I was just discussing this general subject with my better half. She showed me a corner of an OD chart at a going-concern with several "managers" and "directors" having between 2 and 7 direct reports. Context: cost-cutting. Worse: the company asked an outsider for recommendations. Figuring it out themselves I guess was too adult of a responsibility.
Now having two direct reports is absurd asking questions like how that was ever allowed and tolerated for as long as it was.
But I would also point this out. When upper management knows what in the hell they doing, a couple of middle managers can help tremendously. At HP's zenith, middle management was a strategic asset. They are too senior to get caught up in every team's day-to-day, and too close to the action to walk around with detached C-suite perspectives.
Composing the parts into an organized whole which requires tamping down sectionalism, getting specialists out of their backyard, and so on can be huge. Man, that's a tough ask. Holding that center is darn important.
So just like anything else, if you're talking Middle Management in the Drucker or Gerstner or Berkshire Hathaway sense, that's the real deal. If you're talking lower-case "middle management" that are glorified paper pushers and meeting mavens, cut like the dickens.
But no matter what, how is upper management getting away with spending that kind of shareholder cash on nonsense in the latter case? I am inclined to agree with another HN story circulating that the pendulum from competent but jerk has swung way too far to DEI nice-guy but total moron. Professionals are both: competent and personally accessible.
Now having two direct reports is absurd asking questions like how that was ever allowed and tolerated for as long as it was.
But I would also point this out. When upper management knows what in the hell they doing, a couple of middle managers can help tremendously. At HP's zenith, middle management was a strategic asset. They are too senior to get caught up in every team's day-to-day, and too close to the action to walk around with detached C-suite perspectives.
Composing the parts into an organized whole which requires tamping down sectionalism, getting specialists out of their backyard, and so on can be huge. Man, that's a tough ask. Holding that center is darn important.
So just like anything else, if you're talking Middle Management in the Drucker or Gerstner or Berkshire Hathaway sense, that's the real deal. If you're talking lower-case "middle management" that are glorified paper pushers and meeting mavens, cut like the dickens.
But no matter what, how is upper management getting away with spending that kind of shareholder cash on nonsense in the latter case? I am inclined to agree with another HN story circulating that the pendulum from competent but jerk has swung way too far to DEI nice-guy but total moron. Professionals are both: competent and personally accessible.