32 ms·
Because it will mean less of them are needed
by black_13 5y ago
Because it will mean less of them are needed
- andrewlgood 5y agoWhy? I understand the author's claims that many managers are not properly suited for their job, but the author never claims that spans of control (how many people a manager can manage) are changing as we move to a fully/more remote work future. Are people finding that managers have become more efficient in remote settings?
- deagle50 5y agoMaybe some are, but that's not the point. How busy with real work product were they before?
- andrewlgood 5y agoThat's a very different conversation - what is the value of having managers. Are you suggesting that companies do not need managers?
- deagle50 5y agoNo. I'm bringing it back to the premise of the article after your efficiency tangent.
- davidgerard 5y agoThe author does think a lot of middle management are in fact useless, though - he's written at length on why return-to-office culture is wrong, and who's pushing it (useless middle managers) on his substack: https://ez.substack.com https://ez.substack.com
- pintxo 5y agoI'd argue the opposite. You need more, as being visible to upper management might not be enough in a future where actual work output might get emphasized over personal appearances. As managing your own underlings by their work performance is arguably harder then managing them by metrics like "she's always 9-5 at her desk" and "I do like his choice of tie and suit".
- peakaboo 5y agoI never needed any manager.