Background:
I'm currently part of a team of four: 1 manager, 1 senior developer and 2 developers. We do a range of bespoke in-house systems / projects (e.g. 6-8 weeks) for an organisation of around 3500 staff, as well as all the maintenance and support required from the systems that have been created before. There is not enough of us to do all the work that is potentially coming our way – we're understaffed. Management acknowledge this, but budget restraints limit our ability to recruit additional members to the team (even if we make the salary back in savings).
The Change
This leaves us where we are now. Our manager is due to leave his role for pastures new, leaving a vacancy in the team. Management are using this opportunity to restructure our team which would see the team manager role replaced by another developer and another senior developer. Their logic being that we need more developers, so here's a way of funding it (one of the roles is partially funded from another vacant post).
The team would have no direct line manager and the roles and responsibilities would be divided up between the seniors and the (relatively new to post) service manager (a non-technical role with little-to-no development knowledge/experience whose focus is shared amongst a number of other teams and individuals) – who would be our next actual manager up the food chain.
I guess the final question is:
Is it possible to run a development team without an manager? Have you had experience of this? And what things could go wrong / could be of benefit to us?
I'd ideally like to "see the light" and the benefits of doing things this way, or come up with some points for argument against it.
Best Answer
The greater the risks, the more you need "air cover". This is what a manager is really supposed to provide. While the team does the work, the manager is supposed to ensure that there is nothing that will keep the team from achieving team goals. Whether it's tweaking the schedule, running interference between the team and the sales staff, or simply making sure the team are paid on time and that the coffee machine remains in working order. A really great manager allows the team to function almost as if the manager isn't there.
The reality of course is that most managers utterly fail at this. They either micromanage, or they are rendered obsolete so that the upper echelons of the company can control things more directly, and the truly great managers are a rare bird indeed. As far as a software team is concerned, there are some pros and cons both ways when it comes to having a hierarchical or flat team structure. If the team is very small, and the work done requires very little overlap (and by that I mean everyone has an independent project), then it's been my experience that a flat (aka unmanaged) team structure can work very well if all of the team members are disciplined. It's also been my experience however that where there is a great deal of overlap in the work that the team members do, where there are two or more relatively strong personalities, or where there is a relatively stressful working environment with a busy workload, then having a team leader or a manager with clearly defined responsibilities is generally essential.
There are a lot of factors involved, however it really boils down to the personalities involved, their individual motivations and career objectives, and the example and guidance provided by upper management that will determine how necessary a manager or team leader position is. Generally, if there is any chaos, and when the team is asking for it, then the team clearly needs leadership. If things generally tick along ok without management input, then perhaps the team can manage within a non-hierarchical structure for a time... at least until the workload and schedule becomes too difficult to manage.