He didn't say your bosses boss is not allowed to know what you do, but that they _not necessarily_ know what you do. It's like abstractions: they can be leaky, but you'd better still know who's responsible for what.

While we're on the topic of abstractions, the summary of Bertrand Russell comes to mind:

What is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first one is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid.

I can think of 2 patches: first, "matter" ("it") can be replaced by "bit"..

(What is the nature of the responsibilities that come with telling people what to do? Towards those who pay, who, if they did not inherit, must also have been highly paid? Towards the work/workers: it certainly helps to understand the work, but if it is neither unpleasant nor necessary, then perhaps "supplying the why" shouldn't be called a responsibility :)

> jobs where the bosses bosses boss does know the job

Doesn't make sense.

With 7 - 10 reports per manager, that means the higher up boss or CEO should know how to do the jobs of 350 - 1000 different people. (7*7*7)

If you promote up, and you have 3 levels, then the CEO should have done the exact job of 3 people below him on his ascent.

Hard disagree. Would it be helpful? Sure. But a good boss just needs to know when to trust the judgement and opinions of his subordinates.

Trouble comes when they don’t understand the work, but make decisions as if they do.

Hypothetically, those jobs could all be very similar if your company did more or less one thing lots, like managing a whole bunch of plumbing contractor teams.

This is pretty far from the original example though.