Under New Management

Have you ever felt that the way work is managed today doesn’t match how people actually work? In Under New Management, author David Burkus asks this question and delivers a provocative answer: much of what we call “best practice” in management is no longer best at all. He argues that most management systems we still use were built for an industrial age—a time when efficiency mattered more than creativity, and employees were cogs in a machine, not thinkers in a network of innovation.

Burkus contends that the old management “toolbox” crafted by Frederick Winslow Taylor and refined during the 20th century was designed for predictable factory work. But today's workplace runs on knowledge and mental energy, not manual labor. The rules that shaped factories—rigid hierarchies, performance reviews, secrecy, and conformity—are breaking down when applied to dynamic modern organizations. He invites you to consider what happens when companies throw out these outdated tools and replace them with practices better suited for collaboration, creativity, and autonomy.

From Scientific Management to Creative Management

Burkus roots his argument in history. The story begins with Frederick Winslow Taylor at Bethlehem Iron Company in the late 19th century. Taylor’s “scientific management” optimized production by timing every movement, standardizing tools, and rewarding workers for speed. This framework fueled the industrial revolution and became the DNA of modern management: top-down control, measurement, and predictable performance.

But as work evolved from factory floors to creative and knowledge-based environments, these same tools began to strangle creativity. Taylor’s successors—business schools, consultants, and executives—kept teaching these methods long after they had lost relevance. Burkus notes that modern organizations still act like Taylor’s factories even though their survival depends on innovation and adaptability. He emphasizes that this creates a dangerous mismatch: the way we manage people discourages the very creativity and autonomy we claim to value.

The Core Question: What if “Best Practices” Aren’t Best?

Burkus’s central question is deceptively simple: What if the practices considered standard—email, performance appraisals, managerial hierarchies, secrecy—are actually damaging? Through case studies and research, Burkus reveals how leading companies are abandoning traditional norms and achieving better results. For instance, Atos banned internal email and saw productivity and profits rise. HCL Technologies flipped the hierarchy entirely by putting employees first and customers second, proving that satisfied employees lead to loyal customers and stronger profits. Netflix eliminated its standard vacation policy, giving people unlimited time off, and in return fostered trust and responsibility that fueled success.

Each of these examples underscores a pattern: organizations thrive when they trust their people, flatten hierarchies, increase transparency, and give autonomy. Burkus stresses that these aren’t just gimmicks—they are backed by decades of psychological research on motivation, trust, and social behavior. He draws connections to Edward Deci and Richard Ryan’s self-determination theory (autonomy drives intrinsic motivation) and Daniel Pink’s work on meaningful motivation.

Why Change Is Not Optional

Burkus warns that management must reinvent itself or risk falling behind. Knowledge workers differ from factory workers in one key respect: they bring ideas, not just labor. Maximizing their contribution means designing systems that foster autonomy, transparency, and psychological safety. He cites psychologist William Whyte’s The Organization Man, which criticized conformity in corporate culture decades ago, as a prophecy for today’s burnout and disengagement.

The book’s conclusion echoes innovation thinkers like Gary Hamel (“If humans invented the modern corporation, humans can reinvent it”) and Reed Hastings of Netflix, who says we’re only beginning to learn how to manage creative firms. Burkus argues that we are at management’s second revolution—a shift from managing effort to managing energy and creativity. The companies featured in the book are already moving in this direction by outlawing old ideas and embracing new principles.

A Roadmap for New Management

Through thirteen experiments in radical restructuring—from banning email and noncompetes to firing managers and celebrating employee departures—Burkus constructs a practical roadmap for rethinking how organizations operate. You’ll see how transparency reduces inequality, how banning performance appraisals refocuses growth on meaningful feedback, and how celebrating departures turns networks into allies rather than losses. Each principle challenges you to ask: what systems in your work actually empower people, and which ones quietly disempower them?

The Big Idea

Management is due for reinvention. Just as Taylor built the engine of industrial management, Burkus invites you to build what comes next—the engine of creative, human-centered enterprises. The future belongs to organizations that trust people to act like adults, share information freely, and find purpose through autonomy and collaboration.

Burkus closes with a challenge: don’t just admire innovation—innovate the factory itself. As he writes, “Great leaders don’t innovate the product; they innovate the factory.” The new world of work demands new management, and this book shows you exactly where to start.

Burkus opens with a battle most of us fight daily: the tyranny of the inbox. We send and receive over 100 billion emails every day, yet leaders who’ve experimented with cutting or banning internal email report stunning results—more focused employees, reduced stress, and higher profitability. The first lesson in Under New Management is to stop confusing busyness with productivity.

The Atos Experiment: Zero Email

Thierry Breton, CEO of Atos, declared war on “email pollution.” In three years, he aimed to make Atos an email-free company. The idea sounded absurd, especially for a global IT services firm with 70,000 employees. Yet by banning internal email and replacing it with an enterprise social network, Atos reduced email volume by 60%, raised operating margins, and improved collaboration. Employees felt more in control of their time and less stressed. By framing email as environmental pollution, Breton reframed what most leaders overlook: information overload is a productivity killer.

The Science of Email Stress

Psychologist Gloria Mark (University of California, Irvine) proved what many feel instinctively: email fragments attention and elevates stress. When workers were cut off from email for five days, their focus improved, they conversed more, and their heart rates fell. Similarly, research from the University of British Columbia found that limiting email checks to three times a day lowered stress as effectively as meditation. These studies confirm what productivity experts like Cal Newport argue: deep work requires deep focus, and email destroys it.

Small Steps: Limiting Email, Not Eliminating It

Not every company can go cold turkey on email. Burkus points to firms like Volkswagen, which shut down email servers after hours, and Daimler, which automatically deletes vacation emails. These boundaries protect employees from digital intrusion and reinforce work-life balance. Research from Marcus Butts and colleagues found that after-hours emails trigger anger and harm personal relationships. The takeaway: email policies are culture policies—the more control people have over when they engage, the healthier their work becomes.

The Lesson

Ban or limit email, and you don’t silence communication—you liberate it. Replace endless inbox management with tools that let conversations happen transparently and on employees’ terms.

Burkus’s argument is not to kill technology but to use it better. The more organizations restrict unnecessary email and empower employee choice, the more mental space they free for real work. Productivity, he reminds us, is measured by output—not by how many messages you reply to before midnight.

What happens when you flip the famous mantra “the customer is always right”? Burkus highlights leaders like Vineet Nayar of HCL Technologies, Danny Meyer of Union Square Hospitality Group, and Howard Schultz of Starbucks to show that putting employees first leads to better service, happier customers, and stronger profits. It’s not counter-customer—it’s pro-human.

The HCL Story: Inverting the Pyramid

In 2006, Nayar shocked 300 clients by announcing HCL would prioritize employees before customers. His “employees first, customers second” philosophy redefined accountability: managers now reported to employees via an internal ticket system that tracked support requests, and feedback became fully transparent. Within five years, HCL tripled revenue and was voted India’s best employer. Nayar proved the service-profit chain—the Harvard model connecting employee satisfaction to customer loyalty—works in practice.

Wegmans and the Culture of Care

Wegmans grocery stores invest thousands of dollars in employee training, send staff to France and Italy to learn culinary craft, and maintain a no-layoff policy. The result? Exceptionally loyal teams, half the industry turnover, and customers who beg the company to open stores nearby. Wegmans shows that empowered, educated employees serve emotionally engaged customers.

The Starbucks Turnaround

Howard Schultz learned from his childhood that treating workers well means treating people well. When Starbucks lost its soul after hypergrowth, Schultz’s return to leadership refocused the company on “partners” (employees). He offered them full healthcare, retrained baristas, and closed stores to restore craft and pride. Even investors who urged cost cuts were told: “If you cut people, you kill the company.” The payoff: recovery, profitability, and enduring trust.

The Takeaway

Employee-first cultures treat workers as the foundation of customer success. Satisfaction starts on the inside—happy employees lead to loyal customers, not the other way around.

Burkus urges leaders to flip their org charts and challenge conventional loyalty. The companies that put people ahead of profit often end up earning both.

Trust, Burkus argues, is the fuel of modern management—and trust is not a vague sentiment but a measurable biological phenomenon. Drawing from neuroscientist Paul Zak’s research, Burkus reveals that acts of trust trigger the release of oxytocin, a hormone that makes people more generous and cooperative. When leaders give employees autonomy, transparency, or choice, they’re literally building chemistry for engagement.

Unlimited Vacation: Trust, Not Perks

Companies like Netflix and Virgin Group eliminated fixed vacation policies, allowing employees to take as much time off as they wish. Reed Hastings realized it made no sense to track days not worked in a culture that didn’t track hours worked. Instead, he asked people to act responsibly. The result: trust grew, bureaucracy fell, and employees worked smarter. Virgin founder Richard Branson implemented the same “nonpolicy” after his daughter called it “a very Virgin thing to do.”

How Trust Works

Zak’s investment game experiments show that when people are trusted, oxytocin levels rise, making them likely to reciprocate with positive behavior. Trust breeds trust. In organizations, when leadership signals genuine belief in employees—by removing controls or sharing data—people respond with loyalty and effort. (This mirrors Daniel Pink’s argument in Drive: autonomy fuels motivation.)

What Happens When Trust Breaks

When Tribune Publishing attempted to copy Netflix’s vacation system but simultaneously eliminated accrued vacation pay, employees revolted. A policy framed as “freedom” felt like theft. Burkus warns: control disguised as trust backfires. Real trust requires leaders to give up power, not just rhetoric.

The Lesson

Trust is built through action—giving freedom, not demanding compliance. Simplify rules, signal respect, and let autonomy speak louder than oversight.

Burkus teaches that trust is contagious. The companies that start by trusting their people will find those people trusting them back, creating a virtuous cycle of accountability and engagement.

It sounds crazy: pay employees to quit. Yet at Zappos and Amazon, this counterintuitive move strengthens the workforce. Burkus explains the psychology behind it, showing that voluntary quitting bonuses help companies keep only the truly committed.

Zappos and “The Offer”

During training, Zappos offers new hires $4,000 to walk away. CEO Tony Hsieh raised the amount over time to make it tempting. But fewer than 3% take the deal. This means nearly everyone who stays has consciously reaffirmed their commitment. By rejecting the offer, employees experience “post-decision dissonance”—they rationalize staying as proof of loving their job, deepening engagement.

The Science Behind Quitting Bonuses

Economists call it the “sunk cost fallacy”: people avoid admitting mistakes because they’ve invested time and effort. Paying to quit offsets this bias, helping mismatched employees leave early and saving future disengagement costs. Engaged employees stay, and their commitment increases.

Amazon and Riot Games Scale the Idea

Amazon’s “Pay to Quit” offers warehouse workers up to $5,000 each year to leave, reminding them to reflect on their goals. Riot Games goes even bigger, offering new hires up to $25,000 within 60 days if they’re not a fit. Both believe turnover by choice is healthier than disengagement by inertia. Their logic: staying out of obligation is costlier than leaving intentionally.

The Takeaway

Paying to quit clarifies purpose. When employees choose to stay, they choose it consciously—and that choice transforms mere compliance into commitment.

Burkus argues that “the offer” isn’t just a financial test—it’s a cultural one. Whether you use cash or conversation, the goal is the same: create an organization full of people who are there because they want to be, not because they’re stuck.

What if you ran a company with no bosses? Burkus explores radical experiments in self-management—from Valve Software’s flat structure to Morning Star’s peer agreements and New Belgium Brewing’s employee ownership. His conclusion: autonomy outperforms authority.

Valve: Wheels Over Hierarchy

At Valve, desks literally have wheels. Employees roll toward projects that matter, forming teams organically. There are no titles, no promotions, no managers—just trust and mobility. Valve’s $4 billion valuation proves that freedom scales. Economist Yanis Varoufakis called it “a great asset” because people self-select around work they value most.

Morning Star: CLOUs Instead of Bosses

Chris Rufer’s tomato processing company has no managers either—but it does have mission agreements called CLOUs (Colleague Letters of Understanding). Each employee writes how they’ll contribute to the company’s purpose and negotiates expectations with peers. There’s no purchasing approval or departmental boundaries—just transparency and mutual accountability. The result: fluid collaboration and industry-leading performance.

Autonomy Is the Engine of Motivation

Drawing on Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory, Burkus explains that autonomy isn’t anarchy. Freedom creates responsibility, not chaos. In psychology and business alike, people perform better when they perceive control over their choices. Even in factories like GE’s Durham plant—where teams build entire aircraft engines without supervisors—autonomy yields precision, pride, and extraordinary results.

The Lesson

Self-management doesn’t mean everyone is a leader—it means everyone owns their work. When authority shifts from hierarchy to honor, engagement follows.

Burkus encourages leaders to trust teams with decisions that affect them directly. Management’s job, he concludes, is not control—it’s creation. When you fire the managers, you often discover that employees didn’t need management; they needed meaning.

In traditional firms, saying goodbye is awkward or ignored. Burkus believes departures deserve celebration, not mourning. When you treat alumni as allies, your network expands and your organization gains industry insight. The final chapter of Under New Management reframes exits as future connections.

McKinsey’s Alumni Model

Consulting giant McKinsey pioneered the idea of lifelong alumni relations. Four out of five consultants leave before becoming partners, yet the firm maintains contact through global conferences and exclusive online networks. Departed consultants remain part of the McKinsey ecosystem, offering industry knowledge, referrals, and even new clients. Sean Brown, McKinsey’s alumni director, says, “We’re proud of what they achieve beyond McKinsey.”

Embeddedness: The Science of Healthy Networks

Sociologist Brian Uzzi studied New York’s garment industry and discovered that companies thrive when balancing close-knit ties with wider, arm’s-length connections. Firms too isolated lose opportunities; firms too dependent become rigid. Corporate alumni networks serve the same purpose: they blend loyalty and discovery, creating rich exchanges of knowledge and opportunity.

Modern Versions: LinkedIn, Microsoft, Chevron, and P&G

LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman launched a two-tier alumni program—one for all employees and one for distinguished contributors—to foster lifetime engagement. Microsoft’s alumni network offers philanthropy programs and product benefits, while Procter & Gamble’s alumni foundation funds global initiatives. Chevron’s Bridges program even rehired alumni as consultants, turning goodbye into “see you later.”

The Insight

When you celebrate departures, you’re not losing people—you’re expanding your ecosystem. Every farewell becomes a new bridge for shared knowledge and opportunity.

Burkus concludes that companies treating departing employees with respect create “organizational alumni gravity”—a reputation that attracts talent, keeps networks alive, and sustains growth long after the employee leaves the building.