4 ms·
In a software company with under 50 employees you can get away with almost anything. With over 50 employees the only model that ever worked is the one describe
by CCs 14y ago
In a software company with under 50 employees you can get away with almost anything.
With over 50 employees the only model that ever worked is the one described by http://manager-tools.com/ http://manager-tools.com/ :
- Between 8 to 12 direct reports/manager, never more than 12.
- Weekly 1-on-1 with EVERY direct report, never missed.
There's a way to flatten the structure somewhat with Team Leads managing up to 6 people: part development, part people management. Even then the Engineering Manager has to be hands-on.
This is how people work and it will not change anytime soon. Everybody needs weekly check-in with the company (represented by the manager) to stay in course. And everybody needs to know "who's the boss", even it it's not an official title or formal authority (think about Linus).
Citing Google as a good example is not too inspired. With all the billion $s they can't come up with one more product - it's still a single trick pony.
There's Search/AdWords, everything else is pretty much failure in comparison. Maps is somewhat profitable, but it was bought from somebody else and it's pocket change next to Search. Everybody profits from Android, except Google. And then there's Google+, Wave, Health, Video, Buzz, Catalog, Froogle, Orkut, ...
So before trying out a Google-style manager-less chaos, make sure you have a couple billion $ in your bank account first.
And yes, when somebody is not calling the shots on who gets hired in his/her team, that's not a manager. They get the task (deliver the results) without getting the tools (pick your team). How that would ever work?
- apenwarr 14y agoAt Google managers don't decide who gets hired, but they do (more or less) get to choose which of the hired people end up on their team. I think it works pretty well actually.
- CCs 14y agoAnd they deliver viable products... more or less. :)
- kscaldef 14y agoThis is how people work and it will not change anytime soon. Everybody needs weekly check-in with the company (represented by the manager) to stay in course. I call bullshit. I have over a decade of experience in this industry and have only had regular 1-on-1s with my managers over the last year. Despite this, I've always been a highly valued contributor to the companies I've worked for. If anything, the last year has been the worst / most-dysfunctional of my career (although, this is probably not related to having 1-on-1s, but rather unrelated organization chaos). I have always talked regularly (i.e. daily) with my manager, but formal 1-on-1s were never part of the equation.
- CCs 14y ago"We see each other every day" does not qualify. 1-on-1 is a very specific, regular and dedicated meeting. This is where you check-in, coach, encourage new ideas, listen to pain points. It's number 1 requirement even at Google: http://solutionfocusedchange.blogspot.com/2011/03/googles-project-oxygen-eight-good.html http://solutionfocusedchange.blogspot.com/2011/03/googles-pr... I suggest listening a couple Manager-Tools.com podcasts about 1-on-1. You need more than one person's experience, even if it's for a decade.