"When I came to Washington before World War II to head the electrical section of the Bureau of Ships, I found that one man was in charge of design, another of production, a third handled maintenance, while a fourth dealt with fiscal matters. The entire bureau operated that way. It didn’t make sense to me. Design problems showed up in production, production errors showed up in maintenance, and financial matters reached into all areas. I changed the system. I made one man responsible for his entire area of equipment—for design, production, maintenance, and contracting. If anything went wrong, I knew exactly at whom to point. I run my present organization on the same principle."

I feel like this has become the norm just about everywhere.

A common mistake many new and seasoned managers make is to delegate and then disconnect from the details. Once so disconnected, it is a one-way street where the manager progressively operates at a higher and higher level. Now they are no longer in a position to evaluate the reliability of estimates from their engineers or the output of their work. Worse, they lose awareness of the technical debt being accumulated and tradeoffs being made.

This works out fine if they are lucky to have a highly competent and conscientious team and it is a disaster otherwise. The latter is more likely in the real world especially if you are not working for a company that can afford to hire top-notch engineering talent.

Rickover's approach outlined in the above article keeps managers grounded in the reality - delegate but do not disconnect from the low-level details. The flip side is that this may come across as micromanagement (and Rickover was a notorious micromanager). Effective management is anything but easy.

I knew Rickover's leadership and management still sounded very, very familiar, way before I read this towards the end of his speach.