|
|
|
|
|
|
by gamesbrainiac
2697 days ago
|
|
|
> Not true, probably for a majority of people. Alumni networks and family connections are not the norm. Networks don't magically appear, you need to work on building them. > Is there any proof of this? Every Fortune 500 company and a vast majority of successfully-executed projects beg to differ. I don't have any proof other than my own experience. As to your second sentence, what on earth are you talking about? > Because by-and-large it works? For every Valve there are countless shuttered "unstructured" companies that floundered due to bad management and lack of ownership. There is no problem with structure. You already have it with architects, leads, principals and others. The problem is too much bureaucracy. |
|
|
It would seem that people in technical fields often have problems with this kind of skill, and need help to improve it. Fortunately we have these things called jobs where we have this great opportunity to be exposed to people like that.
> As to your second sentence, what on earth are you talking about?
On why structured hierarchies are successful.
> You already have it with architects, leads, principals and others
These roles don't make business happen top-down. They'll be kind of useless in a room without someone driving vision and direction and, you know, deciding what's good business and watching cash flow.
> The problem is too much bureaucracy.
Says every engineer that's never been a manager. Like it or not, bureaucracy is the natural friction that occurs from competing priorities and limited resources, and no amount of smart "self-starter" engineers is going to change that. How do we know this? Point out the number of successful companies based on either approach. We like to call this empirical evidence.