Its a good read. The author suggested that maybe its time for change, which makes me curious about what new model does he/she have in mind.
There's no way in hell any of us would be ok with our managers treating us the same way Linus treated other engineers. It worked because he's a genius and he controls the Linux project. You had to play by his rules or not at all. Google doesn't have the same advantage - it's not the only game in town.
I think Linus's handling of the Linux kernel is an excellent example of stellar technical leadership in a parallel track. It is what technical companies should look like. Engineers do their thing without worrying about administrative tasks like HR bullshit, salary negotiations, hiring, firing, and fights over who makes the coffee.
At the same time, a lot of managers (more than half in my book) are bad at managing people.
I have since found that like there are good and bad engineers, you can have good and bad managers.
I now find myself thinking about management as if it were the command chain in an army, and I would be hard pressed to imagine how an army composed of a general and thousands of privates, with no layers in between, would ever be able to accomplish anything.
A.k.a. nothing like what the blog envisions is likely to happen.
The blog post links to a story about Larry Page "firing" all the project managers; while they didn't exit the company, they were moved to another organization, and it seems Page got his wish of "no managers" in his organization for some time, until there were problems and complaints and "eventually" they started hiring more managers. If he had a fully workable approach in mind, it seems he could have implemented it for long enough to demonstrate its success.
Yes, arguably this is how we got to the current state of affairs, particularly thanks to Larry and Sergey, and the cross pollination and following-on of their approach. What I question is the likelihood of someone with this viewpoint reaching that level of power.
It's the cluelessness of the top management that enables this horrible principle/agent problem. It's as if you had a stock broker who would give you reports every month about how well he's doing, but you aren't capable of understanding whether your assets are increasing or decreasing, and you don't know how to add up the numbers for yourself or care to learn how. And it's their own fault for, in tech organizations, not caring enough to be taught how to manage their managers better.
Note: it may even be that some things are difficult to measure, but I don't see even a reasonable attempt to vet the engineering management class.
Another note: I'm not sure top leadership looks for any qualities in "management" other than "seems like someone with a rough attitude that will push people hard", even if they're pushing people hard without knowing what the people are even doing. It's a "whip-holder" role rather than any kind of attempt to make work more efficient.