zlacker

This is really the crux of the failure of organizations. The execs might not want fraud (or other problems) to happen.

But, upper and middle management don't care about the company as much as the execs. They would much rather show the numbers, earn their comp and fuck off, than worry about long term sustainability of the company or of their reports.

Has anyone really complained about middle management yet?

>>nine_z+(OP)
The only thing a frustrated middle manager can do to deal with sociopathic upper management that turns a blind eye to departmental suffering is to candidly look at the bullshit you have to put up with, then make the decision on whether you've got the life left for this bullshit.

Unironically, earn the comp, and fuck off to let the next person up the totem pole deal with the consequences of their decisions.

Shit may roll downhill, but sometimes, nothing changes til the guy at the top gets a swift boot to the ass in the form of a dose of Real Life (TM).

>>salawa+cf
Yes, a decent middle manager doesn't have too many choices either.

It is getting clearer to everyone (from execs to ICs) that the command structure with layers and layers of management gives rise to pathological behaviors in the organization.

Perhaps this round of recession will bring some change to organization structures - ideally with less middle management.

>>nine_z+hg
A flatter hierarchy isn't a great solution to an excess middle management when it means that one manager has 15-20 direct reports, as opposed to a healthier target number of 6-8 or maybe 10-12 at maximum. It is important that each manager has adequate time to manage each of their people in a way that enables the kind of proper relationship that supports their team members when they need it.

The current round of recession will probably temporarily shrink some companies or cut off some lines of business, thereby flattening the hierarchy in a less harmful way than what I described. But overworking managers is a different bad thing.

Maybe you're advocating for a smaller maximum company size overall, so that a relatively flat hierarchy doesn't overwhelm those managers who do remain? Or for some right of participation by non-executive managers in collective worker action, as exists in Germany and as acted in the original version of the US National Labor Relations Act before the Taft-Hartley amendments, so that some kinds of large-company pathologies can be addressed better?

>>nine_z+hg
Fast growing startups have little middle management. Bloated pathologic orgs dying in a recession have a lot of management. To have fewer management, we need to only have young companies and let older ones collapse sooner.

>>jkaplo+Ju
The main reason why flatter hierarchies doesn't work is because managers are asked to do work reporting, career management and performance management. But all of these are pathological, BS work.

Reporting can literally be done by an "administrative assistant". You could have an administrative assistant for 50 ICs and it won't make a difference. There is no need for layers.

Career management only exists because there are so many layers in the ladder. If there were only 2 levels, and then VP, there would be no need for career management. There is no need for layers for the actual work to get done.

Performance management is another load of crap because it is something that should only be required for determination of rewards or to completely fire people. But this job doesn't need layers and layers of management.

If you want to see the structure top down, the CEO should have VPs who allocate money to teams. The teams should have pieces of ownership that they are supposed to run and maintain. A team lead/captain can run the team.

But that's it. What is the need for kingdoms of apes that don't really do much except pushing work downwards?

>>nine_z+RW
I see you’ve only had bad managers in your career. I’ve had both. The bad ones sometimes wrecked companies when they were in the C-suite and wrecked individual careers or teams when they were directly running a team. The good ones turned careers around (including my own when I was an immature oblivious junior) and helped get org-wide buy-in for a necessary re-org to fix real problems that ordinary technical employees noticed.

Shoveling around money and work is only a small piece of the job.

A good line manager does things like help resolve interpersonal and inter-team issues, helps address the issues causing underperforming team members to underperform so that they can improve instead of be fired, handles firings and layoffs when necessary but only as a last resort, makes sure team member career goals and skills get considered as opportunities arise, shares concerns and updates both up and down the chain, advocates upwards for necessary staffing and worthwhile raises, oversees hiring for the team in collaboration with the recruiter and tech lead, explains downward for applicable constraints and works with the tech lead how to apply them to the tasks at hand, and so on.

These have all been my goals in my line manager jobs. Notice I said nothing about technical matters or project management or driving execution. That’s tech lead stuff, with some oversight from the manager to make sure business needs are met.

People need management just like computers systems do, but the skill set is totally separate. Computers always do what they’re told, even if software bugs sometimes mean you didn’t tell them you think you told them. People have feelings and needs. Very different.

For a team of more than a few members, management is a full-time nontechnical job. For a 2-4 member team, yeah it can be split.

A good middle manager does the same kind of thing as I said a good line manager does, but managing managers and their teams/orgs instead of individuals.

A bad middle manager does what you think a manager does, and/or several other failure modes.