What happens to managers who no longer have the minimun number of direct reports if people who haven't RTO'd get fired, but no new hires are allowed...?
Looks like this is a way to get rid of the lowest levels of management.
Can the "leadership" really be smart enough to think about that, or is this an unintended consequence?
It’s definitely a pattern that the higher the job ranking the more likely it’s a friend in all the areas of corporate risk I’ve worked in. Also don’t understand the difference between leads and senior leads. Lots of leads and senior associates out there who work harder and run circles around senior leads and yet no changes. Curse of the competent?
@ahw+1gjRFRRI
Sounds just like my group and we’re not it&v. Always friends. Always. We’ve had three friends hired in and after 9 months I still have not a clue what they actually do. Anything I have seen they worked on is half wrong. To make that much money as a director… and to not understand a simple policy.. is wild.
Like everything, It's selectively enforced when and where they want to. They demoted a bunch of lower level managers to individual contributors and then just hired senior managers and in some cases directors to replace them in IT&V. End result is lots of higher paid managers/directors now with way less than the supposed required amount of directs too. They all hired their friends from other areas too.
More H1Bs who aren't selective will get hired to backfill the departed ones. No real change and bonuses continue.
Spans are 9-16 in my tech department. Doubt it will be enforced. Everything is in a state of disarray.
Pretty obvious that leadership is going to reorg everyone under exec chosen leaders. They finally moved a few tech groups under the person who was obviously scheduled to get us when Chuck took over. It only took them 2 years of data analysis before deciding to do what they'd planned to do for years.
That’s how they got me, my span of control had dropped below 10.