Because their work impacts other people and therefore requires other people to be on board with it?

Unless you're a 1 person company, nothing you do ever only impacts you.

The fact that you have to explain this is somewhat concerning.

Usually people say that people skills are as important for having lots of impact as technical skills, but the bar for people skills is really low sometimes I guess.

It’s really weird to me that people have such a hard time imagining a world without “scaled agile” and debate over duplo-scale priorities between product managers and nerds every two weeks. In a sane world, these kinds of decisions would not be a pseudo-democratic negotiation.

What about the comment you replied to involves "scaled agile"? I may have missed this.

They are simply saying that any system involving multiple people will also involve people convincing other people to do things.

Do you have a system which doesn't involve that? Does it involve cybernetic implants and hive minds?

Even a 1 person company has customers.

The key word here is “colleagues”.

Economics.

In a way, but I have a feeling the conquest of work-life by people who don’t understand the directly-productive work the company does is a result of economics operating in the 1980s—present era of unshackled M&A. It’s a regulatory outcome.

are you trying to suggest that Darwinian selection is the most efficient way to organize a collective to achieve a goal?

I feel this. The situation would be more obvious if it was framed as "how to make the organization give a shit about the organization's architectural proposals"