[agentultra]

I didn't really vibe with this dichotomy but I did get the sense that both of them seem like a symptom I have seen often:

Too many chefs, not enough cooks

In general this happens when companies over-value management. If you find each "team" of 3-7 software developers have at least 3 "managers" on the team (in addition to the visual designer and other folks in productive roles): you've got too many chefs. Decisions have to go through the committee, the process, etc. Software developers that are making the product itself are rational, intelligent, capable people whose hands become tied behind meetings, documents, and permission-seeking. Too many chefs make for busy work and they focus on the wrong work.

One manager for 5-8 software developers is often good enough. Someone who interfaces with HR, handles administrative tasks, and is the voice of the team to the rest of the company at meetings. A good manager enables the team to do their best work and stays out of the way.

[michaelmior]

It seems like this can also happen when management is under-valued and each individual contributor can always make all their own decisions. I'm sure this can work on a team disciplined enough to share important design decisions they make with each other and to voluntarily adhere to some design decisions they may not entirely agree with. But for a lot of teams, without someone taking the lead on making important decisions, you end up lost.

[trashtester]

> Too many chefs, not enough cooks

As long as the chefs also do cooking, having chefs is not a big deal. The problem is the people who do not produce anything but keep themselves busy doing stuff that ends up wasting everyone's time.