4 ms·

Around 5 is the correct number for a first line manager of a technical team. Go to 10 and it’s impossible to keep track of things. The day has only so many hour

Around 5 is the correct number for a first line manager of a technical team. Go to 10 and it’s impossible to keep track of things. The day has only so many hours. Managing takes time. For bigger teams (10+) you either need individuals who are very independent and driven, or have dependable line managers.

para_parolu 1y ago
Every time I see manager with 5 people I know it will be daily 30m standups, friday “summary” meeting, weekly 1:1 and other nok work related activities. If team of 5 people need a babysitter fulltime it means there are no adults on that group.
- siva7 1y ago
  Matches also my experience if they were overseeing only one small team.
- starky 1y ago
  No, 5 is about ideal. If you are micromanaging with that many people on your team then you are neglecting other aspects of being a manager. More than about 7 and you start being unavailable to your team when they need you, and won't have time to do the planning and process tasks.
  - brainzap 1y ago
    both can be true
Aurornis 1y ago
> Go to 10 and it’s impossible to keep track of things. The day has only so many hours. Managing takes time. I've actually had better experiences with higher employee:manager ratios for this reason. When the manager can't possibly be involved in everything they're forced to let go, delegate, and skip the management busywork. My worst experiences have been at companies with one manager per 2-3 employees and skip-level managers who were expected to be involved as well. It was a never-ending stream of meetings, weekly hour-long 1:1s with multiple people, goal setting, personal development exercises, and a growing list of scheduled distractions. The managers felt like they needed to make work to justify their managerial roles, so our time got filled with meetings and activities that didn't contribute to anything other than making the manager feel good about doing things they heard about in podcasts and books.
- com2kid 1y ago
  At that ratio a technical manager should be first on every code review, should be testing the hell out of everything, and should be sitting in design reviews catching bugs well before they hit the IC's plates.
  - whatever1 1y ago
    With 2 reports one definitely has time for IC work. At 4-5 is where it gets tricky.
- icedchai 1y ago
  Same. With so few reports, those "managers" don't have much to do, so they invent nonsense and start aggravating the actual people doing the work. In one case, the guy was totally not receptive to my feedback about the performance issues of other team members. "I'll talk to him."... and literally did nothing. I was more experienced than everyone on the team, including the "manager." He's gone now.
- unclad5968 1y ago
  This is my experience as well. I currently have two managers for a team of three people. One manager basically wants nothing to do with us, and the other wants hourly activity reports that I'm fairly certain he's never looked at.
- mgfist 1y ago
  That's an interesting perspective and not one I've heard before, but it resonates with me. Thanks
jjtheblunt 1y ago
> For bigger teams (10+) you either need individuals who are very independent and driven, or have dependable line managers. that described internal Apple hardware teams i was on for years, as having as flat as possible an org was a priority to prevent bureaucracy and fiefdom forming middle manager nonsense
- cutemonster 1y ago
  Interesting! How many people were you? There weren't any other informal power structures emerging?
  - jjtheblunt 1y ago
    there were 20 to 30 people in a team, but all knew their areas and the nature of the hardware and regulatory and industry standards were such that people could self organize and work away in mass parallel fashion just fine like that. could be a case of fitting the problem domain really more than fitting human psychologies. early on there was one dude from India (brahmin) who kept complaining that he needed people to be reporting to him, rather than him being one of the workers, and that stuck out like a sore thumb, even with multiple brahmin indians in the group, and more americans, australians, brits, african etc...truly diverse by hiring for specialized talents.
dilyevsky 1y ago
Around 5 is when the manager typically creates extra unnecessary work for everyone to justify his/her existence
ezfe 1y ago
I've never directly reported to someone who had that few people reporting to them. Team sizes of ~5 work well but managers can have multiple teams. They don't need to be involved with most people on a day to day basis.
gilbetron 1y ago
That's been the mantra in the tech world for at least a decade now, and I've grown to really disagree. Managers should have 10 at minimum. Most should have 15-20. They should specialize in being a manager and shouldn't be solving problems except pure management problems. (Good) teachers easily manage classrooms of 10-30 kids, even in private schools. The low direct report count ends up creating managers that have too much power, too much say, and too much time to mess around.

para_parolu 1y ago

Every time I see manager with 5 people I know it will be daily 30m standups, friday “summary” meeting, weekly 1:1 and other nok work related activities. If team of 5 people need a babysitter fulltime it means there are no adults on that group.

siva7 1y ago
Matches also my experience if they were overseeing only one small team.
starky 1y ago
No, 5 is about ideal. If you are micromanaging with that many people on your team then you are neglecting other aspects of being a manager. More than about 7 and you start being unavailable to your team when they need you, and won't have time to do the planning and process tasks.
- brainzap 1y ago
  both can be true

Aurornis 1y ago

> Go to 10 and it’s impossible to keep track of things. The day has only so many hours. Managing takes time. I've actually had better experiences with higher employee:manager ratios for this reason. When the manager can't possibly be involved in everything they're forced to let go, delegate, and skip the management busywork. My worst experiences have been at companies with one manager per 2-3 employees and skip-level managers who were expected to be involved as well. It was a never-ending stream of meetings, weekly hour-long 1:1s with multiple people, goal setting, personal development exercises, and a growing list of scheduled distractions. The managers felt like they needed to make work to justify their managerial roles, so our time got filled with meetings and activities that didn't contribute to anything other than making the manager feel good about doing things they heard about in podcasts and books.

com2kid 1y ago
At that ratio a technical manager should be first on every code review, should be testing the hell out of everything, and should be sitting in design reviews catching bugs well before they hit the IC's plates.
- whatever1 1y ago
  With 2 reports one definitely has time for IC work. At 4-5 is where it gets tricky.
icedchai 1y ago
Same. With so few reports, those "managers" don't have much to do, so they invent nonsense and start aggravating the actual people doing the work. In one case, the guy was totally not receptive to my feedback about the performance issues of other team members. "I'll talk to him."... and literally did nothing. I was more experienced than everyone on the team, including the "manager." He's gone now.
unclad5968 1y ago
This is my experience as well. I currently have two managers for a team of three people. One manager basically wants nothing to do with us, and the other wants hourly activity reports that I'm fairly certain he's never looked at.
mgfist 1y ago
That's an interesting perspective and not one I've heard before, but it resonates with me. Thanks

jjtheblunt 1y ago

> For bigger teams (10+) you either need individuals who are very independent and driven, or have dependable line managers. that described internal Apple hardware teams i was on for years, as having as flat as possible an org was a priority to prevent bureaucracy and fiefdom forming middle manager nonsense

cutemonster 1y ago
Interesting! How many people were you? There weren't any other informal power structures emerging?
- jjtheblunt 1y ago
  there were 20 to 30 people in a team, but all knew their areas and the nature of the hardware and regulatory and industry standards were such that people could self organize and work away in mass parallel fashion just fine like that. could be a case of fitting the problem domain really more than fitting human psychologies. early on there was one dude from India (brahmin) who kept complaining that he needed people to be reporting to him, rather than him being one of the workers, and that stuck out like a sore thumb, even with multiple brahmin indians in the group, and more americans, australians, brits, african etc...truly diverse by hiring for specialized talents.

dilyevsky 1y ago

Around 5 is when the manager typically creates extra unnecessary work for everyone to justify his/her existence

ezfe 1y ago

I've never directly reported to someone who had that few people reporting to them. Team sizes of ~5 work well but managers can have multiple teams. They don't need to be involved with most people on a day to day basis.

gilbetron 1y ago

That's been the mantra in the tech world for at least a decade now, and I've grown to really disagree. Managers should have 10 at minimum. Most should have 15-20. They should specialize in being a manager and shouldn't be solving problems except pure management problems. (Good) teachers easily manage classrooms of 10-30 kids, even in private schools. The low direct report count ends up creating managers that have too much power, too much say, and too much time to mess around.