As context for the above advice, Gina, Keith and John are highly respected
experts in these forums.

Steve often has right answers, but they are colored by trying to head
towards soliciting getting paid for advice (a violation of the rules) plus,
in this case, the advice is colored by looking for a chance to insult someone
who he has insulted before.

You (probably still) have a "real world" question to answer which will lead
to structure.....whether you are going to record a property as linked
primarily to the person who is managing it vs. to the company that they work
for. I've done in-practice implementations of DB's similar to yours many
times, and have wrestled with that same question. On the face of it, linkage
to the person might seem the answer...after all such is a more specific
information and of interest. However, in practice it usually doesn't work
out so well. Every time the company has a personnel change or reorganization
of coverage, your linkages become outdated/wrong. And those companies
usually don't routinely communicate such changes. And so keeping your DB
updated requires a large amount of chasing down information that you would
not otherwise have. In DB usage, "too much work in a non-essential area"
usually means "doesn't get done" . Linkage instead to the company eliminates
that particular problem.

And so linkage to the company is probably a better idea, which is what the
advice from the noted 3 highly respected individuals is based on.