He didn't say your bosses boss is not allowed to know what you do, but that they _not necessarily_ know what you do. It's like abstractions: they can be leaky, but you'd better still know who's responsible for what.
While we're on the topic of abstractions, the summary of Bertrand Russell comes to mind:
What is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first one is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid.
I can think of 2 patches: first, "matter" ("it") can be replaced by "bit"..
(What is the nature of the responsibilities that come with telling people what to do? Towards those who pay, who, if they did not inherit, must also have been highly paid? Towards the work/workers: it certainly helps to understand the work, but if it is neither unpleasant nor necessary, then perhaps "supplying the why" shouldn't be called a responsibility :)
What is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first one is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid.
I can think of 2 patches: first, "matter" ("it") can be replaced by "bit"..
(What is the nature of the responsibilities that come with telling people what to do? Towards those who pay, who, if they did not inherit, must also have been highly paid? Towards the work/workers: it certainly helps to understand the work, but if it is neither unpleasant nor necessary, then perhaps "supplying the why" shouldn't be called a responsibility :)