What is it that some organizations don’t have to be part of the 7x7 lies that were sold by management?
So many high position people with a handful or less direct reports. Is it or isn’t it a policy?!
9 replies (most recent on top)
Today I saw a Director II had only 4 reportees under them— all ICs, no managers. That Director II reported to another Director II. Weird. In IT at Hellevance, I have realized the Director I and Director II positions are just Managers in higher pay brackets due to sub acquisition or high COL cities, because HR and Talent Acquisition can’t figure out basic corporate hierarchy when they acquire, integrate or conduct RIFs and Reorgs (ICs - Mgr I - Mgr II - Sr Mgr - D1 - D2 - Sr. D - Staff VP etc.)
@Wins+1qR2n3Ef Provider data ops is a clown show. Inmates run the asylum over there.
It’s a ridiculous sound bite employed by those making cuts or demoting someone while stealing your direct reports to save a Director in another department whose a$s is on line for having too few people reporting to them. They divide departments up and shuffle people around to be managed by people that dont even understand roles. It’s a shell game. Then , after creating shortages and dysfunction they brow beat and threaten those that are left . They aren’t honoring state contracts, paying claims accurately or loading provider data correctly. Their new tools have created a mess and the Mmbers and those caring for them suffer. They don’t care they see profit as they offshore and outsource . They don’t see the mess they’ve made but make no mistake, this will all need to be cleaned up one day and they will feel financial and membership impact. They’ve tossed the seasoned employees that could have led them out of the mess — RIF hits those near retirement, pregnant, those with excellent reviews — they think they are saving$. They are going to lose more business and we will see more healthplans and acquisitions tank as these ridiculous practices spread their cancer.
7x7 means no more than 7 layers from Gail. So if you look at your place on the overall org chart, Gail should be no more than 7 people away from you. How this is helpful is beyond me though and we have definitely rifed or downgraded people to hit this already
The other 7 is AT LEAST 7 directs for every people manager. It would make more sense if it was a cap, but it's a minimum. And as pointed out, this one isn't followed across the board. Even if you look at differences between the people who report to Gail, you'll see some have few directs and others have lots more.
If you're trying to make sense of any of it, or predict whether you'll be rifed, don't waste your time or stress. There is ZERO loyalty except among a small few who have ties to vps and chiefs. For everyone else, how well you do your job, what your job is, how long you've been here, etc doesn't matter. If they need a cut in your cost center, you're at risk. Period. I think we all want to feel like we have some control over this by competing and working like dogs but at the end of the day, people much higher on the chain, who don't even know you personally, are the ones circling your name on the list. The managers and directors you work with everyday will likely have no input and no way to save you. It has never been less motivating to work here. Advice to everyone, whether you feel vulnerable this year or not, keep your resume updated.
7x7 - While there isn't a universally agreed-upon number, some management experts have suggested that a span of control of around 7, often referred to as the "rule of seven," is effective. This idea aligns with the notion that too many direct reports can lead to difficulties in communication, coordination, and effective supervision.
What is 7 x 7?
We were told we had too many layers of management.this was brought on by Gail's own doing, bringing in her Posses,a Manager had to step down to an independent contributor. Hence, job reclassifications
Will they lay off people down to 7 direct reports?
What is 7 x 7