> A good manager will improve the performance of her direct reports. Right. A good manager indisputably force multiplies because a good manager is defined as s

> A good manager will improve the performance of her direct reports. Right. A good manager indisputably force multiplies because a good manager is defined as someone who improves the performance of her direct reports... Importantly, any empirical evidence that less management structure improves outcomes is easy to dismiss because it's really just proof that the particular manager/company that failed wasn't a "good" manager/management structure. After all, if they were "good", then the output of engineers would have been multiplied, right?! Tautology (n): a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form. Saying that we know good managers force multiply by improving performance of reports -- and then defining "good" to mean "improve the performance of her direct reports" -- is absolutely a tautology. More importantly, ignoring empirical evidence by making a rational appeal to the truth of this tautology creates a rather pointless conversation. Given the choice between blind faith in a tautology that "good managers = good" and empirical evidence that sometimes "less emphasis on/power for managers = better", I prefer the latter. You have a good day as well :)