockers, not in the "team workroom." Chiat believed this would break down barriers and spark unprecedented collaboration. The experiment failed spectacularly. Rather than eliminating office politics, the design heightened tensions. Employees began arriving early to claim desks, hiding computers overnight to keep using the same one, and stuffing unfinished work into too-small lockers. Most problematically, the common area wasn't large enough for everyone, so people would arrive and find nowhere to work. By 1998, Chiat/Day abandoned the concept and moved to a more traditional office. Despite this cautionary tale, the open office trend accelerated. Today, 70 percent of American workplaces have open floor plans, and the average space per employee has shrunk from 500 square feet in the 1970s to just 200 square feet in 2010. Facebook recently unveiled plans for a 430,000-square-foot building housing 2,800 employees in one giant room. Advocates claim these designs increase collaboration and communication. The research tells a different story. In a study from the University of Sydney examining data from over 42,000 workers in 303 office buildings, researchers found that enclosed private offices had the highest satisfaction rates while open offices had the lowest. The biggest complaint? Lack of sound privacy, with 25-30 percent of open office workers dissatisfied with noise levels. Surprisingly, satisfaction with "ease of interaction" was no higher in open offices than in private ones—suggesting the main benefit of open plans doesn't actually materialize. Other studies show that open offices can increase stress hormones, reduce motivation, and even make people sick. Danish researchers found that employees in open offices took 62 percent more sick days than those in private offices. The constant distractions and lack of privacy don't just feel uncomfortable—they measurably harm performance and health. The most successful office designs today recognize that different tasks require different environments. At Gerson Lehrman Group, a consulting firm in New York, employees have no assigned desks but can choose from diverse spaces ranging from café-style areas to library carrels to private phone booths. "If they want to work at a desk, we have plenty of desk space," explains CEO Alexander Saint-Amand. "If they want to work in a café or in teams or on couches, we have that space." The solution isn't necessarily closing open offices or opening closed ones—it's giving employees choices and control over their work environment, allowing them to match their surroundings to the task at hand.

Chapter 5: Team-Based Hiring: When Colleagues Choose Colleagues

At Whole Foods Market, new employees undergo a unique trial period. After interviews and initial training, they're provisionally placed on a team. Then something unusual happens: after 60 days, the existing team votes on whether to fully accept the new associate. It takes a two-thirds majority vote for someone to become a permanent employee. Those who don't receive enough votes must either find another team willing to take them or leave the company entirely. This team-based hiring approach isn't a feel-good gimmick—it's central to how Whole Foods operates. The company is structured entirely around teams, with each store comprising eight to ten departments like produce, meat, and checkout. These teams have remarkable autonomy, helping decide what to order, how to price items, and how to run promotions. Since teams are the basic unit of measurement for performance, with data shared openly across the organization, it makes sense that teams would have final say on who joins them. Founder John Mackey explains the rationale: "A team doesn't fully gel until it doesn't vote somebody on the team." The process ensures that new hires are a good cultural fit and reinforces the team's ownership of their performance. As Mackey puts it, "You can always fool the team leader, but it's very hard to fool the team." This approach reflects growing evidence that individual performance is deeply tied to team dynamics. In a groundbreaking study, Harvard Business School researchers led by Boris Groysberg examined what happened when star stock analysts switched firms. The results were surprising: stars who moved alone saw their performance drop by about 20 percent and hadn't recovered even five years later. However, analysts who brought their teams with them maintained their performance levels. This suggests that much of what we attribute to individual talent actually stems from team resources and relationships. In another study, Groysberg found that individual analysts were far more likely to maintain or improve their professional rankings if they had other star performers on their team. The quality of colleagues affected individual performance in four key ways: as sources of useful information, providers of feedback, connections to clients, and enhancers of reputation. Web development company Automattic takes team hiring even further with a unique "trials" process. After initial interviews, promising candidates work on actual projects with real teams for 10-20 hours per week, often outside their current job hours. They're paid an hourly wage during this trial, which can last from three to eight weeks. "We're looking at a lot of things besides just their work," explains founder Matt Mullenweg. "Communication is super-important, so we're testing for how well they communicate and how well they handle feedback." This approach has dramatically reduced hiring mistakes. Before implementing trials, up to one-third of Automattic's new hires didn't work out. Now, Mullenweg estimates that only about 40 percent of candidates pass the trial, but those who do stay: of 370 people hired up until 2014, only 60 had left the company. The wisdom of team-based hiring lies in recognizing that individual performance isn't entirely individual. By involving teams in selecting their members, companies tap into collective intelligence about who will truly excel in a particular environment. They also build commitment—team members who help choose a colleague are more invested in that person's success. As the experiences of Whole Foods, Automattic, and others demonstrate, the most accurate judges of future performance are often the people who will be working alongside the new hire every day.

Chapter 6: Celebrating Departures: Building Alumni Networks

Every newly hired consultant at McKinsey & Company thinks about quitting before they've even started. It's not because they're unhappy—it's because the firm openly discusses life after McKinsey during recruitment. "We will talk about not just the great training you'll get and the great problems you'll work on and the wonderful clients you'll work with, but also the fact that the firm does celebrate those lifelong connections and how we keep our alumni connected," explains Sean Brown, the global director of alumni relations. This approach might seem counterintuitive. Why would a prestigious consulting firm emphasize that most people will eventually leave? The answer lies in McKinsey's nine-decade history: the firm has discovered that maintaining strong relationships with former employees creates tremendous value. Each of McKinsey's offices has at least one person responsible for alumni engagement. The firm maintains a members-only website with a directory of all former consultants, hosts knowledge events and conferences, and facilitates connections between alumni. The benefits extend far beyond generating new business from former consultants who now lead other companies. McKinsey's alumni network serves as a critical connection to the broader business world, allowing the firm to quickly learn new information and stay competitive. When Brown was a junior associate needing to speak with healthcare executives at five different firms, he discovered alumni at all five who made time for him. Years later, when he had left McKinsey, he reciprocated when the firm reached out to him for assistance. This phenomenon reflects what sociologists call "embeddedness"—a company's location in its industry network. Brian Uzzi of Northwestern University found that firms with the right mix of close relationships and broader connections were most successful. Companies that were too isolated couldn't leverage trust or get help with challenges. Those too tightly connected to just a few partners couldn't access enough new market information to adapt to changes. Recognizing these benefits, more companies are building formal alumni networks. LinkedIn offers all former employees lifetime premium membership to its social network and maintains two tiers of alumni engagement. Microsoft's 10,000-member alumni network offers former employees benefits ranging from product discounts to opportunities for philanthropy. Proctor & Gamble's alumni network, which grew organically after the company shifted from a culture of secrecy, now has 25,000 members and chapters in dozens of cities worldwide. Perhaps most innovative is Accenture's approach: the consulting firm not only maintains connections with its 100,000+ US alumni but offers them referral bonuses for suggesting candidates for Accenture job openings. Nearly one-third of new hires come from referrals, with many coming from former, not current, employees. Chevron goes even further with its "Bridges" program, which allows alumni to rejoin the company as contractors for technical assignments or as advisors after being separated for at least six months. What these companies understand is that in today's fluid career landscape, celebrating departures creates more value than resisting them. Former employees become ambassadors, clients, sources of intelligence, and sometimes even boomerang employees who return with new skills. By maintaining these relationships, organizations build a powerful network that extends their reach far beyond their current workforce. The boundary between "us" and "them" becomes permeable, creating a community that continues to generate value long after the employment relationship ends.

Chapter 7: Taking Breaks: The Productivity of Planned Absence

In July 2009, acclaimed designer Stefan Sagmeister took the stage at the TEDGlobal conference and shared a counterintuitive idea: work less. Specifically, he revealed that every seven years, he completely closes his New York design studio for an entire year. He and his staff take this time for personal travel and creative experimentation, with no client work whatsoever. "In that year, we are not available for any of our clients," he explained. "We are totally closed." The audience must have wondered: how could a competitive design firm afford to disappear for a year? Sagmeister's answer was simple—they couldn't afford not to. "The work that comes out of this year flows back into the company and into society at large," he explained. After his first sabbatical, he found that virtually all of his studio's projects over the next seven years originated from thinking done during that single year away. The quality of these post-sabbatical projects was so high that the studio could charge premium prices, more than offsetting the cost of the time away. While corporate sabbatical programs remain relatively rare—only about 15 percent of US companies offer them—their prevalence is growing. Intel has offered employees eight weeks of paid leave every seven years since 1981. McDonald's established the first corporate sabbatical program in America in 1977, offering eight weeks of paid leave for every ten years of employment. Both companies have found that sabbaticals serve dual purposes: they rejuvenate employees while also developing those who cover for them. "When people are not around for two months, you get a glimpse of how [their replacements] perform, so from a talent management standpoint, it has advantages," explains Rich Floersch, McDonald's chief human resources officer. Intel's director of global benefits strategy, Tami Graham, adds that the cost is minimal compared to the benefits: "People are on the payroll whether they are there or not, and the work is being covered within the organization, so there's no real cost." Research confirms these benefits. A study of 129 professors who took sabbaticals found they experienced reduced stress, increased psychological resources, and improved overall well-being. These positive effects often remained even after returning to work. Those who fully detached from their regular campus—skipping meetings and rarely communicating with their university—gained the most from their sabbatical. For organizations concerned about leadership development, sabbaticals offer unexpected advantages. Researchers studying nonprofit leaders found that sabbaticals not only refreshed the leaders who took them but also developed interim leaders who filled in during their absence. "In some cases the sabbatical helped make clear to the organization that the person who acted as the interim executive director was the right choice," the researchers noted. In essence, sabbaticals provide a risk-free way to test potential successors. Some companies have created innovative variations on the traditional sabbatical. FullContact, a Colorado-based software company, offers employees $7,500 annually to take vacations during which they must completely disconnect from work. CEO Bart Lorang implemented this "paid-paid vacation" policy after seeing how his own workaholic tendencies damaged his personal life. The Motley Fool investment firm randomly selects one employee each month who must take a two-week fully disconnected break. Technology company 42Floors even instituted "pre-cations"—paid vacations that new hires must take before their first day. The common thread in all these approaches is the recognition that continuous productivity requires discontinuous work. By building structured breaks into their culture, organizations create space for both rest and innovation. As TED's executive producer June Cohen puts it: "When you have a team of passionate, dedicated overachievers, you don't need to push them to work harder, you need to help them rest." In a world increasingly obsessed with constant connectivity, the most revolutionary productivity hack might be the courage to disconnect completely.

Summary

Throughout the stories of workplace transformation we've explored, one theme emerges consistently: the most innovative management practices often involve removing traditional controls rather than adding new ones. Whether it's eliminating email to improve communication, sharing salaries to enhance fairness, removing managers to boost autonomy, or celebrating departures to strengthen networks, these revolutionary approaches work by trusting employees more, not less. They recognize that in today's knowledge economy, engagement comes not from rigid policies but from creating environments where people can do their best work on their own terms. These pioneering companies remind us that what we accept as management gospel is often just inherited tradition that deserves questioning. Their success challenges us to examine our own assumptions about how work should function. Perhaps the most powerful insight is that humans naturally strive to contribute meaningfully when given the right conditions—and those conditions rarely include micromanagement, information hoarding, or constant surveillance. By reimagining management around human needs for autonomy, transparency, and connection, organizations can unlock extraordinary potential in their people. The revolution in management isn't about finding clever new ways to control employees—it's about having the courage to let go of control and trust in the remarkable capabilities that emerge when people are truly empowered.

About Author

Loading...

David Burkus

One of the world’s leading business thinkers, David Burkus’ forward-thinking ideas and bestselling books are helping leaders and teams do their best work ever.He is the bestselling author of four books about business and leadership. His books have won multiple awards and have been translated into dozens of languages. His insights on leadership and teamwork have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, USAToday, Fast Company, the Financial Times, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, CNN, the BBC, NPR, and CBS This Morning. Since 2017, Burkus has been ranked as one of the world’s top business thought leaders by Thinkers50. As a sought-after international speaker, his TED Talk has been viewed over 2 million times. He’s worked with leaders from organizations across all industries including Google, Stryker, Fidelity, Viacom, and even the US Naval Academy.A former business school professor, Burkus holds a master’s degree in organizational psychology from the University of Oklahoma, and a doctorate in strategic leadership from Regent University.

Read more

Related Books by David Burkus

Loading...

Leading from Anywhere

David Burkus

Unlock the Power and Performance of Remote Teams

★★★½☆3.8

Loading...

The Myths of Creativity

David Burkus

The Truth About How Innovative Companies and People Generate Great Ideas

★★★½☆4.0

Loading...

Friend of a Friend

David Burkus

Understanding the Hidden Networks That Can Transform Your Life and Your Career

★★★½☆3.8