Yet, the higher we climb on this career ladder, the greater the distance between our ideas and their ultimate expression. When we "require" a product feature to be designed or implemented, we are in fact expressing a dependance on our colleagues to implement our ideas. And so, in the typical case, the underlying assumption that "signing off" is the only possible mode of organisation leads to loss of self-expression for all: Those that "require" do not express their ideas themselves, and those that "implement" do not express their own ideas. This becomes ever more frustrating and depressing with each additional degree of separation between an idea and its expression.
This section seems to suggest that an idea's ultimate expressions is obtained through total control of its implementation by its creator.
For those with which this suggestion resonates I ask:
- where does this need for total control come from?
- is it aligned with cultivating a diverse culture?
- how do we define what the "ultimate expression" of an idea is? (It seems that it currently is defined as "The ultimate incarnation of one person's perspective")
Are we saying that delegation is not both necessary and useful? It's can be argued that a creator who is further away from full implementation has the privilege of leveraging a team whose ideas are diverse from their own; regardless of the perceived level of diversity; versus a single point of authority for an idea.
It's arguable that frustrations arising from "not being able implementing one's own ideas" is not restricted to the current corp landscape. How will diversity alleviate frustrations beyond mechanisms like "20% time", Hack days, etc.?
Is it wise to disregard the benefits for those working towards implementing an idea of someone else?
- Working in a diverse team of both abilities and perspective provides opportunities:
- for those that may not have ideas yet to cultivate them
- for seed ideas to be improved upon via input from others
The argument seems to be that diversity is a solution towards achieving the ultimate idea but that this is achieved by allowing each individual to reserve full control of their idea's implementation. Shouldn't the "ultimate" manifestation of an idea instead be directly tied to the context (and therefore the diverse perspectives) of any given situation?
This section seems to suggest that an idea's ultimate expressions is obtained through total control of its implementation by its creator.
For those with which this suggestion resonates I ask:
Are we saying that delegation is not both necessary and useful? It's can be argued that a creator who is further away from full implementation has the privilege of leveraging a team whose ideas are diverse from their own; regardless of the perceived level of diversity; versus a single point of authority for an idea.
It's arguable that frustrations arising from "not being able implementing one's own ideas" is not restricted to the current corp landscape. How will diversity alleviate frustrations beyond mechanisms like "20% time", Hack days, etc.?
Is it wise to disregard the benefits for those working towards implementing an idea of someone else?
The argument seems to be that diversity is a solution towards achieving the ultimate idea but that this is achieved by allowing each individual to reserve full control of their idea's implementation. Shouldn't the "ultimate" manifestation of an idea instead be directly tied to the context (and therefore the diverse perspectives) of any given situation?