Thread regarding Ford layoffs

Advice Ford should listen to from Harvard Business Review - Fire all the managers

I have seen so much money and talent squandered by Ford management. Every reorg they expand their ranks.

First, Let’s Fire All the Managers, Harvard Business Review

Management is the least efficient activity in your organization.

Think of the countless hours that team leaders, department heads, and vice presidents devote to supervising the work of others. Most managers are hardworking; the problem doesn’t lie with them. The inefficiency stems from a top-heavy management model that is both cumbersome and costly.

A hierarchy of managers exacts a hefty tax on any organization. This levy comes in several forms. First, managers add overhead, and as an organization grows, the costs of management rise in both absolute and relative terms. A small organization may have one manager and 10 employees; one with 100,000 employees and the same 1:10 span of control will have 11,111 managers. That’s because an additional 1,111 managers will be needed to manage the managers. In addition, there will be hundreds of employees in management-related functions, such as finance, human resources, and planning. Their job is to keep the organization from collapsing under the weight of its own complexity. Assuming that each manager earns three times the average salary of a first-level employee, direct management costs would account for 33% of the payroll. Any way you cut it, management is expensive.

Second, the typical management hierarchy increases the risk of large, calamitous decisions. As decisions get bigger, the ranks of those able to challenge the decision maker get smaller. Hubris, myopia, and naïveté can lead to bad judgment at any level, but the danger is greatest when the decision maker’s power is, for all purposes, uncontestable. Give someone monarchlike authority, and sooner or later there will be a royal screwup. A related problem is that the most powerful managers are the ones furthest from frontline realities. All too often, decisions made on an Olympian peak prove to be unworkable on the ground.

Third, a multitiered management structure means more approval layers and slower responses. In their eagerness to exercise authority, managers often impede, rather than expedite, decision making. Bias is another sort of tax. In a hierarchy the power to k–l or modify a new idea is often vested in a single person, whose parochial interests may skew decisions.

Finally, there’s the cost of tyranny. The problem isn’t the occasional control freak; it’s the hierarchical structure that systematically disempowers lower-level employees. For example, as a consumer you have the freedom to spend $20,000 or more on a new car, but as an employee you probably don’t have the authority to requisition a $500 office chair. Narrow an individual’s scope of authority, and you shrink the incentive to dream, imagine, and contribute.

by
| 1481 views | | 11 replies (last May 14, 2020) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+14VVQuvb

11 replies (most recent on top)

It will be more obvious some managers need to go once we all get packed back into buildings like sardines and get Covid because the LL's need us there to micromanage and spy on to justify their entire existence.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2kdb+14VVQuvb

@1ckl+14VVQuvb describes what I see. A quarter of staff in area is LL and they are not tech spec LL.
The SRD created more LL5 and LL6 supervisory positions. Fake open positions were created prior to SRD. The fake positions disappeared after the SRD. On average there are average 4 GSR per LL now. Before SRD we had average of 7 GSR per LL.

Flattening and pruning the management structure is desperately needed. I agree the LL5 and LL3 could be eliminated. The extra LL6 could be eliminated also.

To be honest most of the GSRs do not need supervision. The only thing needed is a project manager for complicated projects. The LL6 and LL5 don’t do project management. A separate PM does that.
The few GSR who do need supervision either need a coach or to be fired. The LL6 and LL5 do not serve that function either.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2eda+14VVQuvb

You always hear automate, automate, automate. Well here's a thought. Rather than automating complex technical things, automate management. We could do it 1984 style with big TVs, a camera at every desk, and robots which move from cube to cube. You could put timers on the toilet for people that use it for smart phone time, and offer a light electric shock to nudge them off the toilet. Have the automation programmed to say the same things like: "Are you done yet?" , or the famous "We needed this done yesterday." And automate raises to just cover cost of living minus 20%. Huddles could be reduced significantly. "Beep Bop Boop Beep, Engineers and Purchasing need to deliver" I think I'm onto something. Let me get some designer glasses, some designer jeans, a suit jacket and do a TED talk. Maybe Billy will bite and give me $500M like Argo or Rivian.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1bak+14VVQuvb

$30K? Keep going.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ire+14VVQuvb

"For example, as a consumer you have the freedom to spend $20,000 or more on a new car..."

Hahahahahaha....... Try a minimum of $30k for a Ford.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1bnf+14VVQuvb

Forgot to add to my last post: I read numerous time that we could easily get rid of the odd-numbered LL level and be ok. I totally agree with that!
If you think SRD changed the structure I described, you would be wrong, despite the announced goal to have 6 to 8 direct reports at all levels. Surely the first thing to do would have been to have three teams of about 6/7 engineers, thus 3 LL6 then directly reporting to a single LL4, hence removing one layer of management (2x LL5). Even in this configuration it is way below the 6 to 8 direct report guideline, but at least we avoid 2 layers of 2 direct reports which is just a joke.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1rdl+14VVQuvb

I like how the example given is "imagine one manager for every 10 employees, see how inefficient that would be for a large organisation"... during the SRD the target was to increase the number of direct report to an "ideal" number of 6 to 8, because before that many teams had even less than that!

Talking from FoE, some of the functions is just a pure joke: in one of my previous role, two teams of 6x GSR reporting to two LL6, both reporting to one LL5... then the next department: two teams of 3 and 4 GSR reporting to two LL6, both reporting to one LL5. And then these two LL5 reporting to a LL3. So in conclusion: 19 GSR / 4 LL6 / 2 LL5 / 1 LL3 => 27% of the workforce in the group is management!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ckl+14VVQuvb

Management at Ford has a difficult responsibility of protecting the legacy of the Ford family and other executives positions of power in the company. All the extra communications add time and thus cost. Did the article mention this was a kind of inefficiency of management?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qun+14VVQuvb

Yeah, a lot of words, and they're different, too, some I haven't heard before in my life.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rgt+14VVQuvb

I think they should fire everyone including the family and start over.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @fzj+14VVQuvb

Man thats a lot of words.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ifo+14VVQuvb

Post a reply

: