I’m in COO and just noticed some senior managers’ titles changed to senior leads. Anyone have insider scoop on reason for this approach? Is it rolling out everywhere? Does this mean the goal is to remove a lot of the middle management? The senior managers in this scenario have small number of direct reports, including some senior leads.
16 replies (most recent on top)
@va There's a group in my department that has like 8 little mini teams in it, each with only 3 to 7 people in it. The manager of one team is being replaced -- job was just posted. And one of the other managers just became a manager a few days ago when a few people got moved under them. Head of our group must have some sort of exception (?). This whole team structure is only a few months old.
@v4 it’s sent to managers in writing who have direct managers with less than 9 to let them know why their managers will coming individual contributors
@tg, is the new 9 directs rule written down anywhere? Guessing the answer is no (which doesn't mean it's not real) but you never know.
New rule just came out that managers must have a minimum of 9 directs. If they have less than 9, they will be converted to individual contributors. So it’s not about senior managers changing to senior leads, but about minimum requirement for all managers, including executives. This is being rolled out quicker in some areas than others. Expected to see lots of shifting of people. On the bright side, this has caused some really bad managers in my group to become IC’s. May they never become managers again.
that means they have been reclassified as individual contributors and will no longer have direct managerial responsibility. workday won't allow a "P" grade (senior lead ) to manage people. they can be responsible for leading a team of work as a "pod"leader but they won't have anyone reporting to them.
After 5 years of adding layers and layers of managers on top of existing managers just to satisfy the buddies they are brining from the “other” company it’s to be expected that they over did it and now need to adjust. This behavior of adding that extra layer of management for all the newer leaders coming in from their former place created gaps and disconnects. Hope that this change means removing the unnecessary layer.
@c3 great question. not only have i never seen any spans & layers rules in writing, but also there are still tons of managers with fewer than 7 reports. many only have 3. i've also seen several new manager roles created recently for new teams that are designed to stay small -- no intent for them to ever have more than 6 to 9 members. but alas, wouldn't put it past these crazy "leaders" to create a new operating model only to turn around and dismantle it a year later. this place ki-ls me.
@de OP here, I saw it in the US.
I only see that in India. Not happening in USA.
Lack of leadership is curse in wellsfargo in past 6 years . Leaders think they are leading but have no listening or planning skills. All their lower employees are their slaves. All hands meeting is nothing but one hand meeting exhibit their power. Team meeting are the same in some groups
Says who? I know S&L has been a thing for years now, but you never really see it in writing anywhere.
Well I get the desire to change the title; they do not really "manage." But they also don't really lead. So... maybe we should just go with a title of "Seniors"
Spans and layers is now 10 and not 7
Sometimes it just be like that
Demotion, ahahahahha.
Usually it just means they don’t have direct reports anymore and the salaries are similar for those titles.