5 ms·

I believe it was Andy Grove who suggest no more than 6-8 direct reports for this reason.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
6-8 sounds like too many. Anyways, in addition to probably being unfit for people management, it sounds like it would take away all my coding time.
- blowski 9y ago
  Personally, I think that mixing management with programming leads to bad results.
- halbritt 9y ago
  The latter statement proves the former. A good manager prioritizes management over work that an individual contributor might do. If that doesn't suit a person, they're likely not fit for management. I've seen many managers fail for this reason.
- user5994461 9y ago
  A manager doesn't code.
danieltillett 9y ago
Having had from 3 to 14 direct reports the ideal is probably around 7. Too few results is too much attention ("hey boss I have a job to do") while 14 results in total burn out and neglect ("we haven't spoke in weeks - what is your name again").
technofiend 9y ago
Tell that to Gartner Group: according to my management they recommend an average of 10 direct reports. They also recommend you don't have "technical managers" just pure managers without technical delivery goals; all that is strictly delegated to individual contributors.
- gvb 9y ago
  If your management is buying "advise" from the Gartner Group, that is a "bad management smell" IMHO. My advise is to work on your escape plan. Every time I read or hear Gartner Group "information" piece on a subject that I am competent to judge the value and accuracy of the information, it is at best useless fluff, typically is mostly wrong, and commonly totally wrong. "An average of 10 reports" goes against the commonly accepted magical number[1] of 7 +/-2. I suppose if the "pure" managers are only pushing paper (unable to judge technical merit), they can support more direct reports. That structure sounds like a recipe for perpetual technical problems. What you quote sounds like classic matrix management[2] which results in two bosses, one controlling your HR side and one controlling your technical side. That does not work well in my experience because the two managers have very conflicting goals and neither of the goals are in in alignment with your goals. In the ensuing fight, the HR manager always wins because he controls your pay and assignments... and usually is the manager whose goals are least aligned with your goals.[3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_management [3] 24 years 9 months in a large corporation with matrix management. It was OK until the Ginormous Enterprise bought the division and sucked all the fun (technical work) out of it.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Funny how all military's have much small span of control normally 3-5
  - tome 9y ago
    Interesting. Any reference for this?
    - walshemj 9y ago
      Look at how military units are set up

6-8 sounds like too many. Anyways, in addition to probably being unfit for people management, it sounds like it would take away all my coding time.

blowski 9y ago
Personally, I think that mixing management with programming leads to bad results.
halbritt 9y ago
The latter statement proves the former. A good manager prioritizes management over work that an individual contributor might do. If that doesn't suit a person, they're likely not fit for management. I've seen many managers fail for this reason.
user5994461 9y ago
A manager doesn't code.

danieltillett 9y ago

Having had from 3 to 14 direct reports the ideal is probably around 7. Too few results is too much attention ("hey boss I have a job to do") while 14 results in total burn out and neglect ("we haven't spoke in weeks - what is your name again").

technofiend 9y ago

Tell that to Gartner Group: according to my management they recommend an average of 10 direct reports. They also recommend you don't have "technical managers" just pure managers without technical delivery goals; all that is strictly delegated to individual contributors.

gvb 9y ago
If your management is buying "advise" from the Gartner Group, that is a "bad management smell" IMHO. My advise is to work on your escape plan. Every time I read or hear Gartner Group "information" piece on a subject that I am competent to judge the value and accuracy of the information, it is at best useless fluff, typically is mostly wrong, and commonly totally wrong. "An average of 10 reports" goes against the commonly accepted magical number[1] of 7 +/-2. I suppose if the "pure" managers are only pushing paper (unable to judge technical merit), they can support more direct reports. That structure sounds like a recipe for perpetual technical problems. What you quote sounds like classic matrix management[2] which results in two bosses, one controlling your HR side and one controlling your technical side. That does not work well in my experience because the two managers have very conflicting goals and neither of the goals are in in alignment with your goals. In the ensuing fight, the HR manager always wins because he controls your pay and assignments... and usually is the manager whose goals are least aligned with your goals.[3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_management [3] 24 years 9 months in a large corporation with matrix management. It was OK until the Ginormous Enterprise bought the division and sucked all the fun (technical work) out of it.
walshemj 9y ago
Funny how all military's have much small span of control normally 3-5
- tome 9y ago
  Interesting. Any reference for this?
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Look at how military units are set up