We take for granted that we need managers but I'm not buying it.
The manager is an anti-pattern in software and so too in organizations. What is their role anyway? Naming things is hard perhaps scheduler would be a better classname or resolver?
The manager is an anti-pattern in software and so too in organizations. What is their role anyway? Naming things is hard perhaps scheduler would be a better classname or resolver?
In fact the majority of communication operates on signals and we ought to know that by this millennium.
If you're not using signals to advantage well then maybe you've got a culture where people are putting out the wrong signals and they're being ignored or people are putting out conflicting signals and a lot of the wrong signals are getting picked up or any other combination that doesn't spell success.
I wonder how many founders in the industry would say the same and how many of them are captains of a barely floating ship with dozens of little holes?
And a million other questions about why victory is never guaranteed, only deserved.
Or maybe you think culture grows organically like some crazed survival of the fittest type of scenario.
I can tell you more about how that works out by examining the kitchen and the bathroom than attending any management meeting.
Imagine all the emotional leakage coming out of your casual workforce
There is zero incentive to hire for anything except individual performance (superstar) or technical knowledge (basically the same as above) and any success can be humbly accepted while blame can be cleverly diverted onto the team while advancing one's career and looking good to one's bosses.
A better scam has never been perpetrated and it all starts from people trusting too much as is often the case.