> were not good ICs, but they did multiply the effectiveness of the ICs they worked with that sounds nice (meaning, "I know what you are saying") but it's not

> were not good ICs, but they did multiply the effectiveness of the ICs they worked with that sounds nice (meaning, "I know what you are saying") but it's not really true. As organizations grow, they become less efficient. If a manager can keep a team of N working at N*1 productivity, that's amazing, but it's not a multiple. Now, people can be dragged down by poor communication, poor leadership, changing targets, stepping on each other's feet, bad attitudes, etc. and a good manager can get that 0.1 efficiency multiplier back up to something approaching 1, so it might feel like a multiple.