3 ms·
I don't think this gets the balance right. Management creates friction but some of it is necessary. Too much causes problems, but too little causes a different
by ska 6y ago
I don't think this gets the balance right. Management creates friction but some of it is necessary. Too much causes problems, but too little causes a different set of problems (at least beyond a pretty small scale in terms of goals and people).
I guess one way to look at is management as an activity - at some scale you have enough of it it makes sense to have someone(s) specialize in it, rather than distribute amongst the group. But once it is a specialized role, it's harder for the person in that role to do other things. So if there are too many of them, or their time is not directed the right way, it's a net negative.
- hinkley 6y agoLeadership creates friction too. It’s advertising for one set of priorities, which introduces friction for others. Friction is amoral. Leadership can be immoral (in which case, removing leadership can be a good thing). But I think I’m the specific case I illustrated (management without leadership) few of the qualities you allude to will be much in evidence. Managing for the sake of managing is, well, bureaucracy, isn’t it?
- ska 6y agoOk, but leadership without management easily falls apart to. I guess I was reacting to the “fire all the managers” subtext, which is not actually what you want (almost always). Manage for the sake that things need managing, I guess.