4 ms·

I was just discussing this general subject with my better half. She showed me a corner of an OD chart at a going-concern with several "managers" and "directors"

by scrubs 4y ago

I was just discussing this general subject with my better half. She showed me a corner of an OD chart at a going-concern with several "managers" and "directors" having between 2 and 7 direct reports. Context: cost-cutting. Worse: the company asked an outsider for recommendations. Figuring it out themselves I guess was too adult of a responsibility. Now having two direct reports is absurd asking questions like how that was ever allowed and tolerated for as long as it was. But I would also point this out. When upper management knows what in the hell they doing, a couple of middle managers can help tremendously. At HP's zenith, middle management was a strategic asset. They are too senior to get caught up in every team's day-to-day, and too close to the action to walk around with detached C-suite perspectives. Composing the parts into an organized whole which requires tamping down sectionalism, getting specialists out of their backyard, and so on can be huge. Man, that's a tough ask. Holding that center is darn important. So just like anything else, if you're talking Middle Management in the Drucker or Gerstner or Berkshire Hathaway sense, that's the real deal. If you're talking lower-case "middle management" that are glorified paper pushers and meeting mavens, cut like the dickens. But no matter what, how is upper management getting away with spending that kind of shareholder cash on nonsense in the latter case? I am inclined to agree with another HN story circulating that the pendulum from competent but jerk has swung way too far to DEI nice-guy but total moron. Professionals are both: competent and personally accessible.

tstrimple 4y ago
> Now having two direct reports is absurd asking questions like how that was ever allowed and tolerated for as long as it was. If all they are doing is managing those resources, I'd completely agree. I've seen a few examples of org structures where those folks aren't actually middle managers, but generally ICs with some additional responsibility. So they are still working hands on within a product, but also have some direct reports to help within their area of influence. If you're at a director level and you've only got two reports, honestly that doesn't seem that unreasonable either depending on their area of control and the size of the teams below their managers. I'd certainly rather see an org structure where managers are working with 2-7 direct reports (again assuming they are working managers and not just administrative overhead) rather than an org where someone has 20+ direct reports. There's no way a manager is effectively managing the expectations and goals and blockers of 20+ people with regular touch points while also being involved in the strategic direction of the company. Never mind where I see orgs with managers with over 50 direct reports.
- scrubs 4y ago
  TLs should have 7-10 people. Bonafide middle managers should have ~7-10 direct reports meaning they're dealing with around 100 people underneath them. My better half deals with management and a lot of cross functional management. The amount of junk she has to deal with due to politics, BS, people problems, and power struggles --- on premise data centers v. migration to the cloud is a major recurring theme because it involves a lot of people and budget ripe for power struggles --- is insane. Three or four proper Middle Managers could help *a lot*. I would point out, however, work at all levels esp. for middle management remains really hard if upper-management is clueless.
  - swearwolf 4y ago
    I shuddered a little bit at the mention of on premise vs cloud. I’ve been whiplashed from one extreme to the other over the last two years. First it was all in on the cloud, now it’s a full scale retreat.
    - tstrimple 4y ago
      Companies who are ignorant of how to build in the cloud shouldn't build in the cloud based off of peer pressure alone. It's not just moving on-prem VMs into cloud VMs. You really need to change how you think about solving problems and leverage tools in the cloud built for solving those problems rather than just moving your on-prem knowledge to a cloud environment. The last thing you should be doing in the cloud is heavily relying on VMs.
SilverBirch 4y ago
Honestly, it's kind of crazy to me that people throw numbers out there like "two direct reports is absurd". Management is not some arbitrary diagram on a wall that we're trying to make look pretty! Management structure should reflect something about the underlying nature of the work being done. So yes, it can be perfectly reasonable to have 2 reports. Leading a project that needs about 3 people? You're the manager, and you have 2 direct reports. Managing a part of the organization where you've got 2 clearly distinct responsibilities beneath you? Promote a couple of your best employees to be team leads, manage them directly, everyone else reports to them and that opens up your time to do more strategic leadership focused on process, alignment with other parts of the business etc. You've done your succession planning, you've freed up your time to focus on more strategic issues, you've handled the personal development side of them job, and your structure is now set up so that if you want to grow the team you've got a clear way of doing it. Having these weird intuitions about how big a team should be over-ride creating the correct structure is just silly! The second you start just looking at the shape of the org chart rather than reasons behind its structure you've basically just given up on engaging with management at all. But a lot of the problems with management at these companies stem from exactly that - people focused on building org charts rather than focusing on what the business actually needs, which is why you end up with endless bureaucracy - because management structure doesn't actually map to the business being done.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by scrubs 4y ago

tstrimple 4y ago

> Now having two direct reports is absurd asking questions like how that was ever allowed and tolerated for as long as it was. If all they are doing is managing those resources, I'd completely agree. I've seen a few examples of org structures where those folks aren't actually middle managers, but generally ICs with some additional responsibility. So they are still working hands on within a product, but also have some direct reports to help within their area of influence. If you're at a director level and you've only got two reports, honestly that doesn't seem that unreasonable either depending on their area of control and the size of the teams below their managers. I'd certainly rather see an org structure where managers are working with 2-7 direct reports (again assuming they are working managers and not just administrative overhead) rather than an org where someone has 20+ direct reports. There's no way a manager is effectively managing the expectations and goals and blockers of 20+ people with regular touch points while also being involved in the strategic direction of the company. Never mind where I see orgs with managers with over 50 direct reports.

scrubs 4y ago
TLs should have 7-10 people. Bonafide middle managers should have ~7-10 direct reports meaning they're dealing with around 100 people underneath them. My better half deals with management and a lot of cross functional management. The amount of junk she has to deal with due to politics, BS, people problems, and power struggles --- on premise data centers v. migration to the cloud is a major recurring theme because it involves a lot of people and budget ripe for power struggles --- is insane. Three or four proper Middle Managers could help *a lot*. I would point out, however, work at all levels esp. for middle management remains really hard if upper-management is clueless.
- swearwolf 4y ago
  I shuddered a little bit at the mention of on premise vs cloud. I’ve been whiplashed from one extreme to the other over the last two years. First it was all in on the cloud, now it’s a full scale retreat.
  - tstrimple 4y ago
    Companies who are ignorant of how to build in the cloud shouldn't build in the cloud based off of peer pressure alone. It's not just moving on-prem VMs into cloud VMs. You really need to change how you think about solving problems and leverage tools in the cloud built for solving those problems rather than just moving your on-prem knowledge to a cloud environment. The last thing you should be doing in the cloud is heavily relying on VMs.

SilverBirch 4y ago

Honestly, it's kind of crazy to me that people throw numbers out there like "two direct reports is absurd". Management is not some arbitrary diagram on a wall that we're trying to make look pretty! Management structure should reflect something about the underlying nature of the work being done. So yes, it can be perfectly reasonable to have 2 reports. Leading a project that needs about 3 people? You're the manager, and you have 2 direct reports. Managing a part of the organization where you've got 2 clearly distinct responsibilities beneath you? Promote a couple of your best employees to be team leads, manage them directly, everyone else reports to them and that opens up your time to do more strategic leadership focused on process, alignment with other parts of the business etc. You've done your succession planning, you've freed up your time to focus on more strategic issues, you've handled the personal development side of them job, and your structure is now set up so that if you want to grow the team you've got a clear way of doing it. Having these weird intuitions about how big a team should be over-ride creating the correct structure is just silly! The second you start just looking at the shape of the org chart rather than reasons behind its structure you've basically just given up on engaging with management at all. But a lot of the problems with management at these companies stem from exactly that - people focused on building org charts rather than focusing on what the business actually needs, which is why you end up with endless bureaucracy - because management structure doesn't actually map to the business being done.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]