this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
64 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
84699 readers
3406 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Given that AI is particularly useful at increasing alignment (when applied smartly), and that this is often a role delegated to middle managers, it is quite likely that flatter orgs will happen.
The need for top-tier technical, product, and business judgement and problem engagement will increase, while the need for muddle-through managers and similar roles will decrease.
We'll see more initiatives organized end-to-end by small groups of smart people, with virtual teams/coalitions forming to bypass "archaic" processes and deliver meaningful results. We'll see a lot of sloppy failures along the way too, but the overall trend seems clear.
What you're describing here has always been the case. The pattern in software is always that a small, actually empowered group does the initial development and r&d, then if the product is a success the maintenance people come in and drain it of any progress via overbearing process and middle management. There's rare exceptions, but I've seen this over and over again.
Small teams build good things, then they get acquired and those things are slowly or quickly destroyed.
In many cases, yes. A difference now will be the long-term size and composition of the teams (smaller & more generalists, with PMs, POs & Architects just as likely to contribute code as engineers)
2 pizza teams can become 1 pizza teams who can manage an entire product/component, or more. And those 3+ pizza teams can strip the fat or split into more productive teams.
I think we'll also see increased demand for platform/deployment standardization and concentrated/novel support structures, as teams start biting off more than they can chew, along the the desire for out-of-the-box guardrails around AI code & tools.
Maybe? If corporate structures made sense then sure, but they haven't made sense my entire time in the industry and I doubt they'll start making sense because of this.
The thing is: It's great to work in a small group of motivated smart people. But it's really, really hard to hire a small motivated group of smart people and keep it motivated. And it's even harder if you're not located in one of those fancy towns where everyone wants to live or in a business that is really attractive. If your company is in a lesser known part of the country building important, but boring stuff, you will have to deal with not so smart and not so motivated people.
There is a simple solution, increase the pay.
If the pay is good and the job is stable, you’ll eventually find people for long term.
Remote work makes it even easier