How many middle managers can 3M get rid of without anybody feeling their loss? I think about 50 percent at least, and probably much more. If we're looking to reduce our operating costs, that's where the leadership should look for the next round of layoffs, not at people who actually contribute.
12 replies (most recent on top)
I just had the strangest convo with an EL member about spotting other job opportunities within the company using my skill set and experience (since, as far as I know, there’s no magical 'in-placement' program—shockfest, I know). This, mind you, was right after a meeting she presided over, where her demeanor took a hard turn from kumbaya-Solventumverse vibes to full-on Lord Walder at the Red Wedding.
But the weirdest part of our convo? She completely mischaracterized my role. According to her, my "role" was this one 'as-assigned' task that had been shotg-nned my way and ended up consuming a lot of my time. Spoiler: that’s not the role I was hired for. Sure, it was an assignment, but an assignment isn’t a role.
And there’s the tell. That’s where the management party line of "we’re removing roles, not people" unravels into a heap of bollocks. For a moment, I just sat there with this d-mbfounded Horshack expression, wondering if I’d missed the memo where they redefined “role” as “whatever random thing you were juggling when someone wrote the list.”
Get rid of them all. Most of them are su-kers to the directors, bully their direct reports, arrogant and entitled.
I have seen many middle managers get laid off in these waves or organized out.
At least 60 - 70 % is the answer.
What exactly is the contribution to the enterprise, either bottom line or top line, from the humongous number of middle managers that we have today ?
Do we really need a manager to nanny every 10-12 employees in 2024 and beyond ?
There is a need to cull the VP and SVP ranks. Why do we need VP of R&D for each division (making about $500K), SVP of R&D for each business (those make close to $1 million) plus the SVP of corporate R&D (this one is protected since his boss, the CTO is his best buddy) with multiple VPs reporting to him. Each division and corporate lab already has multiple directors of R&D (those make between $300-$400K). Too many highly paid leaders with little to show for in terms of innovation and new products.
"but got my promotions and recognition with the good ones."
Hey, don't be spouting that nonsense here! Everybody knows promotions are just a myth!
I'll say - be careful what you wish for. There are pros and Cons to middle managers. But I'd ask...Do you want to be heard? Do you want your manager to know your work and provide the best performance ratings or promotions, when due? Do you want support?
Or do you want someone at higher level that you never see and doesn't know you doing all this?
Of course, that is if you have a good one. If we can get rid of the bad ones - Absolutely!
I've had a mix of both, but got my promotions and recognition with the good ones.
Problem.is 3M did not allow its middle management to make decisions. Micrimanaged by the top and then we complain about poor results when the top can only see their functions as costs to be cut without anyclear strategy vision. Just more random cuts.
Middle managers have been cut in past layoffs. I don't know how many, but there were several very well-respected middle managers in supply chain with decades of experience at 3M who Tireman cut.
I used to feel this way, then I became a middle manager a few years back.
I work much harder now than I did as an individual contributor. Sure, I don't produce much, but I spend a lot of time in meetings, negotiating what be team should and shouldn't be doing, deciding what major initiatives are worth the effort and where my team can best contribute, and providing expertise from a more comprehensive perspective.
Unless you feel like you need more meetings in your life and you don't want the ability to decline anything that's asked of you, you desperately want your middle manager boss to keep doing their thing.
Middle managers distill a lot of the bureaucracy and shield their team from unreasonable requests do that individual contributor can actually do their jobs.
I was laid off 2 years ago and our organization lost a lot of people- probably around 20-25. Yet none of the middle managers were let go- some losing all their direct reports in the layoff
How can these people stay in these roles when their is nobody ( or very few left ) to manage??
I’d argue top leadership is most costly by a longshot and in some cases have caused more damage than good. Tireman has single-handedly cost 3M the loss of much knowledge and talent, eroded confidence of trusted clients and suppliers, and negatively impacted performance results. 3M stays afloat in spite of him, and it will take decades to rebuild competitive advantage against peers. The money paid to consultants fabricating his “results” could have kept so many employed for years.