I don&#x27;t even know what to say about this article, except that it perpetuates this ridiculous idea that there are laborers at the bottom and people above those laborers who know how to communicate and effectively distribute knowledge across all other groups.<p>If people were computers, then what&#x27;s being described is a tree of systems, and each node in the tree has full connection to its siblings and its children. But anyone who&#x27;s designed large scale networks knows that this is horrible for data, because it doesn&#x27;t allow for failure, and creates bottlenecks. This is why spine leaf architecture is so important.<p>But people are not computers. Communication is way more lossy than that. What this article fails to point out is that you actually have multiple decision trees in organizations, the architects and technical leads in a software group, vs the people managers. And combining those two roles creates horrible inefficiencies in descision making. Similarly, empowering people closest to the problem to make decisions means that the organization is much more nimble and increases agility.<p>I don&#x27;t know what this article&#x27;s point is, because it does help understand what effective leadership is.