There are managers with less than a handful of direct reports who spend 90 percent of their time in meetings that achieve nothing but prepare for the next meeting which is then in preparation for another meeting....you get the picture. What exactly do they contribute to the company? Other than their invaluable PowerPoint skills, of course.
19 replies (most recent on top)
"Someone needs to manage the number of layers of management". Great idea, we will assign a new committee to address this issue, with a committee leader overseeing committee members from CTC and all BUs who will travel for meetings, dinners and celebrations every time the one staff employee develops a new gantt chart outlining proposed activity.
Someone needs to manage the number of layers of management or it’ll spin out of control.
The new org is a matrix of a matrix! The worst situation for decision making. We had the BUs and ETC before, now we have added useless asset class layers and totally gummed everything up. Now we know why Exploration didn't join the Transformation!
Why don’t you’all make everyone a manager buncha clowns
The new org is worse than more layers of management: chapters, epic leads, assets class managers and on and on. Parallel management tracks with overlapping scope is a recipe for no accountability and gridlock. Five chiefs to every Indian, and declining Buffalo.
Management theory claims if your workforce always needs to be supervised to get some work done then layers of management are preferential to getting out the big stick.
This looks a lot like Noble, layers and layers of incompetent managers working hard to impede progress and make bad decisions while ignoring the technical staff and their inputs.
too many middle layer, too many wastage of resources/money
@OP The short answer is no.
In the US, managers account for 30% of corporate payrolls. This particular class of corporate employee is superfluous and overvalued. They do nothing in most companies except for call/attend meetings and approve PTO. There are many groups where managers outnumber contributors, and many managers with fewer than five direct reports. In many cases, managers have zero (0) direct reports.
Any company looking to reduce labor costs should start by reducing management and automating as many of their job functions as possible.
The managers are bad enough but what about all the advisors, directors, etc that add no value whatsoever and supervise nobody. PSG 27-30 and all they do is show up to meetings, eat all the food, and make d-mb non-sequitur remarks.
OP, I don’t know what org you work in - maybe CTC - but my PSG 28 Manager has 9 direct reports.
the OP is obviously not in IT, where managers have 50 direct reports.
I thought the organization flattened during transform? Back to the old ways so soon?
What's funny to me is how many managers can't do anything if left to their own devices...they're so busy coming up with woke drivel they can't crunch numbers anymore
If you don’t know the answer to this question then you know nothing about psychology and it’s relationship to economics.
The more layers means less accountability when things go sideways. Very little accountability at this company.
The number of levels of management will always be proportional to the number of high pots who need "managerial training".
Sadly I can say the same for a whole lot of other people at Chevron, besides Managers.
Dude, they look at ado and manage tasks. Where have you been?