My team just moved managers to individual contributors because they had about far below the new minimum requirement of 9 directs. This was a major positive because they were very negative and known for micromanaging and creating rework for their directs and now the directs have a decent manager. Anyone else seeing good or bad things because of this rule? It looks like it’s rolling out faster in some groups that others.
27 replies (most recent on top)
@sj interesting, any idea if it’s more managers like it was on this week or individual contributors?
@xx on the positive, crazy micromanagers will have less time to micromanage though they will definitely still try with “round tables” , weekly 1:1’s, multiple meeting series each week about similar topics. They’ll join all your meetings if they think an important executive is there to get facetime. Their calendar will look completely booked, they won’t be able to answer questions because they’re so “busy”, but in reality they know almost nothing because they’re spent 60 hours trying to manage up and make their teams feel incompetent and inferior. It’s pretty easy to manage 9 people if you’re not a micromanager. I have managed teams just as large and larger. The key is to trust your team and give them autonomy. This will open up time for those directs who need more 1:1 time.
Having a span of control of 9-10 is a cr-ppy experience for the team members underneath. Manager's cannot effectively manage that many resources at once and have 1-1s, respond to pings in a timely manner. Sure that may be ok for people further along in their career that are content with the level they are at, but it is a terrible experience for younger people trying to grown their careers. Not that WF leaders give a cr-p.
It's strange to look around Risk in teamworks and see so many managers with 2-4 directs on small teams to begin with. It's everywhere still but I suppose Risk isn't done yet.
9 is the new 7!
@kd next round is coming first payday after end of quarter.slt just finalized the lucky ones
@e4 Branch Manager roles are all posted at the P3 level — unlike other non-branch banking ‘Manager’ titles, which are posted M1 or M2. That discrepancy might be part of the strategy OP is referring to.
The last two managers I reported to had their teams downsized out from under them. One transitioned to a senior lead role, the other is in transition right now but is probably headed the same direction.
Just happened a week or so ago in one of the control teams. Senior managers are now Senior Leads and their direct reports now report to a Director....ensuring the new minimum of 9 is met.
@cj When is this happening to ITV?
He downsizes more people than any other executive. His only reason for being here is to shift as much COO work as possible to I&P. The destruction of the domestic coo workforce is his lone objective. He was also chief cheerleader for safe and effective at WF, with the intent of 'downsizing' via other means. He's the poster child for evil executive.
@gv don't recall ever hearing 8 but was told it was 7 around late 2018 or so and that it would likely eventually increase to 10 or 15. but instead, everyone seemed to completely forget about spans and layers for several years until very recently when the "9" rumor started. none of this has ever been written down anywhere to my knowledge. And there are currently countless managers with fewer than four reports, and job postings currently up for managers who not meant to have more than 5 or 6 reports (like the managers of other small regional teams that were recently formed as part of a new model that has been incredibly disruptive to create). so if the 9 rumor is true, that model will need to be reconfigured. again. this place is exhausting.
I thought it was 8 a few years ago.
@cc COO isn’t bad. Based on all the horror stories I have heard from colleagues in other groups, I think COO is pretty decent. I have been in this area for several years and have not seen anything terrible. The more I learn about other areas, the more I appreciate COO.
@cq my understanding is that execs are not exempt. At least mine wasn’t.
If so they are going to have a lot of branches without managers, and the "director class" is going to get absolutely smashed. Hardly any have 9+.
It will impact all groups. Execs are exempt and some areas may be able to get a short term exception. It’s spans and layers it was 7 and it is moving up
@cb isn't ITV about to be decimated anyway
HR just does what they are told. That said, COO is a total piece of S, so this rumor seems like something he'd do.
I’m a director in ITV. This is all nonsense.
@av they have none so not an issue
Never fear, AI agents will solve all our problems.
I have to wonder though... all those students booing AI at commencement. Where will they feel their deposits are safe?
They are in COOHOOTS.......there, fixed it for ya !
@a8 OP here, might be rolling out faster in some areas than others. This is an HR initiative to be applied across the company. Those managers impacted received very short notice that it was about to happen. They are in COO.
Yes, now the Manager has 15 reports and announced that all 1-1s are cancelled because it is just too much work.
Wait a second......you manage managers ??......isn't that a mo--n, oxy ?
Might be a LOB thing. I manage managers and haven't heard a peep about it.