3 ms·

The math here is useful, but I think there's typically a subdivision by ladder as well, so you have product, (technical) project managers, eng, etc. each report

The math here is useful, but I think there's typically a subdivision by ladder as well, so you have product, (technical) project managers, eng, etc. each report up through separate department heads who report to the CEO. That creates another "level" but I assume having SVPs and/or C-level executives doesn't count as "managers managing managers". FWIW, regarding staffing changes and recent layoffs, I am very biased as an engineer who still writes code but I do agree with the sentiment from that article and think there's a lot of bloat at the top of large tech companies. Seems like there's significant cost savings left on the table if you're not laying off senior managers and directors of nebulous realized value while laying off ICs who did the actual concrete work and dealing with the attrition, knowledge gaps, etc. associated.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The math here is useful, but I think there's typically a subdivision by ladder as well Yeah, in a real org: * You don't want every manager at the upper limit of span of control, * Staffing levels for different functions don't line up for a perfectly equal distribution, * Not every direct report of a second-or-higher level manager is a manager of the next level down, some are individual specialists or managers of small teams that support the higher-level manager. Often, even with 10-15 direct reports, you'd only want 3-5 full-depth subordinate units, with the remainder being specialists and small units supporting the org. So, realistically, depth should be significantly greater than that math, which is deliberately a limit case.