I am very very negative on "management" as a skill in the software world.
There are a few key outcomes needed
1. staff work
2. Policy decisions
3. resource allocation
1. is working out how the various pieces will collide (ie how long it will take to march x thousand people through various roads as a good example of army staff work). This is absolutely a job to be replaced with software. Then all that's left is the trade off in options otherwise known as
2. policy decisions. And this includes making policy on the hoof. That's fine but I think companies are going to become more democratic and much more obvious what policy decisions are being made and when - and that will take oversight
3. resource allocation. Where to spend the budget? And again this is mostly about staff work and policy
So i think the staff work (the helicopter view) will get commoditised, the policy decisions constantly reviewed and eventually replaced with democracy and frankly that's it.
What we will need is lots of administrators .. oh not that will be replaced with software ...
My basic takeaway is that most jobs and businesses
are terrible for society and badly organised and run. If a manager (investor / producer) wants to hire for that they need to pay well to herd cats
If they instead organise things well, and even have a glorious vision then cats herd themselves. Why is Tesla doing so well? Why was Facebook or Google great places to work?
But honestly, most businesses can be achieved without management taking over.
A business is either within the phase space of engineering possibility or or is not - the electric vehicle was there and was so well recognised that Tesla actually got given grants by govenment to build it - a government department recognised what car manufacturers refused to see. One could imagine hundreds of engineers coming together without management to build that on some kickstarter like site.
My view is leadership is the least important part of a successful business and "management" is the least important part of leadership.
edit: i may be overly cynical and i really need to write up my thoughts more coherently
> My view is leadership is the least important part of a successful business
Leadership is the part of the company that decides what the company will pursue. Tesla started making electric cars because Tesla leadership decided to. When they started making the Model 3 or PowerWalls or rolled out the SuperCharger network, it’s because leadership decided to.
> and "management" is the least important part of leadership.
>>> When they started making the Model 3 or PowerWalls or rolled out the SuperCharger network, it’s because leadership decided to
yes, and ...
Look anything I say sounds like sour grapes but, honestly there were a thousand bloggers saying "someone should make electric cars", there were hundreds of engineers who had built prototypes in and out of major car companies. It was time. The technology was there.
Leadership is not posting a vision up on a site or sending round a memo (ie deciding to).
Leadership is having the capital in place (financial and reputation and network and that x factor), and risking it.
I am not trying to belittle the leadership - but I am trying to right size it. Without the climate, without the skilled engineers and the cash and the government support and so on, leadership is just prattling on HN comments.
You could pluck any fucker from HN and put them as CEO of any random tech company and their decisions would be within 10% of the original CEO.
The hard part is not leading. We already know where we are going. The hard part is not staff work. The hard part is inspiring people so they don't fuck off and join the other guy with the same ideas but more charisma.
Just like High frequency traders the CEO competition is other CEOs. And just like HFT the secret is not the special algorithm, it's just the doing of it that gives society benefit. And just like HFT there is a lot of sound and fury and we could probably get the same social benefit with a new market structure
There are a few key outcomes needed
1. staff work 2. Policy decisions 3. resource allocation
1. is working out how the various pieces will collide (ie how long it will take to march x thousand people through various roads as a good example of army staff work). This is absolutely a job to be replaced with software. Then all that's left is the trade off in options otherwise known as
2. policy decisions. And this includes making policy on the hoof. That's fine but I think companies are going to become more democratic and much more obvious what policy decisions are being made and when - and that will take oversight
3. resource allocation. Where to spend the budget? And again this is mostly about staff work and policy
So i think the staff work (the helicopter view) will get commoditised, the policy decisions constantly reviewed and eventually replaced with democracy and frankly that's it.
What we will need is lots of administrators .. oh not that will be replaced with software ...