The AI hallucinations were confirmed by multiple leading publications, including the Financial Times. The so-called "Thought Leadership" reports were intended to articulate PwC's insights into some of...
The reality is no one person is qualified to “run” a multinational megacorp. Not a single human being knows enough for this level of complexity, but the only reason any of them can justify the ungodly amount of marginal return they take is to pretend they’re super-geniuses while relying on ‘consultant’ teams to do the actual thinking, and also keep it quiet that they’re no more competent than the janitor they’re making 1000x the salary of (all in stock options of course, but 1000x nonetheless).
All of this would work better if the “bosses” could accept they aren’t demigods, that the domain expertise to make collective decisions is within their existing org charts and they just need to step down off their high horses and remember they are just a cog in a much bigger machine that makes its own decisions with or without their input. They’re self-important sales reps, with just enough of a grasp of finance to be dangerous to themselves and others. I’m sure me and my 10 closest colleagues would also be inclined to say we do a billion $ of work every day if we were writing our own bonus agreements. We just wouldn’t have the hubris to convince ourselves it’s true.
The reality is no one person is qualified to “run” a multinational megacorp. Not a single human being knows enough for this level of complexity
This was true of the United States of America in 1789, but still you need a leader. A leader like Buzz Lightyear, he’s “always sure.” Confidently pursuing a plausible, coherent path has value, even when it’s not the optimal path - difficult to see, the future is, always in motion - direction by committee of “the best people” has its place, but so does decisive leadership.
I think that’s insane. It’s the way you’ve done things where everything else was punished, because anything else was literally made unthinkable, but that’s like the worst means of coordination with too many essential unmitigatable flaws to outline here.
Even systems that explicitly work on those terms on paper need other methods in place in reality to patch over the gaps, and, my biggest organizational pet peeve: so much effort that could be spent on administration adaptation and plain physical tasks gets repurposed to enforcing the hierarchy and a recursive internal arms race about power struggles and responses to enforcement. Those systems are not resilient, efficient, coherent, precise, or particularly durable.
The purpose of a leader isn’t to enforce a hierarchy, it is to lead in a direction. Not to decide everything, but to decide where there is genuine ambiguity, when the answer isn’t clear: to make it clear.
Some direction is established by principles, some by circumstances, some by goals, and how all these are prioritized helps to decide. But, at the end of it all, with all the best information being gathered and synthesized by all the best people for their respective areas of expertise ranging from technical, to financial, to ethical, to political, etc. etc. there still needs to be interpretation of: what does that all mean to us.
And, ultimately, power should be flowing from the consent of the governed - the first 50.1% contra-coalition shouldn’t (usually) have the power to overthrow and install their replacement, but ultimately, at some intervals in time, at some levels of dis-approval, change is healthy and that change should be to the leading candidate which most represents the will of the governed.
Yet, we live in a world where “he who has the gold, makes the rules” and, so, we get these violent backlashes against authoritarianism when it is installed and maintained via power and money. As we should.
I’m familiar with your basic-bitch-default philosophy.
Everything I said holds true.
I’m telling you, putting those roles in one guy and centralizing them is insane. Irrational malevolent or straight up mentally ill.
I do not think Lemmy comments go long enough for me to outline much less critique every problem with your bullshit, but suffice to say it is not egatitarian or functional, cannot be, and any time in history you can point yo where it looks on the surface like it is; there’s something else under that surface.
I’m sick of talking with uneducated morons who haven’t read any management science or coordination theories talking like your shit’s profound. Read a serious book on the topic or being part of what’s effectively a ddos on any actual grown-up conversation about organizing people at scale. Be more than noise.
No, what you need is something that can facilitate coordination and communication between many moving parts, inspire confidence in the team, create stability, and sell a vision to generate investment, and those functions do not necessarily all need to be one person. You do not “need” a leader, you want a leader because it’s easier to conceptualize a relationship with a figurehead. Much like the rump English monarchy, the executive is a vestigial appendage and an artifact of of an aristocratic era of patronage. Locking in a coherent direction does not require a “decider”, there are other ways to achieve that. By designing companies to minimize personal liability and accountability, they have also designed themselves out of a useful role.
The reality is no one person is qualified to “run” a multinational megacorp. Not a single human being knows enough for this level of complexity, but the only reason any of them can justify the ungodly amount of marginal return they take is to pretend they’re super-geniuses while relying on ‘consultant’ teams to do the actual thinking, and also keep it quiet that they’re no more competent than the janitor they’re making 1000x the salary of (all in stock options of course, but 1000x nonetheless).
All of this would work better if the “bosses” could accept they aren’t demigods, that the domain expertise to make collective decisions is within their existing org charts and they just need to step down off their high horses and remember they are just a cog in a much bigger machine that makes its own decisions with or without their input. They’re self-important sales reps, with just enough of a grasp of finance to be dangerous to themselves and others. I’m sure me and my 10 closest colleagues would also be inclined to say we do a billion $ of work every day if we were writing our own bonus agreements. We just wouldn’t have the hubris to convince ourselves it’s true.
This was true of the United States of America in 1789, but still you need a leader. A leader like Buzz Lightyear, he’s “always sure.” Confidently pursuing a plausible, coherent path has value, even when it’s not the optimal path - difficult to see, the future is, always in motion - direction by committee of “the best people” has its place, but so does decisive leadership.
I think that’s insane. It’s the way you’ve done things where everything else was punished, because anything else was literally made unthinkable, but that’s like the worst means of coordination with too many essential unmitigatable flaws to outline here.
Even systems that explicitly work on those terms on paper need other methods in place in reality to patch over the gaps, and, my biggest organizational pet peeve: so much effort that could be spent on administration adaptation and plain physical tasks gets repurposed to enforcing the hierarchy and a recursive internal arms race about power struggles and responses to enforcement. Those systems are not resilient, efficient, coherent, precise, or particularly durable.
The purpose of a leader isn’t to enforce a hierarchy, it is to lead in a direction. Not to decide everything, but to decide where there is genuine ambiguity, when the answer isn’t clear: to make it clear.
Some direction is established by principles, some by circumstances, some by goals, and how all these are prioritized helps to decide. But, at the end of it all, with all the best information being gathered and synthesized by all the best people for their respective areas of expertise ranging from technical, to financial, to ethical, to political, etc. etc. there still needs to be interpretation of: what does that all mean to us.
And, ultimately, power should be flowing from the consent of the governed - the first 50.1% contra-coalition shouldn’t (usually) have the power to overthrow and install their replacement, but ultimately, at some intervals in time, at some levels of dis-approval, change is healthy and that change should be to the leading candidate which most represents the will of the governed.
Yet, we live in a world where “he who has the gold, makes the rules” and, so, we get these violent backlashes against authoritarianism when it is installed and maintained via power and money. As we should.
I’m familiar with your basic-bitch-default philosophy.
Everything I said holds true.
I’m telling you, putting those roles in one guy and centralizing them is insane. Irrational malevolent or straight up mentally ill.
I do not think Lemmy comments go long enough for me to outline much less critique every problem with your bullshit, but suffice to say it is not egatitarian or functional, cannot be, and any time in history you can point yo where it looks on the surface like it is; there’s something else under that surface.
I’m sick of talking with uneducated morons who haven’t read any management science or coordination theories talking like your shit’s profound. Read a serious book on the topic or being part of what’s effectively a ddos on any actual grown-up conversation about organizing people at scale. Be more than noise.
Anyone who seeks political office should be categorically banned from having it.
No, what you need is something that can facilitate coordination and communication between many moving parts, inspire confidence in the team, create stability, and sell a vision to generate investment, and those functions do not necessarily all need to be one person. You do not “need” a leader, you want a leader because it’s easier to conceptualize a relationship with a figurehead. Much like the rump English monarchy, the executive is a vestigial appendage and an artifact of of an aristocratic era of patronage. Locking in a coherent direction does not require a “decider”, there are other ways to achieve that. By designing companies to minimize personal liability and accountability, they have also designed themselves out of a useful role.