For a while my company tried a “matrix organization”, it separates the people leader from the work leader.
So a person would be on a team, and the work the team did would be guided by the product owner and kept on track by the scrum master. Then a person’s actual boss was someone else. This meant an employee would really only talk to their boss for HR type issues, which in practice meant most people never talked to their boss.
During this time I was a product owner. This whole setup had its weaknesses. First, it was confusing and it felt a bit like the Office Space joke of having multiple bosses, although I very much tried to maintain that I was there to serve the team and kept it democratic, not every product owner took that approach. The other issue was when it came time for reviews. The people leaders gave the reviews which would impact a person’s compensation. The people on my team reported to one of 5 different people leaders. Of those 5, only one of them actually reached out to me to ask how their employee was doing when it came time for reviews. People’s reputations proceeded them, and their reviews were essentially based on their reputations, which sucks. Though I don’t think anyone made any radical changes during this period. If they had, I likely would have made it a point to make sure their boss was aware. We also did have sprint reviews that should have been attended by each of the people leaders. We put a lot of effort into making those good and making sure everyone was able to show off what they had been working on, so that probably helped. Most teams really phoned it in, but my view was that we were only as good as what we should show. If we made something amazing, but didn’t show anyone, or talked over people’s heads, it was as good as not doing it at all.
your example shows a few reasons why this is not done more often.
it's confusing because we are used to getting directions from a superior (teachers in school). managers are likewise used to give directions to subordinates.
there are also a few things which i feel i would do differently.
tying compensation to reviews is one. some companies tie compensation to seniority and to an average experience level (like junior->mid->senior). i'd also tie compensation changes to a team, in order to get people to help each other (we all get paid more if the team performs better), or even to the company as a whole. (everyone gets a bonus if profits go up) individual reviews that affect compensation lead to competition, which i believe is unhealthy.
and the other i don't even understand. why do people on one team report to different people leaders?
you have the right attitude at least and i believe anyone who gets to work with you should consider themselves privileged.
i hope some day i'll be in a similar position and able to act like that as well.
not that i know of. maybe project managers compare most closely. if they exists then they may not be visible from the outside. i also expect the salary to be lower than the senior developers, which means it is not a job a senior would be promoted to.
