> You can change the name of the role but the associated task don't disappear. Which he does admit but then says that just gets spread around. But that doesn'

> You can change the name of the role but the associated task don't disappear. Which he does admit but then says that just gets spread around. But that doesn't mean people do it well, especially if it's not their primary role. >Finally, a team of managers of one likely means few of them are good (not even great) at managing. How is that a good thing for the mentees? How is adding responsiblity to so many mentors a win? Right, managing is a lot more than just a bunch of tasks you spread around. You need to have someone focusing on it, providing direction, identifying issues before they become too bad (which he also admits is a problem), among other things. And managers can be IC's too! They don't have to be 100% managers. Feels like he's saying "well some managers are bad so we'll just stop having them!" The other thing is, for those that want to get into management, they will have to leave to advance. It's never good to have good employees leave because you don't have a position for them, especially when you arbitrarily remove it. I'm not saying he's going to fail because of this, but they aren't going to be as good as they could be otherwise. I like DHH, but he's way off on this.