334
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
334 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59670 readers
1833 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I say this as someone who has worked for small companies, large companies, NGOs, and non-hierarchical collectives.
When you start working on something that is complex, and has a lot of moving parts, you need conductors. If you’ve got a better real-world example of an organizational model that works, I’m all ears.
Even in Leninist Russia, workplace structures had people managers in place to facilitate planning and to ensure that a team was aligned and set up to successfully accomplish a goal.
I’ve only ever seen one org structure that didn’t need some sort of people facilitation layer. And that was a tiny commune that a buddy of mine lived on. And everyone knew each other for years before they established said commune.
I'm not opposed to hierarchical organizational structures?
Under capitalism, the job of every single manager is to extract as much surplus value from the workers as possible. That's their actual economic function. The problem isn't the organizational model, the problem is the larger economic system they exist within.
If you had some kind of horizontal non-hierarchical collective under capitalism all that could do is turn everyone inside of it into petite-managers and force them to exploit themselves in order to hit productivity quotas. Or, more likely, it would fail because people don't want to do that shit to themselves and need to be used and abused by a manager to make capitalism function.
K.
All I can say is that for many of us in people management here,
a) we could’ve paid our mortgage just as comparably on an IC track, and we do this job because we enjoy working with people and roadmap strategy, and
b) I don’t care whether you’re building a fintech bro trading app, public housing in the USSR, or are conducting an orchestra. You get enough people in one place trying to achieve a shared goal, and you need people to manage the people. Otherwise the work becomes messy and miserable.
You don't work with people, not really. You manage them. Your job is to strategically use them for maximum productivity; workers might be allowed some small amount of input but only as long as it can be fit within your "roadmap strategy". Your job it to discipline the workers and keep them on task. And, of course, make sure they never unionize.
These problems are structural. I don't care what your motivations are, your class position is as an underling enforcer for the boss and you're bourgeoisified by your position within the class structure. A manager, within this specific class structure, has every incentive to be an enemy of the workers. An individual manager can choose to become a class traitor, and people in management can be extremely powerful union organizers! But it rarely happens because it requires they betray their own class interests. It's structural.