We discovered that by reducing people’s activity to just a few acts, we could more easily increase their know-how and thus their productivity. For example, when developers develop and focus on that, and infrastructure people focus on infrastructure, their dexterity will increase and thus productivity.

We discovered that by specializing and dividing work, we limited downtime. When, for example, testing people only do testing, they don’t waste time dealing with the rest.

We discovered that by dividing work, by specializing people—on one side those who think, on the other those who do—we could replace those who do with machines, and we would strengthen knowledge by gathering those who think.

We discovered that if we used interest and selfishness as the engine of exchange between people, we increased productivity. Because exchange enriches. Especially if it is driven by selfishness and self-interest.

We discovered all this, but we discovered it in the 18th century.

These are the analyses and proposals of Adam Smith (Adam Smith 1723-1790). They would be adopted from the end of the 18th century, adopted and pushed further by Frederick Winslow Taylor at the beginning of the 20th century at Ford.

The notion of work appears, moreover, in the 18th century—work in the sense of “I pay for someone’s time”; before that it was about paying someone for something tangible (read Bullshit Jobs - David Graeber). The notion of work then blends the idea of value creation, the idea that work is the meaning of life (not that we work for meaning but that it is the meaning), and the idea that work becomes a social indicator, a system for distributing income, rights, and protections.

And management, the notion of management, and therefore of manager, thus appear at the very heart of these ideas, towards the end of the 19th century.

And naturally today all of this has become completely anachronistic, completely false.

But since management was born within this, it’s the starting point for many.

The whole idea is to know how to detach from it, because this approach to management is obsolete.

Today it’s completely obsolete to measure time spent at work and not the impact generated, the value created. I don’t care about the number of features you’ve developed, the number of hours you’ve spent—my question is what impact have you had?

Slack time, time spent outside of production itself, breaks, distractions, off-context topics are sources of richness for thinking differently, for thinking simply.

Having an “end-to-end” approach is essential for delivering and learning quickly.

Having an approach as a whole also gives meaning, makes the objective perceptible, nourishes with feedback.

The greatest disease of the century is perhaps bore out, that mortal boredom that spreads in companies that have no meaning, in which we work for work’s sake, where we work because we work, and not to have an impact that has meaning.

Having work that has meaning is perhaps what people who accompany you desire most.

"Don't pick a job. Pick a boss. 
Your first boss is the biggest factor in your career success. 
A boss who doesn't trust you won't give you opportunities to grow" 
-- William Raduchel. 

Who has a boss who makes them grow?

Do you make the people who work for you, with you, grow?

There are people who criticize this phrase (on the internet). They explain that you shouldn’t become infatuated with the best boss, because they will be destined to evolve and leave, or that they’re the best in their field, but that field isn’t necessarily yours. But they’ve misread it. It doesn’t say the best. It doesn’t say to do like them. It says the one who trusts you and gives you opportunities to grow.

So I ask the question again: who has a boss who trusts them and gives them opportunities to grow? Do you have examples?

So I ask the question again: do you trust your teams? Do you give them the opportunity to grow? Do you have examples?

Or do you think, as in the 18th century, that it’s better for some to think for others? That it’s better to limit as much as possible the richness of what a person could accomplish to specialize them on a repetitive task? That selfishness is a good lever? Limit the time for reflection (no breaks, no space to let the mind wander) to leave room only for production, only for gestures?

Modern management is allowing your teams to think, to decide.