The Back Story

One time, as VP of Engineering, I inherited a motley team of metaclueless developers and testers.

The Flawed Assumptions

From day one with this new team, it became clear my assumptions were way off base. My attempts to understand the existing codebase, dependencies, coding and deployment processes were met with confusing non-explanations from the senior developers. Proposals for changes, reviews, or other improvements were immediately dismissed with a passive-aggresive demeanour as unnecessary red tape. There seemed to be this ingrained belief that “we’ve been doing just fine” simply because they hadn’t suffered many major outages yet.

Peeling Back the Layers

But as I started really digging in, the reality was more problematic than I initially realised. The codebase was a disorganised tangle of inconsistent patterns and anti-patterns. Automated testing and deployement was sporadic at best. The deployment process involved brittle, undocumented scripts that only a few developers halfway understood. Institutional knowledge was scattered among individual brain silos.

The Destructive Hubris

Rather than a receptive discussion when invited to discussion on making things better, I faced a brick wall of defensiveness and hubris. The team was convinced they knew best – such that any invitations went unadopted. Every mention of improvement was met with circular justifications about “how we’ve been doing it for years” or “we haven’t had any serious issues yet”.

The Path Forward

Looking back now, I see that the situation revealed some universal truths about software:

First, we all get blindspots and make flawed assumptions over time – no matter how experienced we think we are. Maintaining a beginner’s mindset of continual learning helps.

Second, defensiveness and “ingrained way” thinking are toxic team pathologies that noone can solve alone. An environment of open dialogue and reasoned self-critique must be continually fostered.

And finally, the most dangerous hubris of all is assuming you already have all the answers rather than a humble openness to involving everyone in uncovering the real issues at hand, and ways forward.

Let’s be honest, executives and seniors managers are forever fucking up their organisations’ software development efforts, big time.

Category Error

The Crux of the Problem

Let’s be honest, successfully executing software development initiatives is no easy feat for executives and senior managers. As the Harvard Business Review aptly states,

“The greatest impediment [to effective software development] is not the need for better methodologies, empirical evidence of significant benefits, or proof that agile can work – it’s the behaviour of executives.”

At the root of these struggles lies a fundamental “Category Error” – the failure to recognise collaborative knowledge work (CKW), such as software development, as a distinct category from other types of work.

Applying the Wrong Lens

Whilst leadership plays a crucial role in complex projects, executives often fuck up development big time by attempting to manage software development through the same lens as:

• Factory work
• Manufacturing
• Traditional office work
• Service work (e.g. call centres, help desks)
• Individual knowledge work

However, collaborative knowledge work demands a radically different approach. Imposing management practices from other categories inevitably leads to “management monstrosities” – dysfunctional, ineffective tech organisations.

The Pitfalls of Misclassification

1. Disconnect Between Business and CKW
   Executives struggle to bridge the gap between business objectives and CKW realities when software development is treated as akin to factory work or manufacturing.
2. Unrealistic Expectations
   Viewing software development through the lens of production lines and factory work breeds cultural mismatches, unrealistic timelines and quality compromises.
3. Resistance to Change
   Legacy systems persist due to inertia from treating CKW like the more understood office work.
4. Resource Misallocation
   Without recognising development as collaborative knowledge work, resources for talent, tools and infrastructure are inadequate.
5. Micromanagement
   An authoritarian command-and-control ethos stifles the autonomy and collaboration that development teams need.

The Crux of the Issue

The HBR quote exposes this truth – executives’ mindsets, shaped by misunderstanding the category of work, undermine methodologies and processes.

Unlocking True Potential

Overcoming “management monstrosities” requires understanding software development as collaborative knowledge work. This shift allows:

• Fostering cultures of learning and evolution.
• Embracing self managing, autonomous team models.
• Aligning resources for teams of knowledge workers.
• Building bridges between business and CKW domains.

With the right categorisation and mindset, executives can transform organisations into innovative powerhouses (fat chance of that happening in our lifetimes).

The Path Forward

The key lies in shedding industrial-era management thinking (they do think, don’t they?) and nurturing environments suited to this distinct category of work.

Open communication, adaptability and appreciating the complexities of collaborative development are vital. Escaping the “Category Error” unlocks outstanding delivery of software solutions and delight for all the Folks That Matter.

A short story about metacluelessness and the distinction from stupidity.

Hubris in the Corner Office

Sitting in his corner office overlooking the city skyline, Simon felt a swell of pride. At 38 years old, he had accomplished so much – an MBA from a prestigious university, a high-flying career in management consultancy, and now the coveted role of Managing Director at SapriCoZa Tech, the tech division of one of the largest corporations in the country. His achievements were a testament to his sharp intellect and tireless work ethic. Yet when it came to leading SapriCoZa’s technology division, Simon was operating in a realm far outside his expertise.

The Cracks Begin to Show

The first warning sign came when Simon insisted on adopting a radical new software methodology. Despite polite pushback from Megan, the Head of Development, he forged blindly ahead without fully grasping the nuances of the approach. To the developers, it was clear their new leader lacked the technical know-how, but they followed orders, watching helplessly as the project derailed.

As issues mounted, Megan attempted to explain the root causes, but Simon simply couldn’t comprehend where his understanding fell short. How could someone of his pedigree be so misguided? In his mind, his way was unquestionably correct – after all, he was the one calling the shots.

A Slow-Motion Catastrophe

Weeks became months, and the project slipped further and further off the rails, bleeding money and resources. The once-harmonious tech team now operated in an environment of scrutiny and demoralisation. Still, Simon remained oblivious to the self-inflicted mayhem unfolding under his leadership.

Simon’s problem wasn’t lack of intelligence – he was undoubtedly bright. His issue was that he couldn’t recognise the boundaries of his own expertise. In his world of business strategy and operations, he was a savant. But technology? He couldn’t even spell it, let alone steer it.

A Failed Intervention

Finally, Megan felt she had no choice but to escalate the matter to Simon’s superiors, hopeful they could make him see reason. But alas, Simon’s blindspot was total. When presented with the disastrous results of his tenure, he simply doubled down, unable to accept that his approach could be the root cause. The issues, he reasoned, must lie with his insubordinate team.

The Inevitable Conclusion

SapriCoZa’s leadership eventually reached their limit. Though Simon ticked all the right boxes on paper, his obliviousness was putting the entire technology division at risk. With resolve and pragmatism, they asked for his resignation, unable to withstand further damage from his incumbency.

As Simon cleared out his belongings, his overconfidence remained intact – he still couldn’t fathom where he had gone so wrong. His self-assurance, once a strength, had become a ruinous liability that left him unable to recognise his own shortcomings. Never mind. His career options were still numerous, and his future bright.

The Lesson Learned

Simon’s undoing was a harsh reminder that even great intelligence is no protection against being unable to grasp the boundaries of one’s knowledge. While stupidity represents a lack of intellect, far more insidious is the meta-ignorance that allows people to sail forward convinced of their expertise in areas where they are largely unskilled and unknowledgeable. A deficit of self-awareness can undo even the most credentialed leaders.

The Danger of Overconfidence

As a manager, having confidence in your abilities is certainly important for leading teams and making critical business decisions. However, there is a fine line between self-assurance and falling victim to a dangerous cognitive bias called metacluelessness – a lack of awareness about the boundaries of your own competence.

Clifford’s Ethics of Belief

Philosopher William Kingdon Clifford highlighted the ethical importance of not allowing ourselves to remain in a state of false beliefs or delusions. In his essay “The Ethics of Belief,” Clifford argues it is wrong, whenever the occasion arises, to believe something on insufficient evidence. To do so is to erect a “scorner’s chair” for truth and to fail to uphold our fundamental duty as human beings to pursue truth diligently.

Metacluelessness as Unethical Delusion

Metacluelessness directly violates this duty that Clifford lays out. It causes managers to grossly overestimate their skills, knowledge, and overall managerial competence based on delusional confidence rather than objective assessment of the evidence of their understanding. Managers suffering from metacluelessness erect their own “scorner’s chairs” for truth in their areas of responsibility.

They think they have a solid handle on principles, best practices, people, psycvhology, emerging trends, and the complexities involved, when in reality there are gaping holes in their grasp that they fail to acknowledge. Suffering from metacluelessness, managers operate under a false sense of mastery over critical management disciplines. They are clueless about the true extent of their cluelessness and knowledge gaps. This creates disastrous blind spots in their judgment and decision-making.

The Root of Managerial Arrogance

As Clifford states, “The source of all the miserable self-idolatries…the despicable vices…is nothing other than a persuasion existing in men’s minds not based on fair reasoning and evidence.” Metacluelessness breeds overconfidence based on delusional beliefs about one’s true competence. It is the root of managerial arrogance, close-mindedness, dismissal of risks, and poor strategic vision.

Catastrophic Consequences

The consequences can be catastrophic – flawed strategies, missed opportunities, sunk costs from failures, poor leadership examples set for teams, and more. Entire companies have met their demise because executive leadership teams suffered from the “miserable self-idolatry” of individual and collective metacluelessness in critical areas.

Cultivating True Competence

Combating metacluelessness requires cultivating true competence – an awareness of what you don’t know and diligence in addressing those shortcomings. It starts with the intellectual humility that Clifford upheld as critical for a responsible pursuit of truth and knowledge. Admit the limits of your expertise without feeling inadequate. As Clifford wrote, “A generous admission of knowledge gaps is the condition of all real progress.”

The Best Never Stop Learning

Recognise that as a manager, you supervise teams filled with specialised knowledge you cannot possibly match in every domain. True competence means knowing when to rely on the wisdom of others with deeper mastery and looking for opportunities to expand your own understanding through fair reasoning and examination of evidence. It’s about embracing a habit of perpetual learning to strengthen beliefs in alignment with evidential proof.

The best managers never stop questioning their grasp of important principles and best practices based on the ethics of belief laid out by Clifford. Don’t let the “despicable vice” of overconfident metacluelessness derail your judgment through beliefs detached from rigorous evidentiary standards. Proactively identify and confront the boundaries of your competence. Only then can you become a more complete, ethically sound, and effective manager capable of leading teams and companies to success built on a foundation of diligently pursued truths.

What Is Workshyness?

Workshyness is not just laziness; it’s a pattern where employees consistently do only what’s necessary to avoid dismissal. Only when we begin to understand this behaviourcan we start to address it effectively. Unlike “quiet quitting”, where employees fulfil their job requirements but don’t go beyond, workshyness involves not even meeting basic job expectations.

Example: The Workshy Employment Advisors

In an employment support office, where the staff’s mandate is to assist the unemployed in their job search, a covert workshy culture is evident through the actions of an advisor named Emily. Emily’s role involves providing personalised career advice, assisting with job applications, and conducting mock interviews. However, her engagement with these tasks is superficial.

Emily’s Covert Workshyness

Emily pretends to review CVs and cover letters, giving the impression of thoroughness while actually offering only superficial and hand-wavy feedback. Her client meetings are conducted with a professional demeanor, but her guidance is often generic, lacking in depth, and fails to address the specific needs and challenges of each individual. She fulfills her duties on the surface, but her involvement falls well short of genuinely empowering her clients in their job hunt.

Subtle Influence on Team and Management’s Lack of Insight

Other staff members, noticing Emily’s approach of maintaining appearances without delivering substantive support, begin to adopt a similar method. They keep up a façade of engagement but shy away from providing the in-depth assistance that clients truly need. This shift is not overt, making it more challenging to detect and address.

Helen, the office manager, perceives the team as functioning well, failing to recognize the lack of depth in their engagement. Without delving into the quality of service being provided, she inadvertently allows this minimalist work culture to continue.

Impact on Service Quality

This covert form of workshyness significantly undermines the quality of service. Clients receive assistance that appears adequate on the surface but lacks the tailored, proactive support essential for effective job seeking. The office, maintaining an exterior of efficiency, falls short of its fundamental mission to empower the unemployed with substantial support. This subtle workshy culture, marked by a lack of genuine engagement from both advisors and management, subtly but significantly diminishes the organisation’s impact and its ability to make a meaningful difference in the lives of its clients.

How Do Managers Contribute?

Management plays a significant role in fostering a workshy culture. Many managers themselves display workshy tendencies, and thus inadvertently set a standard for their employees to follow. This trickle-down effect can create an entire organisational culture that normalises minimal effort. Moreover, as at least part of the managers’ role is to call out workshyness and work on tackling it, when they themselves are workshy their reports have free rein to persist in their avoidance of work.

What Happens When Leaders Are Workshy?

Leadership workshyness is particularly problematic. It’s not always apparent, as their positions often mask their lack of engagement. However, their minimal input and disengagement can severely impact organisational culture and performance. It creates a cycle where workshyness is both a cause and a symptom of a deeper organisational issue.

Why Address Workshyness?

Ignoring workshyness leads to a decline in overall organisational health. It affects productivity, team dynamics, and employee morale. Addressing it isn’t just about improving numbers; it’s about sustaining a healthy, thriving organisational culture.

Strategies for Change

Organisations can choose to actively combat workshyness. This involves rethinking leadership roles, ensuring managers are actively engaged and setting the right example. Companies can also choose to create environments where effort and engagement are expected and valued at all levels. It’s not enough to simply identify workshyness; organisations must actively work to build cultures where it cannot thrive.

In conclusion, workshyness is a systemic issue that often stems from the top. By acknowledging and addressing the role of management in perpetuating this culture, organisations can take significant steps towards fostering a more engaged and productive workforce.

“Work is toxic.” This stark assertion captures a universal truth about the modern workplace. The tales of toxicity that surface from McDonald’s and Pizza Hut here in the UK serve as harbingers of a deep-seated issue that goes far beyond individual organisations or industries.

What Is a Toxic Culture?

In a toxic work environment, negative behaviours such as self-aggrandisement and petty vendettas often overshadow the organisation’s purpose and what’s best for it. It’s a place where the pursuit of individual accolades and personal gain trumps collaboration and collective progress, leading to a detrimental atmosphere for everyone involved. This behaviour not only stifles progress but also erodes the morale and well-being of individuals.

How Common Is This Issue?

The unfortunate reality is that a toxic work culture is not an anomaly. It is a pervasive element found across all sectors, impacting numerous organisations of all sizes and types. Its universal prevalence is a sobering reminder of the widespread nature of the problem.

Is Recovery Possible?

Acknowledging the pervasiveness of toxic work cultures is the first step toward healing. Organisations can indeed rehabilitate their cultures, but it requires a comprehensive strategy involving a fundamental shift in assumptions, values and behaviours, driven by collective commitment to change.

What Does a Shift Involve?

A transformational shift involves embracing respect, recognising the intrinsic value of each employee, and realigning day-to-day activities with the organisation’s overarching goals. It means moving away from ego-driven motives to a collective vision of success, and where e.g. organisational psychotherapy can offer effective methods for cultural change.

Do Nothing That is Not Play

The ethos of approaching work as play, championed by thinkers like Marshall Rosenberg, is integral to detoxifying work. When tasks are performed with joy and viewed as play, they align with our deeper values and become more than mere duties; they become avenues for fulfillment and personal growth.

The Bright Side of the Discussion

The increasing dialogue on workplace toxicity is encouraging. It’s helpful in acknowledging the scale of the issue and initiating a shift towards healthier, more sustainable work environments. By recognising the inherent toxicity in our workplace cultures, society can move towards creating spaces that foster well-being and a sense of shared purpose.

Competence is Irrelevant; Compliance is the Daddy

In many business organisations, competence takes a back seat to the all-important compliance. Hiring, promotions, rewards; most times these are based on compliance rather than competence. Let’s be blunt: elevating compliance above all else is a misguided pursuit. It leads to a stifling environment where checking boxes becomes more crucial than innovation or effectiveness.

What Lies Behind Pseudo-Compliance?

Pseudo-compliance presents as a mirage of following the rules, but it’s a facade that can lead organisations astray. The problem isn’t always with the regulations or procedures; it’s often with the culture and mindset of the organisation.

How Do Trust and Psychology Come Into Play?

Trust and psychological understanding can be potent tools in dismantling the culture of pseudo-compliance. Without trust, employees are less likely to adhere genuinely to policies. Understanding the psychology behind pseudo-compliance can help organisations address root causes rather than symptoms.

Can Trust Counter Pseudo-Compliance?

Trust isn’t built overnight but through continuous, transparent actions. Approaches for fostering trust include:

1. Open Communication: Regularly update everyone on changes, reasoning behind decisions, and how these align with organisational goals.
2. Employee Empowerment: Involve employees in decision-making processes to foster a sense of ownership and accountability.
3. Consistency: Consistent actions and responses from all involved can set the stage for a high-trust environment.

How Can Psychology Help?

Organisational psychology digs deep into the behavioural patterns and beliefs that can foster an atmosphere of pseudo-compliance. The approaches that can help include:

1. Cognitive Assessments: Understand the mental models that drive individual and group behaviours.
2. Organisational Psychotherapy: A deep dive into addressing the emotional and psychological drivers that cause pseudo-compliance.
3. Systemic Interventions: Targeted programs to alter the systems – the way the work works – that cause pseudo-compliance.

How to Merge Trust and Psychology?

Combining these two aspects can help create a holistic solution. Support that focuses on psychological principles can provide the context, while a culture of trust ensures that employees are more likely to apply the principles sincerely.

Is There Ever a Finish Line?

Full compliance may be an ideal rather than a realistic end goal. However, an ongoing commitment to fostering trust and understanding psychology can significantly diminish pseudo-compliance within an organisation.

Summary

Pseudo-compliance can’t be remedied simply by doubling down on rules or monitoring. A deeper understanding rooted in trust and psychological insight is essential. By implementing appropriate methods and embracing sound psychological methodologies, organisations can move towards a culture of performace and integrity, without the stifing yoke of compliance.

What Does UK Civil Service Research Reveal?

The Whitehall Studies, conducted on British civil servants, provide compelling evidence on the negative health effects of hierarchical structures. The lower an individual’s rank, the higher the risk of cardiovascular diseases and other adverse health outcomes. This UK-based study serves as a poignant backdrop for discussing how hierarchy impacts more than just workflow; it affects life itself.

Does Hierarchy Harm Health Globally?

The detrimental health impact of hierarchy isn’t unique to British civil servants. Research around the world concurs that rigid hierarchical structures can lead to stress, worsened mental health, and even shortened life expectancy.

How Does Hierarchy Create Stress?

A power imbalance is inherent in hierarchical systems. Employees lower in the pecking order often feel powerless, anxious, and undervalued. The stress isn’t merely mental; it triggers the production of cortisol, a hormone linked to various health risks, including heart disease.

Does Hierarchy Impede Communication?

The Whitehall Studies not only highlighted the health implications but also revealed that communication becomes strained in hierarchical setups. Lower-ranked employees are often left without avenues for constructive feedback, causing further stress and poor job satisfaction.

What about Innovation?

Rigid hierarchical systems often stifle creativity. Employees, anxious about repercussions, refrain from proposing innovative ideas. This leads to organisational stagnation, with limited room for development or adaptation.

Is Productivity a Victim?

Hierarchy might initially appear to promote efficiency, but it often backfires. Inhibited communication means employees hesitate to share vital feedback, leading to poor strategies and, ultimately, failure.

Would It Be Better to Rethink Hierarchy?

The Whitehall Studies have spurred some organisations to experiment with flatter structures, which often result in reduced stress levels and increased employee satisfaction. It appears that a shift towards a more democratic decision-making process can yield positive outcomes.

Final Thoughts: Is Hierarchy a Necessary Evil?

While hierarchy may offer some vague and unsubstantiated organisational advantages, the costs to health and well-being are way too significant to overlook. The concept of fellowship, where organisations prioritise collective collaboration and mutual support, offers a compelling alternative. By embracing a culture of fellowship  in place of traditional hierarchical models, organisations could not only boost productivity but also enhance the overall well-being of their workforce.

So you’re a manager now. Welcome to the party! You’ll quickly find that a lot of things about the role are neither as fun nor as straightforward as you may have been led to believe. Let’s dig into the factors that make the job less glamorous than advertised.

What Makes the Job Risible?

1. Unrealistic Expectations: You’re now the solver of everyone’s problems. Good luck juggling everyone’s needs and desires.
2. Blurred Lines of Authority: You’re told you’re the boss, but often, decisions are made over your head.
3. Dealing With Personalities: Unlike chess pieces or cogs or Borg Drones, humans have emotions, opinions, and bad days.
4. Daily Drudgery: Meetings, paperwork, more meetings. Did anyone mention there’d be so much admin?

Why Is the Job Detestable?

1. You Can’t Just Order People Around: Gone are the days where a stern look would do the trick. You’re not in a dictatorship, you’re in an office – or not even.
2. Lack of Autonomy: Being a manager doesn’t mean you have all the power. In fact, it generally feels like you have less.
3. Accountability Without Control: When things go south, you’re the first to suffer, even if the factors were beyond your grasp. A veritable whipping boy (or girl).
4. Mundane Tasks: Think management is all strategy and expense account lunches and power moves? Think again. You’re also the go-to for approving holiday leaves and dealing with niggling disputes.

Remember Captain Sobel from ‘Band of Brothers’?

You might recall the character Captain Herbert M. Sobel, portrayed by David Schwimmer in the miniseries “Band of Brothers.” Sobel’s style was authoritarian, focused on discipline and regimen, often at the cost of morale and trust. His approach led to a lack of faith among his men and ultimately didn’t serve him or his troops well in the field.

Can Nonviolence Be the Answer?

Nonviolence is more than the absence of physical force; it’s about fostering an environment of respect, dialogue, and mutual understanding. Sobel’s method lacked these qualities, highlighting how ineffective a ‘command and control’ model can be.

Is Sobel’s Style a Cautionary Tale?

Absolutely. A rigid, authoritarian style might work in certain settings, but in most modern workplaces, this approach is outdated, ineffective and doomed to failure. Employees don’t respond well to leaders who operate solely on a basis of power and fear. A successful  team is not a set of robots to command.

What Should You Do Instead?

1. Be Flexible: Adapt your style to the situation and the needs of your teams.
2. Communicate: Keep the lines open. No one can read minds.
3. Be Human: Show empathy and understanding. You’re managing people, not machines. In fact, don;t manage the people at all.”You manage things; you lead people.” ~ Grace Hooper, Rear Admiral, USN
4. Learn Continuously: The best managers know they don’t have all the answers and are willing to grow.

Managing is tough, no doubt. But understanding its flaws and challenges is the first step in doing it better. Don’t be a Sobel; be the manager you wish you had.

The Managerial Role: Obsolete

Traditionally, managers serve as overseers, ensuring work flows smoothly and deadlines meet their marks. But in today’s business environments, we’re seeing a seismic shift. Teams are self-organising and making decisions independently. Why do we still need managers?

Do Teams Manage Themselves?

The answer seems to lean towards ‘yes’, teams can and do “manage” themselves. In settings where productivity is of the essence, the emphasis is on empowering teams to solve problems and innovate without having a managerial figure present, breathing down their necks. Collective ownership becomes the mantra, and everyone takes responsibility for the product’s success or failure.

What Happens to Accountability?

Contrary to popular belief, the absence of a traditional managerial role doesn’t mean accountability vanishes. In fact, team members often feel more accountable to each other than they might to a distant or toxic boss. Review processes become more meaningful, as peers understand the challenges and intricacies of the tasks at hand.

Is Decision-Making More Efficient?

The chain of command usually slows down decision-making. In a manager-less environment, teams arrive at decisions more quickly and can adapt to changes or unexpected challenges without having to wait for managerial approval. This can be especially vital in the fast-paced world of software development. See also: Auftragstaktik.

Does Quality Suffer?

One concern is that without a managerial figure to enforce standards, quality might slip. However, evidence suggests that the opposite happens. A sense of ownership and peer review often leads to a higher standard of work. Team members become each other’s quality control, leading to a more cohesive and well-executed end product. See also: Ensemble development.

What’s the Role of Leadership?

Leadership doesn’t evaporate in the absence of managers; it merely takes a different form. Leaders emerge naturally, guided by their expertise, communication skills, context, and the team’s respect. These leaders are often more in tune with the needs and dynamics of the team, making for a more harmonious and productive work environment.

Is This Model for Every Business?

The manager-less model isn’t just a passing fad in the software development world; it raises legitimate questions about the universal need for managers across all business types. While some argue that industries with stringent regulatory compliance or high-volume customer interactions need a managerial structure, this reasoning often serves as a convenient crutch rather than a real justification.

Firstly, regulatory compliance doesn’t inherently require a managerial role. Businesses can still adhere to laws and regulations through well-documented processes and collective responsibility. Teams can be educated and empowered to include regulators in the set of Folks That Matter and comply with rules without a manager acting as the gatekeeper.

Secondly, the idea that customer service businesses benefit from managerial roles is also questionable. Frontline employees are more likely to understand the intricacies and nuances of customer interactions than a removed managerial figure. Empowered teams often show better problem-solving capabilities, which is beneficial in handling complex customer concerns.

So, are managers necessary? The evidence increasingly points to ‘no’. Even outside the tech sector, rethinking the need for managers can lead to more agile, responsive, and accountable businesses.

So, Are Managers Redundant?

In the context of modern software development and certain types of businesses, managers are increasingly looking like relics of a past era. For businesses willing to take the leap, a manager-less structure offers more than just cost savings; it paves the way for innovation, efficiency, and a far more engaged workforce.

Further Reading

Zanini, M. (2021). Can we manage without managers? Retrieved on 9 September 2023 from https://www.michelezanini.com/can-we-manage-without-managers/
Zanini, M. (2014). Companies without managers better every metric. Retrieved on 9 September 2023 from https://www.cobrt-archive.com/archived-blog/2014/08/companies-without-managers-better-every-metric/