16 ms·

> Second, management was spread way too thin. My last manager had around 25 reports It would be rude to describe my anatomical response to having 25 reports, b

> Second, management was spread way too thin. My last manager had around 25 reports It would be rude to describe my anatomical response to having 25 reports, but suffice to say it wasn’t good. I generally consider 6-7 the ideal max, and 8-9 the “I’m dropping all the unimportant balls in order to keep juggling” line. 25 is so far beyond the pale I can’t imagine how any manager of managers’s worth their salary would let it get that bad. 10 reports is “you put this off a bit too long” territory, 25 is in the “someone up the chain should be fired” territory.

amha 5y ago
My direct supervisor has 75 direct reports. (Not a tech company––an elite private school in the Bay––but still...)
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Fuck that. Nobody is being served by that arrangement. Nobody.
  - willhinsa 5y ago
    Short term capital returns are!
    - RNCTX 5y ago
      Which is to say, everyone who matters
  - jefftk 5y ago
    I don't know, I think that's pretty normal in education? For example, you have a large number of teachers that report up to the head of middle school or something?
  - zerocount 5y ago
    I would, because I wouldn't be bothered by a useless manager running around calling meetings and doing other useless activites. They're saving a bunch of money just having one useless person.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Managers aren’t inherently useless; just the ones you’ve had.
- sulam 5y ago
  Education is a completely different animal. You’re not comparing apples to oranges here, you’re comparing leptons to gorillas. I’m good friends with one of the high school teachers at “an elite private school in the Bay” (HRS) and it’s fun comparing and contrasting our jobs, but they are not at all the same job.
topkai22 5y ago
Not a Googler, but I’m my experience 25 person managers can work (barely) if they are just their to keep the HR stuff in line and people actually transactional work with other teams or if there is an informal team structure beneath the manager. Think a team where there are 4 tech leads that actually run the teams, but where the “manager” deals with career and hr issues. While working in consulting I spent about 4 months with a manager who had 60 direct employees. That was a disaster, but I got to spend 3 /4 months with no responsibilities :)
- antognini 5y ago
  I remember hearing a story (maybe apocryphal) that after Larry and Sergey abandoned their "no managers" experiment, they decided to give each manager a minimum of 10 direct reports and preferably closer to 20 so that the manager wouldn't have time to micromanage any of them.
- sulam 5y ago
  Speaking as a Google manager of a reasonably sized org, 25 direct reports is too many. Twice a year you have to do Perf for them, if nothing else, and doing that well for 25 people would likely be the only thing you get done. I think it’d be possible, but it would be at the expense of your own career. “Did Perf for my team of 25” is not a next level accomplishment. “Organized my team so that I didn’t have 25 directs” is much more of an accomplishment (next level or not depends on the level, it’s something my group would evaluate as “meeting expectations” of an L7). The rule of thumb at Google is 10 directs in an engineering management role, less if you’re a TLM (an IC with some management responsibilities) since you’re still evaluated on the IC ladder. There are exceptions, but they usually involve “managing” a number of contractors where you have significant program management support for coordinating their day to day activities.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  I think the only way 25 comes anywhere close to working is by creating an informal team structure under the manager who has 25 “directs”, as you said. But at that point you’re informally creating the team structure that should formally exist, which in and of itself is a management failure. Either the org should hire some managers to manage those people, or some of the ICs in that informal structure are functionally performing management duties, and deserve the recognition, comp, and training opportunities that a formal promotion into management comes with.
wdr1 5y ago
You're partly right: With a significant number of reports, you can't keep juggling all the balls yourself. But what varies is how that handled? A micromanager will be absolutely crushed by a high number of reports. In fact 10+ years at Google, managers intentionally had a large number of directs so they couldn't micromanage. If you have a pretty autonomous team, strong tech leads, can delegate, ~20 still isn't great, but it's not horrible. It's not the steady state you want, but it's doable for a few quarters.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  I agree that micromanagers can’t micromanage at 20, but good managers also can’t give the attention and mentorship their directs deserve either. In my experience teams want a good manager, and being under managed by an overworked or absentee manager can be a problem for morale and team cohesion. I think the real solution here is to find the micromanagers and train them or fire them, rather than hampering all the managers in order to cut the micromanagers off at the metaphorical pass. Personally I’d quit in such a situation. If I’m going to be managing 20 people and creating informal team structures under me, then some of my directs deserve a management title and I would want a title befitting a manager of managers. The whole thing has a whiff of “how can we avoid promoting a bunch of people” to me.
xyzelement 5y ago
Counter anecdot - I managed about 20 directs for a few years and it was fine. Of course in reality I was grooming a bunch of them to become team leads (which eventually happened) so I was leaning on them to take care of and lead others day to day. It was fine - everyone grew through the experience. No idea if this type of thing is common but bottom line it doesn't have to be awful.
- benhurmarcel 5y ago
  Or you might have been under the impression that it was fine, because nobody tells his management that their organization isn't working. My manager has about 25 reports and he thinks it's ok, because we're all organized in smaller teams that manage daily work themselves. That's true, but the effect is that the person who should care about people aspects has no idea about you (how you're doing, how you want to evolve, whether you're performing, what you need to improve, whether you deserve a raise or a promotion, whether you're burnt out, whether you're looking for a new position...). And nobody tells him, because he's the manager and you don't go to your manager with problems, especially if he doesn't maintain a close relationship with you.
saagarjha 5y ago
Due to various internal reorgs my manager currently has a number of reports approaching that number. It's mostly gone fine for now, because there are multiple teams under her that are mostly self-sufficient in deciding their product direction. We have a team lead who isn't a "manager" but is providing input on what we do and we go to her when we have problems or need administrative work done. It's not horrible.
- sulam 5y ago
  Your manager’s manager should be working with her to help her address the issue, because it’s not sustainable. It may be okay for now, not disputing that at all, but what to you may look like relative calm is much more likely her giving her best imitation of a duck (calm on the surface, but paddling furiously). For instance, has she had to reduce the frequency, duration, and/or quality of her 1:1s? I’m guessing the answer is “of course” and maybe some ameliorating fact like having more 1:1 time with the team lead. The “so what?” here is that 1:1s are how you head off problems before they get serious. So either the tech lead is picking up that slack and is your de facto manager or you’re simply coasting on the strength of past 1:1s, but inertia will only get you so far. Also, this tech lead you mention is likely doing less actual technical work because they are picking up slack left by your manager not having enough time in the day. This might not be a problem right now, but the first question I would be asking in your manager’s shoes is: “is my TL happy? Is this sustainable for them?” The second would be something like “What long term technical objectives are being sacrificed to deal with this management issue?” It’s often the case in the situation you’re describing that the TL is interested in moving into management, and this is a “try out” effectively. Personally I like to be open about situations like this, although there are valid arguments against that. In any event, I think most people would agree that it’s best do such “try outs” when the stakes are relatively low, and the TL can have an easy escape if they need it. The situation you’re describing doesn’t fit my definition of low risk, although ymmv — maybe conditions are such that this is a very temporary state and the machinery to fix it is already in motion.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > It’s often the case in the situation you’re describing that the TL is interested in moving into management, and this is a “try out” effectively. Personally I like to be open about situations like this, although there are valid arguments against that. In any event, I think most people would agree that it’s best do such “try outs” when the stakes are relatively low, and the TL can have an easy escape if they need it. The best way I’ve seen to accomplish this is have a job title that’s purposefully ambiguous. Usually I’ve seen this as a “lead engineer”, which can come with or without direct reports. This lets people try out management while giving them space to change their mind without losing title or status.

amha 5y ago

My direct supervisor has 75 direct reports. (Not a tech company––an elite private school in the Bay––but still...)

ashtonkem 5y ago
Fuck that. Nobody is being served by that arrangement. Nobody.
- willhinsa 5y ago
  Short term capital returns are!
  - RNCTX 5y ago
    Which is to say, everyone who matters
- jefftk 5y ago
  I don't know, I think that's pretty normal in education? For example, you have a large number of teachers that report up to the head of middle school or something?
- zerocount 5y ago
  I would, because I wouldn't be bothered by a useless manager running around calling meetings and doing other useless activites. They're saving a bunch of money just having one useless person.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Managers aren’t inherently useless; just the ones you’ve had.
sulam 5y ago
Education is a completely different animal. You’re not comparing apples to oranges here, you’re comparing leptons to gorillas. I’m good friends with one of the high school teachers at “an elite private school in the Bay” (HRS) and it’s fun comparing and contrasting our jobs, but they are not at all the same job.

topkai22 5y ago

Not a Googler, but I’m my experience 25 person managers can work (barely) if they are just their to keep the HR stuff in line and people actually transactional work with other teams or if there is an informal team structure beneath the manager. Think a team where there are 4 tech leads that actually run the teams, but where the “manager” deals with career and hr issues. While working in consulting I spent about 4 months with a manager who had 60 direct employees. That was a disaster, but I got to spend 3 /4 months with no responsibilities :)

antognini 5y ago
I remember hearing a story (maybe apocryphal) that after Larry and Sergey abandoned their "no managers" experiment, they decided to give each manager a minimum of 10 direct reports and preferably closer to 20 so that the manager wouldn't have time to micromanage any of them.
sulam 5y ago
Speaking as a Google manager of a reasonably sized org, 25 direct reports is too many. Twice a year you have to do Perf for them, if nothing else, and doing that well for 25 people would likely be the only thing you get done. I think it’d be possible, but it would be at the expense of your own career. “Did Perf for my team of 25” is not a next level accomplishment. “Organized my team so that I didn’t have 25 directs” is much more of an accomplishment (next level or not depends on the level, it’s something my group would evaluate as “meeting expectations” of an L7). The rule of thumb at Google is 10 directs in an engineering management role, less if you’re a TLM (an IC with some management responsibilities) since you’re still evaluated on the IC ladder. There are exceptions, but they usually involve “managing” a number of contractors where you have significant program management support for coordinating their day to day activities.
ashtonkem 5y ago
I think the only way 25 comes anywhere close to working is by creating an informal team structure under the manager who has 25 “directs”, as you said. But at that point you’re informally creating the team structure that should formally exist, which in and of itself is a management failure. Either the org should hire some managers to manage those people, or some of the ICs in that informal structure are functionally performing management duties, and deserve the recognition, comp, and training opportunities that a formal promotion into management comes with.

wdr1 5y ago

You're partly right: With a significant number of reports, you can't keep juggling all the balls yourself. But what varies is how that handled? A micromanager will be absolutely crushed by a high number of reports. In fact 10+ years at Google, managers intentionally had a large number of directs so they couldn't micromanage. If you have a pretty autonomous team, strong tech leads, can delegate, ~20 still isn't great, but it's not horrible. It's not the steady state you want, but it's doable for a few quarters.

ashtonkem 5y ago
I agree that micromanagers can’t micromanage at 20, but good managers also can’t give the attention and mentorship their directs deserve either. In my experience teams want a good manager, and being under managed by an overworked or absentee manager can be a problem for morale and team cohesion. I think the real solution here is to find the micromanagers and train them or fire them, rather than hampering all the managers in order to cut the micromanagers off at the metaphorical pass. Personally I’d quit in such a situation. If I’m going to be managing 20 people and creating informal team structures under me, then some of my directs deserve a management title and I would want a title befitting a manager of managers. The whole thing has a whiff of “how can we avoid promoting a bunch of people” to me.

xyzelement 5y ago

Counter anecdot - I managed about 20 directs for a few years and it was fine. Of course in reality I was grooming a bunch of them to become team leads (which eventually happened) so I was leaning on them to take care of and lead others day to day. It was fine - everyone grew through the experience. No idea if this type of thing is common but bottom line it doesn't have to be awful.

benhurmarcel 5y ago
Or you might have been under the impression that it was fine, because nobody tells his management that their organization isn't working. My manager has about 25 reports and he thinks it's ok, because we're all organized in smaller teams that manage daily work themselves. That's true, but the effect is that the person who should care about people aspects has no idea about you (how you're doing, how you want to evolve, whether you're performing, what you need to improve, whether you deserve a raise or a promotion, whether you're burnt out, whether you're looking for a new position...). And nobody tells him, because he's the manager and you don't go to your manager with problems, especially if he doesn't maintain a close relationship with you.

saagarjha 5y ago

Due to various internal reorgs my manager currently has a number of reports approaching that number. It's mostly gone fine for now, because there are multiple teams under her that are mostly self-sufficient in deciding their product direction. We have a team lead who isn't a "manager" but is providing input on what we do and we go to her when we have problems or need administrative work done. It's not horrible.

sulam 5y ago
Your manager’s manager should be working with her to help her address the issue, because it’s not sustainable. It may be okay for now, not disputing that at all, but what to you may look like relative calm is much more likely her giving her best imitation of a duck (calm on the surface, but paddling furiously). For instance, has she had to reduce the frequency, duration, and/or quality of her 1:1s? I’m guessing the answer is “of course” and maybe some ameliorating fact like having more 1:1 time with the team lead. The “so what?” here is that 1:1s are how you head off problems before they get serious. So either the tech lead is picking up that slack and is your de facto manager or you’re simply coasting on the strength of past 1:1s, but inertia will only get you so far. Also, this tech lead you mention is likely doing less actual technical work because they are picking up slack left by your manager not having enough time in the day. This might not be a problem right now, but the first question I would be asking in your manager’s shoes is: “is my TL happy? Is this sustainable for them?” The second would be something like “What long term technical objectives are being sacrificed to deal with this management issue?” It’s often the case in the situation you’re describing that the TL is interested in moving into management, and this is a “try out” effectively. Personally I like to be open about situations like this, although there are valid arguments against that. In any event, I think most people would agree that it’s best do such “try outs” when the stakes are relatively low, and the TL can have an easy escape if they need it. The situation you’re describing doesn’t fit my definition of low risk, although ymmv — maybe conditions are such that this is a very temporary state and the machinery to fix it is already in motion.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > It’s often the case in the situation you’re describing that the TL is interested in moving into management, and this is a “try out” effectively. Personally I like to be open about situations like this, although there are valid arguments against that. In any event, I think most people would agree that it’s best do such “try outs” when the stakes are relatively low, and the TL can have an easy escape if they need it. The best way I’ve seen to accomplish this is have a job title that’s purposefully ambiguous. Usually I’ve seen this as a “lead engineer”, which can come with or without direct reports. This lets people try out management while giving them space to change their mind without losing title or status.