If you just want a position that gives the people around them those two benefits—without assuming where the position would sit on the org chart—then you will notice there exist a lot of other, similar jobs, that do not also possess the assumption of &quot;supervising&quot; and &quot;being responsible for&quot; the output of the people around them.<p>For example, what you&#x27;re describing fits closely to the idea of a shared administrative assistant. Or a talent agent. Or a sports coach (or &quot;team manager&quot;, which is a misnomer.) Or a diplomatic envoy.<p>None of these people are <i>the boss</i> of the people they work with; they <i>assist</i> the people they work with in getting things done. They do not hire or fire the people they work with; they are not blamed for the incompetence of the people they work with; and they have no incentive to play politics with the lives of the people they work with for the sake of a promotion. Their job is purely to help their team work, and to deflect things that prevent work.<p>Personally, I think we could use way more of these types of &quot;pure interfacer&quot; people in companies; and, in so having them, the need for &quot;managers&quot; would decline sharply. There&#x27;d still be <i>some</i> managers—people whose job is to take ultimate responsibility for the output of a group, and who are thus incentivized to direct and reorganize that group. But, with the jobs of keeping the team protected and glued-together taken care of, the active role of &quot;manager&quot; would be reduced enough that they could either be scaled across greater numbers of people, or could be a &quot;manager&quot; for their own group as an accessory role to their regular job.