Thank you for replying earnestly to what was probably an overly emotional and flippant response to this article from me to begin with. I couldn't possibly agre

Thank you for replying earnestly to what was probably an overly emotional and flippant response to this article from me to begin with. I couldn't possibly agree more with your description of subjective management, and the underlying context questions to explore with each subject individually. IMO, people management is literally the most subjective generally-applied skill on the planet. The reason that I came off like that in my initial comment is that the article gives me (an IC) the feeling of a manager expressing frustrations with ICs, in a way where it's mostly that the person seems to be frustrated that ICs are actually individual humans with subjective interests as well as competencies. The list seems to be pointing out areas where the "human" parts of curiosity, teamwork, and creativity poke through cracks in systems designed to treat the ICs like interchangeable parts. It's literally generalizing as the thesis of the article itself. It also comes off like it's written for other managers or tech leads to read in a sort of "virtue signaling"-ish tone. It's a list of high level vague points designed to land emotionally with other middle manager types. The only thing this seems to be telling me as an IC is that my feelings for how to add value are mostly wrong and I should just shut up and do what my manager says, because my assigned tasks are far more important than anything I could come up with on my on which to spend my time.