one thing that ive noticed/realized is that perhaps associating hierarchy with division of labor/responsibility is perhaps an anti-pattern...
what if the ceo was responsible, but was working under the managers "for them" what if managers worked at the same level as thier team whos role is to make the team productive and support them (or even the team could fire thier manager) etc etc
i wonder if disassociating those two (responsiiblity/hierarchy) might be a step towards fixing these kinds of issues...
The concept of "Servant Leadership" is not exactly new [1], Many people are not in the position to argue with their boss when they frame it as an adversarial relationship - That you owe something to the boss for your pay, that it's somehow a privilege they are granting you to work for them. There's no way to prevent those kinds of leaders from having a successful organization except by refusing to work for them and out-competing them, and fundamentally: Crime does pay, sometimes for long enough to starve legitimate competition out.
Hm. My experience is that most of the time as responsibility is diffused in big organizations people are motivated to just stay quiet, weather the storm, don't rock the boat. And the typical "matrix management"-like organization structure (where everyone has many different managers, eg. there's a project manager, there's a technical manager (let's say engineering manager), there's a [human] resource manager, there's a team lead [a non-commissioned manager]) exacerbates this.
> even the team could fire their manager
This would likely help a lot with the Peter Pans who ended up promoted to managers but are terrible at managing.
what if the ceo was responsible, but was working under the managers "for them" what if managers worked at the same level as thier team whos role is to make the team productive and support them (or even the team could fire thier manager) etc etc
i wonder if disassociating those two (responsiiblity/hierarchy) might be a step towards fixing these kinds of issues...