Managers cant even manage deez nuts.
This is because managing is the easy part of the job. You have to have someone to push and threaten you to do MORE and MORE for the same or less pay, then dangle that carrot in front of you and keep moving goalposts.
source: was a top manager in the country of a certain tire chain.
manager here. I’m just a jerry. I kept crawling, and it kept working. I don’t like it any more than you.
For a real answer:
A manager can control what is done under them, but if one of their teams/members needs something done by another team they have no control.
Their manager might control the manager of the other team though, so the decision goes up the line until it hits someone who has both sides of a problem under them and can make the decisions on priorities/cost etc of the requested action.
In small companies, this may just be one or two layers, but in bigger companies it becomes a disfunctional disaster.
When you have too many people working somewhere, it becomes impossible for one person to oversee everything. So you get multiple managers managing more specific groups, and then managers who manage the entire segment without knowing all the details or people. When a company gets even larger you’ll need even more layers. There’s only so much time and mental capacity that humans have, so at some point you need some multi-threading by involving multiple people.
To me it kinda makes sense, and I don’t really know how I’d do it differently if given the chance, but the higher level management does always seem to feel like some people making decisions high up in their ivory tower without knowing what is actually going on.
Kelly- I manage my department, and I been doing it for several years now…
Jim- Your department is just you right?
Kelly- Yes Jim, but I’m not easy to manage…
Organizational structure can be seen as just style points. Gabe Newell of Valve famously does not do organizational structure. He didn’t when he worked at Microsoft and he doesn’t now. It’s also been said per capita/employee no other tech company makes as much money as Valve.
I hope he writes a book about it or something. As an executive at a large organization I’d love to know more and try to run my division like he does. But I don’t want to just make it up as I go along…
What the heck does “does not do organizational structure” even mean? Valve must have some kind of structure.
I’m not sure they do have anything that looks like typical corporate America, but I don’t know a lot more. I know at Microsoft everybody reported to him and from what I’ve been able to piece either that’s not changed we Valve. But he obviously doesn’t “manage” everybody, so how he does it I’m not sure.
Most organizations are just a dictatorship by another name if we use the definition in The Dictators Handbook which states keep your essentials and influentials small in quantity so you can pay them for results. A democratic environment those groups are many so you can only win them over with policy and influence. I feel like he runs his organization like the second but I want to know more. A lot more.
Yep I’m keen to understand more, the information is super scarce, all I could find is a short YouTube that didn’t explain much.
You know, 50 years from now everyone may be doing the Gabe method the same way they say they do agile. it would be hilarious to see it happening.
Middle manager in an IT company here. My job description is saying “no” to requests outside the official pipeline, in order to shield my team from outside interference and burnout. I need a manager to fight for me whenever I pick a fight with one of the VPs who think we need to drop everything and refocus on their pet project.
deleted by creator
It sounds like you have an example to share.
Luckily I’ve been self-managing with a rather free form management style for the last few years! But I have now updated the original post to clarify my point.
It seems that managers managing the managers cannot manage to manage the management of managers and therefore we need managers to manage the management of managers managing the management of managers.
It’s a hierarchy. You have a department, or other such division, with a manager to coordinate it. Then you have a manager who manages all the departments, or a subsection thereof, to coordinate them; this is “managing managers” and typically more complex due to the interdisciplinary nature. Then you have managers to manage the manager-managers, who oversee entire regions or similar sectors.
Sometimes manager-manager managers are necessary, but if you need managers to micromanage manager-managers, your organization has problems
Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
It is not easy to manage oneself, but easier to manage others. Like a mother can get her children to brush their teeth and reminde them to do so, but she may not brush her own teeth. Very good manager are however very organized and efficient. They do manage themselves.
Ah, same as a real mathematician can mathematically mathematise mathematics in a mathematical mathematiculation, so if a mathematician can mathematise mathematics in a mathematical mathematiculation, why can’t you mathematically mathematise mathematics in a mathematical mathematiculation like the mathematician who mathematically mathematises mathematics in a mathematical mathematiculation…
I once had a job where I had seven layers of management above me. Other than my immediate boss, I had no idea what the rest of them did all day.
