4 ms·

Edit: I now realize you are talking about your experience in India, where of course things may be different. However, I would think that even there, 'managers'

Edit: I now realize you are talking about your experience in India, where of course things may be different. However, I would think that even there, 'managers' are a distinct subgroup from other human beings. Original: That's an unnecessarily negative view. Managers are people too and come in all the variations people come. Some of them care about whether the company does well, just like people whose title doesn't contain the word 'manager'. Their relation with other managers is exactly like the relation of your manager with you. That someones title includes the word 'manager' doesn't mean they suddenly like all other people whose title includes the word 'manager' and it doesn't mean he suddenly considers them equals. Being a 'manager' is not a binary thing. Team leaders are managers, even when their title doesn't say so.

noahc 14y ago
I know of an organization where if you wanted to purchase say $50,000 worth of new computers, HR (yes, human resources) had the power to make that purchase very difficult. It wasn't because HR actually had any say in the matter, but instead the head of HR actually sat in on meetings with the CEO and the rest of VPs on a very regular basis. Now in this case and in this company, they would not have blocked innovation like this. However, had they had different attitudes automation could have easily been blocked. It's not so much about the manager title, as it is that the graph doesn't look like a bunch of layers that you can just skip one. There are multiple inputs that can can come from people above, below, and beside and that is what makes it a club of people, who generally will protect others in the club.