3 ms·
I’m not sure the comparison with a surgery team is that compelling. A surgeon is basically repeating the same procedure and the objective is to perfect executio
by ITB 6y ago
I’m not sure the comparison with a surgery team is that compelling. A surgeon is basically repeating the same procedure and the objective is to perfect execution. The teams are small and the craft is the most important component for success. Similar things can be said about an orchestra or a scientific research team. For larger teams with a high coordination component, you need the leaders to be good at coordination. Being proficient at the craft helps in decision-making, but ultimately it’s about driving consensus, taking smart risks, and delivering results. That doesn’t necessarily indicate that managers as defined today are optimal. For example, a manager doesn’t necessarily need to define personnel compensation and performance to function, but some level of authority in decision making when consensus is not possible is valuable. The best managers I’ve seen, catalyze the emergence of the right answers among their team- they need some degree of domain knowledge, but again it’s a means to an end.
- nine_k 6y agoThe problem is that humans come in a lot of varieties, all assembled slightly differently, and without a service manual. Diseases also come in unpredictable variants, and tend to develop in unique enough ways. So no, surgeons don't polish a single canonical scalpel dance that works for everyone; they have to custom-tailor the surgery to every incoming patient, often under pretty severe deadlines (literally).