When you see new org announcements where level 2s no longer report to an Associate Director and now report to Director, does that mean the AD is probably on the chopping block?
17 replies (most recent on top)
The ADs I know run circles around the L3s and L4s. Get rid of ADs, and people who aren't close to the work won't have a clue what to do. Structure should be Indiv Contributor > AD > Director > VP. You want to get rid of levels? Get rid of GM indiv contributors, AVP, SSEMs, and titles between SVP and President.
Bruh. The ADs I work with have like 30 people under them with contractors and are technically better than most of the technology folks they manage.
Ad reporting to a director is unaccceptable. I have worked with ads who were clueless as well as directors who were clueless. Basically they were asking for status.
Then comes the avp reporting to a vp who reports to sr. Vp. Again redundant. Ad/dir/avp should be one position as a manager reporting to vp.
In some orgs AD's are level 2 and typically report to a director and not another level 2. But that is not always the case. Sometimes you have L2 report to another L2.
"Make all the Leads level 2s."
They started to do that back in 2018? bc some leads are L2 right now. Just depends on the exact job title L2 v L3. Problem is like every other change they gave up halfway.
What really needs to happen is to look at headcount by title and get rid of AVP/Dir/AD that dont have enough HC. Ive heard warnings that they would finally do this for the last 10-12 years but it's never happened. There's AVPs out there with no reports just bc somebody likes them. That's more annoying to me than an L3 lead.
There will be 40% cut in GMs that are not AVPs. That means 40% among directors, Lead project managers and architect and nonsense like that. I get that we have GMs that are directors and AVPs, with some directs. But why do we have GMs that are individual contributors? They have the best of both worlds. The get the bonus and stock options, without any personnel responsibility. How stupid is that? Make all the leads level 2s.
“ Ad/dir/avp are redundant. Just layer after layer. That position has to be consolidated as a manager.”
This is so true. I don’t see the value that the director level brings in Retail anymore. Just takes what VPGM says and puts their spin on it. ARSMs should roll directly to VPGM
Ad/dir/avp are redundant. Just layer after layer. That position has to be consolidated as a manager.
“ Associate Directors are typically IT, and they are redundant. They need to collapse this AD level.”
Huh? These are the only mgmt, with a clue. Get rid of EDs, and everyone above. Like someone posted, ADs were tech folks, who are now team leads. ADs are the ones who spoon feed the EDs. And the spoon feeding simply goes up the chain to the top id–t
The AD's I've run into are far more qualified than most directors and ED's/AVP's that I know. I mean they're mostly folks who were "doers," and the Director or ED gave them supervisory responsibilities because the Director/ED didn't really know how to handle a team of "doers."
Most directors/ED's are older and were simply promoted because they had been there so long. They then aged out of the system that created them and are stuck in a sort of limbo.
Don't see many Associate Directors in ATO Mobility...and having a hard time grasping why in God's name an Associate Director is needed in any org.
My best guess would be that it was used as a bone to throw someone that aspired to become an Director, without actually promoting them. Just call them an "Associate" Director and keep them at L2. I have run into people over my 25 years that this would be important to. I am certainly not one of those people. Call me whatever you want, keep my L2 paycheck coming.
The problem is you have too many L3’s that have no technical expertise and have to have information spoon fed to them!! AT&T spends more money on IT tools that those in the upper levels have no idea of how to access them or how they operate!! They are essentially lazy overhead that add no value!!
Some AD’s will just get moved under a Director. Not an ‘automatic’ surplus. Directors, on the other hand, should have 10-12 direct reports. If a re-org leaves a Director with no reports or fewer than 10-12, expect more shuffling and/or a notification at the next round.
Associate Directors are typically IT, and they are redundant. They need to collapse this AD level.
AD with no reports is on the chopping block.
AD are also 2nd lines.
What about the directors with no reports.