Unfortunately, while people that work like this can be exceptional, big projects run on organised measurable work. I have found few places big enough for a specific "Manager" role to be flexible enough to get a good match to tasks.
Unfortunately, while people that work like this can be exceptional, big projects run on organised measurable work. I have found few places big enough for a specific "Manager" role to be flexible enough to get a good match to tasks.
One thing slightly bothering me is that I have zero problem managing people both like me, and ordered stable focused guys, because I try to use people's strengths and put them on tasks which suit them the best. I've been CTO twice and can speak from experience. The only requirement for me is wanting to be useful in some form, we'll find a task, occupation, or feature lifecycle stage.
And managers who tried to put on me some kind of "personal improvement plan" clearly can work productively only with people exactly like them. Maybe they shouldn't be managers, a lot of good devs have some degree of ADHD, cutting them out or putting them in the box can't be good for business.
You end up with not exactly an intentional bureaucracy, but one where the idea of fairness from somehow "objective" numbers becomes a focus.
This kind of works at this scale, because you need to have a way to abstract and reason about the capabilitys of far too many people than you can know individually.
The training and materials don't scale down though, so you get someone trying to apply metric driven performance in cases where it just doesn't fit.
It's generally "ok" for big business, because projects at this scale can survive on rigid organisation, simply because achieving anything at that scale is a challenge enough to be valuable.
Occasionally you see inspired leadership, but every level of management it has to go through erodes it. It's part of why it's so rare for a big company to produce anything unusualy good at scale, it takes a real alignment of stars.