Man people who talk like you must work in absolutely miserable companies.

Meetings at my workplace are to the point, never longer than they need to be, and while yeah I weasel out of as many as I feel I can, I don't send an AI notetaker nor do I need it summarized. We meet for a topic, we discuss that topic, usually bullshit for a little in and around the topic, and then we get back to work. I would say most of our half-hour scheduled meetings are 10 minutes, and most of our hour scheduled ones are about 30-40 depending what it is. If we have a LOT to do, VERY occasionally, we actually use up the full time and then end things promptly because we all have more to do.

We don't backstab or plot on one another, our work relationships are built on mutual respect for one another's contribution to our goals. Meetings (nor even being in leadership) are not about jockeying for power, they're about enabling the best of us to help push our goals forward.

I'm getting whole new kinds of appreciation for my job and it's deliberately small, flattened structure because apparently the default state of business is to turn into high school with higher stakes, and I would genuinely rather run into traffic than work at some of these places.

▲

dangus a day ago | parent [-]

The truth is that people who talk like that aren’t management material.

“I noped out of the management track” = “nobody was considering me for the management track”

▲

CuriouslyC a day ago | parent | next [-]

'Tech lead' in a lot of companies is a hybrid track that gets funneled into a 'director' level roles, which is almost fully management. Just like scientists evolve into PIs, which also entails mostly management.

▲

ElevenLathe a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IMO management positions are mostly lobbied for/created by try-hard social climbers, at least initially. "We're taking a lot of X work, maybe I should lead a team to deal with that?" "Y has so many reports, maybe I can form a subgroup to help with that?" Creating new positions for people who want to be more important than they are right now is the main mechanism by which private orgs expand.

Doing this is considered proof that this person is a natural leader who steps up to solve organizational problems and get things done. You can guess why this leads to many many layers of management mostly just having meetings with each other, and a confused bottom layer of people who have to use this deliberately broken human telephone to communicate with their real ultimate bosses, the owners.

▲

smaudet a day ago | parent | next [-]

I have a suspicion managers will become redundant sooner than tech workers, although certain big CEOs love to try to say otherwise... (wonder why...).

An (good) AI manager is far more efficient than any human manager, and doesn't need to resort to this tiered system. In theory, they are far faster any any human manager too, meaning the company can scale around them without any issue.

Maybe you still have a board that reviews decisions at a high level, and an office of human manager cogs that can review the individual AI decisions, but then your company structure can become such that a corp of 1k+ individuals can _directly communicate with their customer(s)_

Now, of course I'm not going to pretend that this won't come with its own share of issues, but that's what the "manager cogs" are for...

	▲	ElevenLathe a day ago \| parent [-]
		I have the same suspicion that ultimately we will be working for the machines (which are owned by investors) rather than the other way around.

▲

Talanes a day ago | parent | prev [-]

>and a confused bottom layer of people who have to use this deliberately broken human telephone to communicate with their real ultimate bosses, the owners.

Which just feels like efficiency if you're the owner: less people reaching out to you with problems!

	▲	ElevenLathe a day ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly, the dysfunction comes from the top: the unelected investor class.

▲

bumby a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>“nobody was considering me for the management track”

I don’t know if this holds any more than saying “the only people who get into management are those that couldn’t hack it in the technical side”. There are many people who get recruited for certain management tracks and turn it down so they can put more focus on technical problems.

IMO at the end of the day, every job is about solving problems and it’s up to you to choose the track that aligns with the problems you want to work on. Some want to focus on people and administration, others want to focus on technical problems. A problem arises when orgs only have one route to promotion (eg, you must get into management if you want to be promoted).

	▲	dangus an hour ago \| parent [-]
		My point is that the comment’s author clearly doesn’t have the right attitude/skillset to succeed in management. It would be like me saying I noped out of the starting lineup of the LA Lakers to with on the custodial staff.

▲

tauwauwau a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I pray for souls who are considered to be management material.

	▲	bravetraveler 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Promoted to their incompetence. The Peter Principle or as I prefer: "growth mindset meets reality" This thread is insane. Plenty of people have turned down managerial opportunities. The inevitable path for any IC is this offer. Countless have told stories of their regret for either path.