[rglynn]

I think of it this way:

Is your goal for the software you write to need constant intervention, or would you say you'd aim for it to run smoothly with few bugs?

The team is akin to a piece of software architecture, only much more complex and comprised (partially) of humans.

You want someone to build that team and then have the team up and running, delivering value. When it breaks, or you want it to do new/different things, you need someone to step in to fix it or change it.

[satisfice]

The fallacy there is that I am not merely "building a team," I am managing. Managing is a live, interactive skill that involves certain services. A perfect team still needs management to help create the environment in which that team can effectively operate.

I saw a wonderful interview with a former commander of an aircraft carrier. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9rGATwZRr0) Rear Admiral Mike "Nasty" Manazir speaks of his main job as being clearing away obstacles that no one underneath him could clear. That's a service that no "self-managing team" can do for itself. A good manager also serves as a focus for the strategy, and deals with conflicts that would otherwise become impasses.