3 ms·
The problem is not the author, the code, or the original programmer, the problem is here: "First to my boss and then to my boss's boss and then to his boss an
by adamio 14y ago
The problem is not the author, the code, or the original programmer,
the problem is here:
"First to my boss and then to my boss's boss and then to his boss and then to a whole assortment of higher ups..."
"Many of those boss's boss's bosses were seriously pissed at me...That was when the Biggest Boss of All..."
Too many bosses with bosses
- Zenst 14y agoYes, sadly alot of companies do tend to drift towards the upside down pyramid boss structure. Insecure CEO's may be one factor in that. As a rule of sanity If you need the approval of more than 5 different layers of boss's then your better of rolling a dice and then asking as nomatter the outcome you still get your fun that way to offset the sapien-clustering.
- thebigshane 14y agoInteresting, what sort of structure should a 1000+ person company have? Would it really avoid any layers greater than 3 deep? Valve is a notoriously (recently) flat company for being as large as it is: <300 people. But it is noteworthy because it is the exception.
- adamio 14y agoI don't see where the article mentions a 1000+ person company. There's lots of answers to the structure question, its a good question. I was referring mostly to boss with a boss - and what the term boss implies vs leader, or enabler.