Different topic, but tech to me is a craft, where there are a lot of integral issues of quality. Yet orgs at many levels rarely seem to care about software. It

Different topic, but tech to me is a craft, where there are a lot of integral issues of quality. Yet orgs at many levels rarely seem to care about software. It thinks on terms of business need, and seems to detest lowering itself to what actually is & makes up the product; it doesnt know (& maybe at best wants to trust this all is being well handled somewhere) does doesmt grapple with the other 50% of the org: the code, what it is, what runs. Engineer concerns are treated with begrudging compromise & so often unsubtle adversarialism. Small groups of engineers must usually drive change they want, on an ad-hoc basis, and rarely is there a forum for the business to understand larger bigger picture internal-stength/weakness of thr product/architectures. The gulf beteeen the top & the rest of the org has seemed so very big, for so long. Rarely do orgs even try to foster a healthy relationship with their craftwork, with what powers them. That they would not really value the craftfolk either, as well as not really building strong orgs that understand the labor (output), is not surprising to me. It's why I keep hoping we see more companies ran by techies. Having a company that values being close to the machine in a real-way, that groks that there's this huge invisible world it's created & which wants to organizationally understand & better the systems, holistically, is a huge potential advantage for an org, but one that seems so rarely built into the genes. Understanding seems built on organizational scuttlebutt & heresay- in large part by many tech-agnostic & tech-apathetics going up the org chain- to suss out truth with, even though the code & it's constraints is the overwhelming shaper of many orgs available paths.