It might be my lack of corporate experience but I have a lot of trouble seeing most management positions as important (in fact, my general feeling is that they're a hindrance most often than not).
It is your lack of experience. Historically no company has ever gotten to be the size of MSFT, or AAPL or any other multibillion dollar company without management. I don't know for sure the reason, but would guess that someone has to answer to shareholders and they must organize various people with conflicting opinions, ideas and motivations to accomplish a single goal.
Do companies really go down in flames if no one is there to try and measure, through various ineffective ways, the quality of other people's work (often in a field they don't even understand)?
I don’t think so, but I would guess that much of the effort to measure etc. is put in place by HR consultants in at least some part to avoid discrimination lawsuits and to make sure employees are being treated at least somewhat fairly.
Would a bunch of engineers really sit there doing nothing if they didn't have a manager to report to? Is said manager more apt at taking decisions than they are?
I can confidently say yes to this. Not just engineers, but everyone. If there was no structure, but you had to get a lot done, people would avoid work, work on their own side projects etc. (side projects are not good for the company if they are a new startup that won’t include the company).
[] Someone mentioned valve below, they have a system, it just looks flat. []
I'm curious and also pretty sure that if I ever started a company, I'd at least try to do it without any sort of formal management. At least to try.
It would probably work for a while, except you would have to answer to shareholders (investors) and you would have to organize your team. Eventually you would either become a full time manager or you would hire professional management so that you could work on coding.
It is your lack of experience. Historically no company has ever gotten to be the size of MSFT, or AAPL or any other multibillion dollar company without management. I don't know for sure the reason, but would guess that someone has to answer to shareholders and they must organize various people with conflicting opinions, ideas and motivations to accomplish a single goal.
Do companies really go down in flames if no one is there to try and measure, through various ineffective ways, the quality of other people's work (often in a field they don't even understand)?
I don’t think so, but I would guess that much of the effort to measure etc. is put in place by HR consultants in at least some part to avoid discrimination lawsuits and to make sure employees are being treated at least somewhat fairly.
Would a bunch of engineers really sit there doing nothing if they didn't have a manager to report to? Is said manager more apt at taking decisions than they are?
I can confidently say yes to this. Not just engineers, but everyone. If there was no structure, but you had to get a lot done, people would avoid work, work on their own side projects etc. (side projects are not good for the company if they are a new startup that won’t include the company).
[] Someone mentioned valve below, they have a system, it just looks flat. []
I'm curious and also pretty sure that if I ever started a company, I'd at least try to do it without any sort of formal management. At least to try.
It would probably work for a while, except you would have to answer to shareholders (investors) and you would have to organize your team. Eventually you would either become a full time manager or you would hire professional management so that you could work on coding.