3 ms·
You have been directly managing over a hundred people? That just sounds like textbook bad heirarchy
by xerophyte12932 9y ago
You have been directly managing over a hundred people? That just sounds like textbook bad heirarchy
- cpfohl 9y agoI didn't interpret their comment that way. It's common to have a handful of managers under you, but reference to their reports as your managees as well. That easily reaches 100-200 people.
- jpatokal 9y agoThey did not claim to directly manage 300 people, and it's somewhat bizarre to assume they did.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoI think it's the "large teams" bit that makes the OP appear to be saying the "team" is up to 300 people. Team suggests a group of equally ranked members to me. You can't really have a team of 300, sounds more like a management speak version of team. Of course only the poster knows for sure their intended meaning.
- saiya-jin 9y agoflat hierarchies are amazing in certain type of companies, I had one line manager who had additional 80 devs under him (he was purely line manager, projects were handled by PMs). Much better and healthy org than any other I ever worked for. Especially over-layered corporations, ie banks are pretty horrible place to be. This breeds all kinds of politics, managers play their games to look good to upper management without any good work being done etc. But if this would be some classic department where line+project management blends into 1 hierarchy, this would be too much. Smaller teams, max +-10 people most efficient.