This is very clever and intriguing. Do you have any equations that show how too much email (from miss-used reply-all and others) affects Work? I know for me, the amount of email to wade through can decrease time for productive work.
The truth is, however, at least where I work, that the manager (aka "boss") does not necessarily make any more than the engineers. Or at least, not more than the more senior engineers in his group. And not only that, but it's very obvious why he becomes the so-called "boss." It is because his value at what he was doing before reached a plateau, and a manager was needed because the previous one retired.
Honestly. I'm not making this up. It happens time and time again. This is the norm, not the exception.
Now, why this person, who became the manager, suddenly finds it imperative to "play manager," by throwing his weight around when he was previously a sensible co-worker, is indeed a matter for further study. Possibly, it's because he perceives that his superiors expect this? That's my wife's explanation, at any rate. Possibly, because he expects his engineers to slack off if they aren't whipped into a frenzy, because that's what he would have done in their shoes?
I don't know. It's also possible that different engineers respond differently to requests from a manager. It's possible some engineers really do need a kick in the pants to keep at it. Me, I'm ever so grateful for the manager I currently have. The best ever.
With the internet and electronic communication prevalent today, a lot of knowledge can be shared easily. With a more common denominator at least within a group, perhaps you'll get the more desired proportionality of money and work.
When I worked on the factory floor in a PCB shop, anyone who wore a tie (1970s) was considered a "boss" by the people in the floor. that applied to engineers who might not have anyone reporting to them. Bosses were to be avoided.
"There could be many reasons. For one thing the manager suddenly is responsible for budgets and schedules and is therefor under more scrutiny."
In some hypothetical case, I suppose. In our specific case, we are responsible for our own schedules. We deal directly with the customers' management, so we are well aware of the schedules we have to meet and our budget. Our immediate manager, within the corporate structure, is not really the one that figures out how the work has to be done, nor do any of us expect that of him. Which is why I chuckle when the corporate execs ask whether our manager "shows us the way." What a bizarre view of engineering reality. That job belongs either to the senior or lead engineer in a group, or to ourselves as the senior or lead engineers.
You're probably right about "is under more scutiny," but I think this has more to do with his superiors' expectations about "what a manager should do," than to actually help engineers get the job done more effectively. That's why I called it "playing manager."
In my opinion, the "Boss" makes more in terms of the total sum , but if you calculate his hourly rate, it will be much less than that of his subordinates
That is because the "boss" has to carry the burden of the project or department almost 24x7. He can be hauled for a meeting on weekends, in the middle of the night and such odd hours by the top executives just to satisfy their queries , has to constant keep on updating on the progress of each of his subordinates and hide all inefficiencies of his team while making presentations to the top bosses.
For what burden he carries , he gets only a pittance in my opinion.