I am not sure on which part you are reacting. For instance from the article:
> The first thing I settled on was to have one publicly announced engineering lead per project. I did this to make ownership clear
It seems to be very close to what you are advocating, short of the leader being a manager.
If it's the leader not being a manager that you see as misguided, I'd raise two points:
- you need people to progressively get experience in leadership before becoming dedicated leaders. I am a proponent of people growing into a role before getting labelled with it. Taking ownership of a single specific project seems to be a good way to achieve this.
- a single manager overseeing a multitude of projects is good only if the projects don't matter or the manager doesn't do much on each of them. Otherwise a person focused on the subject will yield better results in my experience (and if the manager doesn't do much, they shouldn't take responsibility or ownership)
> The first thing I settled on was to have one publicly announced engineering lead per project. I did this to make ownership clear
It seems to be very close to what you are advocating, short of the leader being a manager.
If it's the leader not being a manager that you see as misguided, I'd raise two points:
- you need people to progressively get experience in leadership before becoming dedicated leaders. I am a proponent of people growing into a role before getting labelled with it. Taking ownership of a single specific project seems to be a good way to achieve this.
- a single manager overseeing a multitude of projects is good only if the projects don't matter or the manager doesn't do much on each of them. Otherwise a person focused on the subject will yield better results in my experience (and if the manager doesn't do much, they shouldn't take responsibility or ownership)