3 ms·

Absolutely. I have almost this exact conversation with folks all the time. The majority of managers are dead weight and often have a negative impact on perform

Absolutely. I have almost this exact conversation with folks all the time. The majority of managers are dead weight and often have a negative impact on performance and culture. Leaders (natural or learned) are incredibly valuable. Managers are overhead.

b112 3y ago
This already happened once, in the 80s. A massive reduction of the 'middle class', by eliminating massive amounts of middle management. Managers aren't overhead, it's an absurd statement, because it's an absolute. Managers allow leaders to extend their reach. Absolutely no leader can scale beyond a certain point. At all. Managers allow for that. They're essential, beyond a certain org size. Now, I will agree that some should not be managers! But that is the same for any profession. You need to churn, to chop off those not performing, or poorly suited to the task.
- nickelcitymario 3y ago
  In the context of this conversation, if AI can perform those management tasks (not leadership, but management), then I think it's only a matter of time before they will. To be clear, I'm not saying this is a good thing. I just think it's inevitable. I'd probably consider it a good thing if it wasn't for the loss of all those middle-class jobs. This is also why I recommend Marshall Brain's "Manna". He nailed it. AI isn't coming for entry-level jobs. Not right away. Because manual labour is actually incredibly complex to replicate with AI. But it's coming for the middle, whether we like it or not. I say this as someone who has spent most of my career in middle management, for context.
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  Google spent many months and millions of dollars to prove the value of managers. They tried to get rid of them, then spent tons of effort to study and understand the problems that caused. Ultimately for a company to succeed, people need to be aligned, and in an emotional space to do good work. That is very hard to automate. Google found they could not.
  - nickelcitymario 3y ago
    I think this again points to the difference between management and leadership. The emotional side of it -- the people side of it -- is leadership. It's coaching. It's understanding that everyone is an individual and has their own needs, as well as their own trauma and baggage. Leadership is knowing how to get everyone to work together towards a common cause. It requires empathy and compassion, as well as a strong understanding of the business. I'm not saying AI could never do that, but the current generation of AI is nowhere near this capability. It'll take innovation beyond LLMs to get there.

b112 3y ago

This already happened once, in the 80s. A massive reduction of the 'middle class', by eliminating massive amounts of middle management. Managers aren't overhead, it's an absurd statement, because it's an absolute. Managers allow leaders to extend their reach. Absolutely no leader can scale beyond a certain point. At all. Managers allow for that. They're essential, beyond a certain org size. Now, I will agree that some should not be managers! But that is the same for any profession. You need to churn, to chop off those not performing, or poorly suited to the task.

nickelcitymario 3y ago
In the context of this conversation, if AI can perform those management tasks (not leadership, but management), then I think it's only a matter of time before they will. To be clear, I'm not saying this is a good thing. I just think it's inevitable. I'd probably consider it a good thing if it wasn't for the loss of all those middle-class jobs. This is also why I recommend Marshall Brain's "Manna". He nailed it. AI isn't coming for entry-level jobs. Not right away. Because manual labour is actually incredibly complex to replicate with AI. But it's coming for the middle, whether we like it or not. I say this as someone who has spent most of my career in middle management, for context.
snowwrestler 3y ago
Google spent many months and millions of dollars to prove the value of managers. They tried to get rid of them, then spent tons of effort to study and understand the problems that caused. Ultimately for a company to succeed, people need to be aligned, and in an emotional space to do good work. That is very hard to automate. Google found they could not.
- nickelcitymario 3y ago
  I think this again points to the difference between management and leadership. The emotional side of it -- the people side of it -- is leadership. It's coaching. It's understanding that everyone is an individual and has their own needs, as well as their own trauma and baggage. Leadership is knowing how to get everyone to work together towards a common cause. It requires empathy and compassion, as well as a strong understanding of the business. I'm not saying AI could never do that, but the current generation of AI is nowhere near this capability. It'll take innovation beyond LLMs to get there.