Does anyone have any historical data on the hierarchy depth? Or the ratio of individual contributors to managers? I'm fairly new to TD and don't have the historical perspective, but in the latest all hands and roadmaps I get bamboozled by the sheer number of managers of something. It almost feels like for every possible combination of two or three of the following terms: product, engineering, services, cloud, vantage, platform - a manager suffix will create a new role.
7 replies (most recent on top)
About “racism”, when I’ve worked with Marketing, there really are a lot of “indians” (aka people) who think they’re leadership when they’re not. It’s hard when you’re trying to get them lto do something because everyone has an opinion- too many layers.
If you want an example of multiple layers of deadwood, just look at marketing. PR spews the same idiocy out so they can revel in their mentions in useless media.
Customer engagement? What customers? I guess they can keep busy making videos about themselves.
Events? Not the year for them.
Marketing communications? I guess they have enough experience to keep spinning bad news into wonderment. Of course it has no impact on revenue.
Deadwood everywhere.
Truly racist
It’s not racist if true.
Wow..."Marketing has a lot of indians who personally appoint their own importance regardless of title or lack of experience". That's not racist at all....
It all depends on the department. Marketing has a lot of indians who personally appoint their own importance regardless of title or lack of experience. So though you are told a person is in charge, you’ll unfortunately experience a lot of confusion due to many people sounding off as if they are a decision maker or stakeholder when they are not.
We have a resource manager asking the resources to help the program manager coordinate the work and give the status to the project manager. Thats just one layer in a project.