Personally, I wouldn't go that far, I've found a decent number of managers to be value-adding. I think it is more about the sloppy mindset that tends to underplay the contribution of other producers on a team, to instead heavily over-value their own contributions. Engineers can go too far in this way too, of course. Managers can produce strategy, operational efficiency, organizational support for ill-understood projects, elevate performers, eliminate underperformers etc.
That doesn't contradict Pournelle's observation. The balance of power tends towards those who work for the organization in most firms.
The bigger question in my mind: why firms at all? If individual PMs are so great, why bother with employees? Wouldn't you rather just contract all the elements of a technical project to other folks for a fixed fee?
I do wonder what portion of good ol' boys and good ol' fashion nepotism tend to fill out the "PM" position on big firm's org charts.
From the article, "Firms exist as an alternative system to the market-price mechanism when it is more efficient to produce in a non-market environment."
I believe that was the evidence provided by the great outsourcing experiment of 1996-2006. Turns out programming can't easily be turned into a low-skill job.
I agree. So why have so many programmers in Silicon Valley? Why don’t they leave and demand independent contracts? Perhaps that kind of “unbundling” of technical talent is the future.
It's the problem of being paid enough. My wife asked me the same question recently, "Why don't programmers unionize?" They could demand more through collective action, but they don't feel the need.
Also, programmers are (often) worth more in teams. Two programmers who work well together are far more productive as a pair than the sum of what they'd do in isolation.
