I find most corporate structures, levels of management and reporting requirements (that aren't legislation based) all stem from the fact that the "boss" can't trust the lower level guy to do their job and make decisions without consulting someone higher on the hierarchy.
In a small startup, this isn't a problem, because decision making happens immediately. In a large corp, you end up with bureaucracy this way.
How does other organizations that are large solve this problem? In the millitary (at least, in the US, and other western doctrine millitaries), the sqad or captain or ground level troop has a lot of freedom to make tactical decisions, as long as that decision is to move towards the goal (or what's normally called the commander's intent). Why doesn't this method work in a corp. environment?
It works where there is a shared mission. But when team A wants help with project 1 and team B’s priority is project 2, and they need approval from team C because it touches their code, well, you get the bureaucracy and constant escalation that you see in big software companies.
In a small startup, this isn't a problem, because decision making happens immediately. In a large corp, you end up with bureaucracy this way.
How does other organizations that are large solve this problem? In the millitary (at least, in the US, and other western doctrine millitaries), the sqad or captain or ground level troop has a lot of freedom to make tactical decisions, as long as that decision is to move towards the goal (or what's normally called the commander's intent). Why doesn't this method work in a corp. environment?