Is 21 a big number? At most places I've been (in various European countries) 12-15 direct reports has generally been considered on the lower side and 30 wasn't considered abnormal in any way.
If each manager can only manage 5-10 people doesn't that just lead to unnecessarily many layers of management?
We should all discourage organizations that set people up to do a bad job. If I'm going to have a manager, I don't want one with 21 direct reports. With so many reports, it's incredibly unlikely that they'd be able to offer much of anything that a good manager should be doing. That's very little time for coaching, using their position to unblock you, identifying problems you're having that are coming across the team, recognizing your strengths, collecting feedback from colleagues, helping you develop a promotion plan, or even just holding 1:1s.
>We should all discourage organizations that set people up to do a bad job.
That doesn't seem like the case here though. One of the things she was complaining about was participating in new manager training. 21 direct reports isn't that many. Managers have to prioritize their time differently than other jobs.
Ultimately it seems like she had accepted a transfer to a management position to maintain a job instead of being laid off or being transferred to some other sort of job and then realized that she wasn't cut out for management. It's OK to not be cut out for management, most people aren't, but pretending it was anything extreme is ridiculous.
> One of the things she was complaining about was participating in new manager training.
She specifically mentions feeling like it overwhelming and ineffective. That's not the same as complaining that she had to do it, which is what your comment implies.
) However, even as an experienced manager, I felt overwhelmed by the number of videos I had to watch. Also, I didn't feel that they were the most effective way to learn.
Presumably you were either on the track for management or agreed to accept the position in lieu of some other sort of transfer or lay off, much like the person in the article. Management isn't for everyone, but nothing in the article sounds out of bounds for a normal management job and 21 reports isn't really a lot.
21 reports may not be a lot in a vacuum. It is certainly an overwhelming number of people to suddenly become responsible for — even more so if the team is spread across different cultures and time zones.
Separately, at this point, people that work at Amazon know what they’re getting into. I’m not sure we need a new article like this every week.
For a historical comparison, Roman Centurions had teams of 60-80. They started out with 100, but that was too many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion
I don't think all of them were getting weekly one-on-ones, though.
https://archive.is/jg9jB
It’s weird how different cultures can be. I’m in Sweden and never had a boss with less than 30 reports.
Is 21 a big number? At most places I've been (in various European countries) 12-15 direct reports has generally been considered on the lower side and 30 wasn't considered abnormal in any way.
If each manager can only manage 5-10 people doesn't that just lead to unnecessarily many layers of management?
My god, these stories break my heart.
Not sure if that is sarcastic or not, but the whole article seems to be "middle manager doesn't like basic parts of being a middle manager".
We should all discourage organizations that set people up to do a bad job. If I'm going to have a manager, I don't want one with 21 direct reports. With so many reports, it's incredibly unlikely that they'd be able to offer much of anything that a good manager should be doing. That's very little time for coaching, using their position to unblock you, identifying problems you're having that are coming across the team, recognizing your strengths, collecting feedback from colleagues, helping you develop a promotion plan, or even just holding 1:1s.
>We should all discourage organizations that set people up to do a bad job.
That doesn't seem like the case here though. One of the things she was complaining about was participating in new manager training. 21 direct reports isn't that many. Managers have to prioritize their time differently than other jobs.
Ultimately it seems like she had accepted a transfer to a management position to maintain a job instead of being laid off or being transferred to some other sort of job and then realized that she wasn't cut out for management. It's OK to not be cut out for management, most people aren't, but pretending it was anything extreme is ridiculous.
> One of the things she was complaining about was participating in new manager training.
She specifically mentions feeling like it overwhelming and ineffective. That's not the same as complaining that she had to do it, which is what your comment implies.
) However, even as an experienced manager, I felt overwhelmed by the number of videos I had to watch. Also, I didn't feel that they were the most effective way to learn.
She was in HR, so managing 21 direct reports doing diddly squat isn't much anyways.
> Not sure if that is sarcastic or not, but the whole article seems to be "middle manager doesn't like basic parts of being a middle manager".
Can you share which parts made you think that? I don't think that's a fair assessment.
I was unexpectedly appointed manager
>I was unexpectedly appointed manager
Presumably you were either on the track for management or agreed to accept the position in lieu of some other sort of transfer or lay off, much like the person in the article. Management isn't for everyone, but nothing in the article sounds out of bounds for a normal management job and 21 reports isn't really a lot.
21 reports may not be a lot in a vacuum. It is certainly an overwhelming number of people to suddenly become responsible for — even more so if the team is spread across different cultures and time zones.