I really liked this post and the way it was written. My critique is that it feels a little idealistic. That might not be the best description, but it's like ra

I really liked this post and the way it was written. My critique is that it feels a little idealistic. That might not be the best description, but it's like railing against the way the world just is. I'd love to see counter-examples of successful companies that do things right, but it feels to me like what most companies turn into is just the best of a bad bunch of options. At the end of the day, we're all uniquely flawed people trying to work together in increasingly sized groups. It feels like some amount of dysfunction is to be expected. Having leadership flow between people depending on the problem being solved has the potential to make many people very uncomfortable day to day and in turn, erode the benefit of optimising competency for each task. At the end of the day, though, that's why many of us tend to aim at small companies: the pain is not amplified. The advice I used to give colleagues at large companies was not to try and fight the ocean; you just need to let it wash over you. Bottom-up change is so rare at large companies that it just burns out those who try and alienates the people they need to impress to move up and actually effect change. The truth is that even at a high level very people can really change things fundamentally. But maybe that's for the best. Fundamentally changing the way things work for thousands of people's livelihoods should be hard.