Better management does not equal more managers

It's one thing to propose to improve management, but how that is achieved can be open to debate. Of little doubt is the utility of more managers. Increasing the chain of managers, interlocking responsibilities of area managers (HR manager, IT manager, regional manager), and distribution of responsibility only leads to misuse and abuse. After all, why take responsibility if you can aim the blame in one direction? Or several? Managers today are expensive, entitled, and mainly focus on issues of blame and credit as opposed to leading change, setting company standards, and being responsible for goals, people, and assets. Companies' incentives are set up so managers are more interested in protecting their turf because the incentives are gamed that way. It's hard to expect managers to side with shareholders over their personal interests when the two reward systems are at odds. Workers of today are not the uneducated, uninspired, untrained farm hands of the 1920's. Successful lateral organizations demonstrate a collective structure and collaboration can replace a manager with better effect. Some fields, like for example scientists at a university, work best without an administrative manager overseeing work. Professors are free to set up labs, hire staff, and lead the work and write research proposals. Business managers would not have enough education to understand the work in general and so this field demonstrates whole cultures that can work without managing. Doctors hire office administrators. Lawyers as well, neither need a business manager. If anyone claims more managers are required then consider the ulterior motives that would justify that claim.