They clearly think they've already done this by the "creation" of a new title (non-title?) within the company called lead-links. They've also identified that the ability for managers to tell employees what to do is one of those understandable characteristic.
I don't agree, just stating what they think they've figured out. I'm suggesting a manager (sorry lead-link) who can assign and remove people but not be involved in what they're actually doing to be highly problematic (I'm probably oversimplifying)
While developers may prefer to have their nose buried in code, there needs to be someone else who is coordinating the team and making sure the pieces are fitting together.
Anyway you phrase it, it always comes out looking like a manager.
You might say "why not require the developers to manage themselves" To that I'd say not everyone wants to manage themselves or others, and some folks don't want to be buried in work but would rather coordinate and lead a team.
Let the managers manage! If they suck, fire them. Don't feel the need to re-invent business just because your managers aren't doing their job.
I don't agree, just stating what they think they've figured out. I'm suggesting a manager (sorry lead-link) who can assign and remove people but not be involved in what they're actually doing to be highly problematic (I'm probably oversimplifying)
While developers may prefer to have their nose buried in code, there needs to be someone else who is coordinating the team and making sure the pieces are fitting together.
Anyway you phrase it, it always comes out looking like a manager.
You might say "why not require the developers to manage themselves" To that I'd say not everyone wants to manage themselves or others, and some folks don't want to be buried in work but would rather coordinate and lead a team.
Let the managers manage! If they suck, fire them. Don't feel the need to re-invent business just because your managers aren't doing their job.