3 ms·

The core value that has emerged is that everyone has something to teach, and everyone has something to learn. You are awesome. I would really like to throw 99%

The core value that has emerged is that everyone has something to teach, and everyone has something to learn. You are awesome. I would really like to throw 99% of "management" out the historical window for good. It's a goddamn anachronism. The only genuine source of credibility is teaching. Show me why your idea is awesome, and if you're right and you teach it well, I'll believe you. You could be a 190 IQ genius or a Big Swinging Dick rain-maker, but the only way you add true value is by showing other people the way. "Because I said so" / "I can fire you, shithead" management (i.e. authority without teaching) can go die in a fire. It's 2013, which makes it about damn time for that. I have no idea what you do, and I'm probably not a candidate for your company (machine learning specialty, plus need to stay in the US for the next 6 months) but I really hope you succeed.

buro9 14y ago
Thanks, much appreciated. And my view of management, is mostly that they're drawn in the wrong place on org charts. They should be below the workers, assisting and helping to support the workers rather than ordering them. Workers themselves are the ones with the knowledge and most qualified to make decisions based on sharing that knowledge. I can't find the link I meant to, but this one deals with this view pretty well: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/DevelopmentAbstraction.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/DevelopmentAbstractio...
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I don't really like the idea of putting managers "below" workers. The fundamental reason why middle managers behave in such shitty ways is that they're insecure. (Their job is to be leaders, but they often aren't the leaders the group would pick; they're compliant stooges selected by executives who trust them to favor upward interests.) Putting management at a level below workers is just as bad and will probably produce even more incompetent management than the dogshit we already get. We need to accept different that isn't below or above. What we need is a radically transparent system that allows for division of labor and investor/worker symbiosis but doesn't turn that into an excuse for parasitic behavior at any level: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle...

buro9 14y ago

Thanks, much appreciated. And my view of management, is mostly that they're drawn in the wrong place on org charts. They should be below the workers, assisting and helping to support the workers rather than ordering them. Workers themselves are the ones with the knowledge and most qualified to make decisions based on sharing that knowledge. I can't find the link I meant to, but this one deals with this view pretty well: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/DevelopmentAbstraction.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/DevelopmentAbstractio...

michaelochurch 14y ago
I don't really like the idea of putting managers "below" workers. The fundamental reason why middle managers behave in such shitty ways is that they're insecure. (Their job is to be leaders, but they often aren't the leaders the group would pick; they're compliant stooges selected by executives who trust them to favor upward interests.) Putting management at a level below workers is just as bad and will probably produce even more incompetent management than the dogshit we already get. We need to accept different that isn't below or above. What we need is a radically transparent system that allows for division of labor and investor/worker symbiosis but doesn't turn that into an excuse for parasitic behavior at any level: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle...