Ah, I do sincerely apologize for making assumptions!

Discussions of history aside - I don’t think your opinion of management, as summarized as an “artificial function with self-fulfilled busywork” is entirely wrong so much as perhaps jaded, pessimistic, or a bit biased. There is a seed of truth there, and you’re right that this has been written about before, and it’s not a new opinion. But it’s also negative and incomplete, it intentionally ignores evidence, and it lacks explanatory power.

If management is useless and self-fulfilling and absorbing money, then why in a competitive capitalist environment can you not find large companies anywhere in the world without it? Or in any economic system that exists, for that matter? Surely if true, then someone else with your opinion can start a company and it would be wildly successful compared to the economic drag of the artificial and self-fulfilling professional managerial class. Why haven’t you started such a company? Why hasn’t anyone else? This is an important question to answer if you want to insist that management doesn’t serve a necessary and functional purpose; “remarkably durable” is a funny expression to use for something that has always existed, by design, from the start, and for which there are practically no counter-examples.

There are a very small handful of companies that claim little to no management roles, except that they still talk about managing and self-organizing and letting people define their roles, so managers emerge. They might claim no management and then still let the good talkers do the prioritizing and organizing and reporting and delegating, just like everywhere else. It might be the same as advertising unlimited vacation; the label sounds amazing while the reality is no different. It looks like the majority of such companies are software companies and have less than 1k employees (which suggests tech companies may be pushing more on reducing management than other sectors). When I searched, Gore came up as one example of a company with more than 10k employees that doesn’t use traditional management, and yet when I go look at their job postings, the very first page has roles like “president” and “manager” and “team leader”.

I’m not making any claims about “most”. TBH, I would actually agree with you, I assume. Most management is pretty bad, and many people are self-serving. Same goes for programmers, let’s not forget; many programmers are just as lazy and self-serving as the bad managers you’ve seen. Sturgeon’s Law is alive and well.

The PMC article kinda nails it - the term and the idea is a spin on Marx, and Marx wasn’t complaining that management is useless, he was just complaining that management kept all the ownership & profits.