Have you noticed that recently all people are complaining that their team is "understaffed"? while VMware headcounts didn't really decreased so much since a year ago maybe a few K people less? (like 2 or 3 K?).
Maybe just an excuse to not do stuff?
20 replies (most recent on top)
This is a software company that makes less than 10% profit margin. Worse still it’s shrinking and as Broadcom noted on their shareholder statement VMW is a really badly run business. Their’s no way that headcount will increase. I see so many people not wanting to get involved in revenue producing work it’s shocking. Even in PS I think there must be at least 50% non billable staff This place is a joke and ready for a big cleanup.
I left a year ago but still have contact with the team I worked with. Fully 40% of the department left. NONE of their jobs were back filled. They are now beyond busy every single day of the week. So yeah, it is a thing.
You don't need to tell others what to do and how to do their work.
Here's the big confusion. Managers should not really be doing this. If this is the view, then it again suggests dysfunction. As manager my role is to triage the work and to make sure no one is over-encumbered. If something is too much, I'm the person who pushes back and says to give the team more time or resources. If the team is under scrutiny, I justify their work and highlight why it's so important. I meet with PMs and map out the next two quarters of work. Any IC on the team was deemed competent to do the job at some point.
A manager should not be there to tell them how to do their job. If they are, that's a bad manager.
If a manager is there to tell someone what to do? Then lol that is literally what they are supposed to do. Align your work to what PM wants, not give free rein to do whatever you want. Put that feature to the side and fix a bug you made a year ago. We all have to eat our greens.
You folk have had some really bad managers in your careers. In a company VMware's size, it's understandable how they can grow like weeds. I wish you all the best in having that sorted through the acquisition.
Some managers/directors in my BU manage > 1 to 3 people. Anyone else see this? Is this > focusing on the main thing?
In EMEA we used to have a director that lead a department (Emerging tech) that for a while didn’t even have a report. One his one or two reports now was PSO manager.
Laughable.
"We have many teams where an IC is moved to management to work alongside their peers in a small team. I am one. I manage four people"
Simple. You should have remained an IC. If 5 of you can't work together towards a common goal, you have a basic problem. You don't need to tell others what to do and how to do their work. Your manager, who should lead 1 dozen or more, needs to do her work instead of promoting you
a flat organization has less meetings, less politics and leaders to fight and disagree with each other, less blame passing
I do really feel bad for those who work in teams that have to deal with this. These are not normal and show that the BU or team is designed poorly. I worry that the functional teams will be ruined in an attempt to fix all the dysfunctional ones.
You don’t see a problem with a Director managing 1 to 3 ICs?
Director, yes. Manager, no. Huge, huge difference there. You're even skipping over Sr. Managers in between. That's a major shift of the goal post.
I have no care about what Hock does to me or my position. I'll be fine. I'm curious about others within VMware who have ideas of what they want their work to look like. It's also the problem of people within a very vertical, dysfunctional team who assume that the rest of VMware is like that. Our Dir is already overseeing nine unique, customer-facing "features", each working with different engineering teams. Four managers, each taking ownership of two "features".
I'm imagining this in a flatter design that you discuss, and it's a wholly different philosophy. My team is small because we lost half through attrition, and leadership realized we could do just the same work with fewer people. So, progress would be hiring useless people to pad out the team and justify the role, or firing managers and having ICs with 10 different backgrounds all report to the same manager?
Sure I’ll explain - a flat organization has less meetings, less politics and leaders to fight and disagree with each other, less blame passing. It’s easier to focus on key objectives vs BS and there is more accountability. I can go on
“Yes, I see it often. But I don't see the problem with it.“
You don’t see a problem with a Director managing 1 to 3 ICs? I’m sure you work hard but with an organization our size having this many layers of managers is clearly inefficient. And it doesn’t matter what I think, Hock thinks managers should have at least 10 or more people. I hope you get to argue your points to Hock directly, and I hope I’m in the room while it happens
Some managers/directors in my BU manage 1 to 3 people. Anyone else see this? Is this focusing on the main thing?
Yes, I see it often. But I don't see the problem with it. Can you explain a little about how it impacts you?
We have many teams where an IC is moved to management to work alongside their peers in a small team. I am one. I manage four people. Our team is very dedicated to a specific function that no one else does, and we are constantly at, or near, our limit. I work alongside the team, triaging tickets, setting up the basics for accomplishing each, as well as managing the unique tools and licenses we require.
Should I not exist in your vision of our company?
Some managers/directors in my BU manage 1 to 3 people. Anyone else see this? Is this focusing on the main thing?
Oh Magoo, you’ve done it again!
This thread is more proof a huge culling of employees is needed! It really highlights the problems with over hiring. Not only do you waste money on people’s salaries, but all the extra people feel the need to create work for everyone else, and just slow down the system and distract from what’s important.
this has been the norm for quite some time, over promise, under deliver, minimal staff and contractors if that.
Too many managers run around behind their VP and SVP, listening for the sound of a fa-t. Once detected, the ICs are directed to drop everything to locate and analyze the fa-t to determine that the exec's favorite foods are so they can mention they like the same things at their next meeting. If they're wrong, it's the IC's fault.
Yeah, layers upon layers of managers, each with a few direct reports, who simply relay the status from individual contributors.
I just see a lot of busy work and not useful for the business and do we need so many managers? Couldn’t they consolidate?
5 or 6 years ago, my previous cunning manager was making me do useless work. Not good for company, not good for myself and not good for team. Luckily for me she left and I started doing useful work for company. May be lot of teams do this and waste resources.
Teams were reallocated. Budget to backfill attrition went to other teams with higher priority.
Managers are fighting for head count, but it's a small pot of money. Understaffed yet still hiring ... but in other teams.
GS (pardon me, GS1) is absolutely understaffed in NASA. We've seen losses of 20% in some teams, which is a big bite.
However, management has assured us that they are trying to find people, so everything will be fine. And because this is my first job ever, and I'm a mor0n, I believe them.
If they are understaffed, who are they going to layoff in those teams?