Who checks on if you’ve completed your assigned work. This can only be possible in an academic/non profit environment where there are no deadlines or fixed client commitments.
By the time someone has entered the workforce it should not be necessary to be ‘checked on’ by some surrogate parental figure.
In a functioning workplace, everyone agrees to do their work because it is part of the social contract of working on a team. They don’t need to be told what to do. If someone is falling behind, they’ll talk to other team members and work together to get back on track. You are there to help your coworkers, and they are there to help you. Someone doesn’t have to be your manager to make sure projects run smoothly; everyone can take turns in this role if they feel like it’s something they’re interested in doing and are competent in that role.
It’s only through the distorted lens of corporate ladder climbing and backstabbing departmental politics that the idea arises that you’ll just hire untrustworthy people and then beat them into submission by making a workplace into a prison.
>”By the time someone has entered the workforce it should not be necessary to be ‘checked on’ by some surrogate parental figure.”
Hire some recent grads and then make that statement. Not all require checking in on, but often entry-level, junior folks do. Don’t ignore them and don’t hold it against them. You, I’m sure, had someone checking in on you when you first started. Not in a “Are you at your desk” way but a “Are you able to complete the tasks? If not, how can I help you?”
Sadly the last few years with remote work and layoffs have made it so companies get rid of those who are “just doing the job” and keeping those that are “always the job”. Brutal.
On the one hand, yes, of course, and on the other hand on articles about "double employment" you'll see comments basically arguing that the company deserves it if your manager isn't micromanaging you and tracking metrics enough to spot that you're phoning it in.
And what about all the bs artists, slackers, divas, or assholes on the team? What if no one on the team wants to play “manager”, especially without the title? What if no one on the team has the skills to be an effective manager? What if my colleague Bob decides to play the role of a manager but I don’t like him? What if two people want to manage and disagree on things? Who exactly is supposed to have the authority to tell people what to do, and then hold them accountable?
What you described smells like communism - might work on small scale in some isolated cases, but usually doesn’t.
The above definitely exists all over. The group usually hires based on personality. Generally these organizations are very centered and know what qualities they are looking for in a a team mate.
small teams generally self-organise under a single leader, eg sports teams and it is often the other members of the team who self-check as they have to take up the load for anyone who does not perform.
There are multiple dimensions in the latent space that is contemporary white collar management.
One is interfacing the work of a group of people with the needs and wants of others.
Another is doing administrative things like who has done this compliance course or who needs a security authorization.
A third is allocating credit and blame to group members (aka compensation).
A fourth is ensuring that the work product itself is on track (aka technical leadership).
A fifth is ensuring that schedule commitments to other stakeholders are honored.
If you take out the third dimension (credit and blame), then even if a single person happens to do the other 4, they probably won’t feel much like what you’d call a “manager” today.
This is a long-winded way of saying that the various things a manager does can be disaggregated and either spread around the team, eliminated or given to a different person.
