No more f***ing IT managers. Flat structure is started ..
21 replies (most recent on top)
@1uhv: appreciate your sentiment.
Eliminate the SVP and Exec Dir role; both clearly not needed. Then look at span given outsourcing. This will eliminate another 30 to 40 percent of overhead mgt. This will save millions and allow IT to hire people to actually do work
Classic and on target last line. I would only say it would be accurate for any race. Complete and utter embarrassment
Managers and Sr Managers needs to be eliminated. Most of the IT managers don’t have managemt skills and communication skills. Tech lead -> dir -> VP. I don’t think we need SrMgr or Mgr or ED.
@1kss: if you are dictating that VZ is exempt from this type of management layering then I profess you are wrong..... VZ IT has layers that are not needed. Do you or have you worked for VZ IT?? the associate director positions are a waste and the executive director positions are a waste?? and soon the director positions must be eliminated. furthermore outsourcing IT as managed services is not the answer. just because AT&T has done with Tech Mahindra, india, does not mean that Shankar at VZ knows better and implements... Shankar is a born indian and does not know better. Shankar is an indian embarrassment.
1hgd: please elaborate and clarify???
@lixc: are you working at VZ or have a VZ stake??
UComplain2Much.LookWhatPeople@OtherCompaniesGoThru
@ Matt and Marx worth a look
Span And layer
Shareholder value
Entire departments are saturated with managers and have too few many employees to perform the actual productive work. Those employees understandably get burnt out and just end up leaving, or get placed on PIP and shown the door because of their inability to handle the work of 3-4 people. My department has become notorious for this. Bottom line is, there is NOT enough management positions for everyone so the "up or out" BS is not conducive to a successful business. Making your company "top heavy" is ludicrous as all you get a bunch of layers of overpaid management and no one to do the work. Or this creates resentment and you have a high turnover rate. Too many chiefs no Indians and all you get is a gazillion pointless meetings and a tower of babble. A company can run just fine without 100 layers of management running around. It can't survive without workers. In fact, I would argue LESS layers of management is far more effective. There needs to be more senior level non-management gigs. We don't need all the pointless BS layers of management while they lay off the WORKERS. I'm curious if anyone else's department, field, or line-of-work is experiencing this concerning but all too common trend? I think the move-up-or-move-out culture is largely to blame, and there is simply no prestige, pay, respect, or even in some cases basic human dignity shown to employees if they are not managers. I realize that these are generalizations and that my experiences are anecdotal, but everywhere that I've worked seems to have an average employee retention time of about 1.5 years. Those who were offered promotions to supervisory roles of course stayed longer than that time mark, but the others? Gone. To be honest the entire management culture disgusts me, I find mostly corporate managers always trying to make themselves out to be a big picture player who doesn’t get involved in the nitty gritty or discuss details like there to come up with the strategy and someone else will actually do the hard work of fixing problems, flagging up issues and implementing in the real world. They love meetings and talking in the overview and avoid details. There mostly like politicians who are big on talk, short on details, avoid dealing with issues. When things go wrong their looking for scapegoats. In answer to your point, I think most corporate office environment are full of people who just want to manage others and you as you say it leads too managers and not enough doers. The same managers seem to hang around for years in organisations and never seem lose their jobs much while there is constant turn over of staff at lower levels. Yes we have always said there are too many Chiefs not enough Indians. The worst part about where I work is there is zero need for managers. The employees can do it all themselves. But management positions are like quid pro quo rewards for the liked so they keep a few around to motivate the s--- ups. Its easier just to paint every picture in broad strokes and ignore every gritty detail I guess. Most of them don't even understand the intricacies of the operation they are lording over. They are clueless with them all and fast talkers so they just BS their way through meetings. Meanwhile all the employees are leaving in mass droves and you have a large brain drain. So its just a bunch of managers sitting around throwing out their BS and opinions and nothing getting done and limited insitutional knowledge. You would think a healthy mix of all types of positions and cut down on countless management layers would help. But that makes too much sense I guess. That results in a top-heavy organizational structure, with a lot of chiefs, but very few Indians. Sometimes, managers have to perform the functional duties of their former staffers, in that situation. The theory is supposedly the managers have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform the duties of their staff members, and the organization retains their management structure, in the event they are able to re-staff somewhere down the road. Plus, the managers are Exempt (whereas some of their staff may have been Non-Exempt), so they don't have to be paid overtime, if they have to work extra hours performing the duties of laid-off staffers. It usually just leads to a continuing downward spiral, though, from what I've seen. This is true, And often they will layoff those below them and take on their duties to keep themselves busy while retaining the management title- they may end up becoming a managers in name only doings the duties of those they have layed off - often they find they can’t do the jobs of their subordinates well enough and end having to hire someone new. Additionally the management jobs are reserved for those favoured in the organisation, and they move around managing everywhere, mean while at a lower level getting transferred to another department or discipline is fairly difficult. It basically makes people feel, if your not at a management level then basically your very disposable and your not that valuable.
I have seen the practice of "many managers and few associates". The concept makes advancement impossible. That's because Corporate America is transitioning to a worker less society. There are many companies that I've seen that have 30-40% managers and less than 20% workers and everybody else is on-demand worker whenever they need the work. With today's tech, work should be handled and processed easier and faster but at many companies it's all about waiting for the workers. A recent company I've worked for probably spends 70% of the time waiting for the work order to be accepted and approved before it can be handled. Because many of the work requests are sent to different states where the workers salary is cheaper and causes extensive delays. Then the managers panic about deadlines and they hire temp workers and that process still takes 6-8 weeks compared to a full-time worker that may take 3-6 months to hire. Because everyone has a manager title, they're not really managers they're just workers that are managing temp workers to do their work and still being managed by senior managers.
I dont understand what the rumor is. And considering that a lot of managers were promoted to Sr Manager recently, this doesn't sound true. If they remove managers who will manage the projects?
this is by no means over. misrepresentation. missing "aggregate" compensation. pending class action and restitution.
Sarah Blackwell, Attorney at Law, Esquire, Florida.
All: many current employees are safe because their positions, job titles, labour categories, are excluded and "not included" in the Infosys contract. it is not all of IT going to InfoSys. the novice mid-level IT management at temple terrace, orange county, and Atlanta made uninformed decisions and did not seek the details of whom to send to Infosys. the folks who were shipped to InfoSys, and should not have been shipped, currently have no work and have not worked as of the beginning of the year.
@cbo, appreciate your question? I do not have an answer. I do not have a copy of the Infosys contract details, SLAs, nor invoice billing details. How may we ascertain??
Need to drop all SVPs and Exec Directors. With outsourcing you need one CIO , VP and or directors and managers. Amazing it takes HR that long to figure out an effective and cost efficient structure. The SVP and ED level add little to no value
@rkb where would we get a copy of said contract. Doubt it's readily available. So please elaborate.
Not all of IT non-managers are going to go to Infosys. The production and security access issue continues. Therefore, unfortunately, there are many who are going to be safe for a long time. Anyone read the VZ-Infosys Contract??? T&M, SOW, versus Managed Services???
Well if it’s in IT it makes sense since the managers don’t have any direct reports anyway.
I heard the same rumor.
Very vague comment