Middle manager massacre (span sanity part deux)

Many tech companies are reducing their population of middle managers, increasing the average span of control (direct reports per manager). Is that a good idea? Executives argue that fewer managers mean less bureaucracy, better alignment, faster communication and response, and lower overhead. Those outcomes sound great. Engineers hate bureaucracy, misalignment, waiting ages for guidance and clarification, and a lack of resources. What’s the catch?

As usual, the catch is in how the change is madein this case, how middle management is reduced. There’s plenty of stupid to go around. Executives confuse middle managers with line managers, applying the same rules for both. Executives base their span of control goals on numerical targets rather than business needs. And executives have an asinine strategy, an inconsistent strategy, or no strategy at all for which managers to keep. I know thinking is hard, but executives do get paid, so perhaps a little thinking is warranted.

Reducing overhead by increasing span of control can lead to significant benefits if done properly. Let’s discuss the difference between middle managers and line managers, how many middle managers an organization needs to run its business well, and how executives should decide which middle managers to keep.

What are your overheads?

A quick word on why reducing management overhead can be beneficial for a company when implemented thoughtfully. Managers are typically paid well, so having fewer without hurting productivity and employee development saves money. In addition, each layer of management can delay, distort, or divert an executive’s communications and business direction. That leads to misalignment, misunderstanding, and missed opportunities.

If you make the fair assumption that businesses need clear direction at the top and productive teams at the bottom, reducing the layers in the middle seems sensible. The trick is to do so without harming productivity and employee development.

I walk the line

A great way to harm productivity and employee development is to mess with teams at the bottom. That’s why confusing middle managers with line managers is such a stupid, counterproductive mistake. The fact that executives so often confuse these roles makes me question how dingbats are chosen to run organizations, but that’s a different topic.

Business organizations typically have an executive at the top, line managers at the bottom, and middle managers in between. At large tech companies, executives have titles like CEO and Vice President (VP), line managers have titles like Lead and Engineering Manager (EM), and middle managers have titles like Director and Group Engineering Manager (GEM).

Line managers are not middle managers. Line managers oversee the individual contributors who do the hands-on work of the business. They are directly involved in the business’s work product and the growth of individual contributors. You can calculate the optimal number of reports per line manager, as I detail in Span sanity—ideal feature teams. Spoiler alert: It’s four reports, not one more or one less.

When you mess with the span of control for line managers, you reduce productivity, harm the growth of individual contributors, and jeopardize the future of your business, which depends on productivity and staff development. Don’t confuse line managers with middle managers. Just stop.

I’ll give you what you need

Say you’re an executive with half a brain. You set the span of control for line managers to four. You know that too many middle managers and multiple layers of middle managers can cost you money, slow down your business, and cause misalignment. You know that engineers hate dealing with all that bureaucracy (perhaps you’re a former engineer). What’s the smallest number of middle managers necessary to achieve your business goals successfully and sustainably?

Do you need to have a separate middle manager for every discipline? No, you don’t. Shared resources such as HR, finance, and sales may need discipline-specific middle managers, but for feature teams, a PM and EM pair can easily report to the same middle manager. I discuss this further in Are we functional (part deux)?

How many PM and EM pairs can report to the same middle manager? Well, regular work hours for middle managers are filled with meetings (it’s the nature of the role). It’s reasonable to divide those regular work hours (roughly 40 per week) evenly between people meetings, project meetings, and escalations (firefighting). That’s because each PM and EM pair is a source of projects and escalations. So, middle managers have roughly 13 hours per week for people meetings. Assuming people meetings are biweekly (a nice compromise), middle managers have time for 26 biweekly, one-hour people meetings. Two of those are taken by a directs (staff) meeting and a full group meeting, leaving 24. That means middle managers can handle up to 12 PM and EM pairs (total group size of 72 people).

Thus, the minimum number of middle managers is the number of feature teams under an executive divided by 12. However, the business may not logically break up into groups of 12 feature teams. In addition, middle managers who are new or in particularly challenging situations may not be able to handle 12 teams. Assigning teams to middle managers requires some additional thought to arrive at the most sensible and sustainable configuration. Regardless, an executive with a 1,000-person organization could have as few as 14 GEMs and no directors.

You’re the best around

You, the executive, have determined the minimum number of middle managers you need to run a high-performing organization with ideal feature teams. Which of your current middle managers do you keep, and which do you reassign to other impactful roles?

• If you’re a high-level executive with lots of VPs reporting to you, you could set a span-of-control target without any guidance and accept whatever good or bad comes of it. That sounds easy and mindless.
• You could base middle manager retention on seniority (why have new ideas or opportunities for growth?), loyalty (why have people who disagree with you?), ambition (why have people who care more about the company than about themselves?), politics (why consider actual value?), or recent results (why question how those results were achieved?). These are tried and true asinine strategies.
• You could retain middle managers who understand and communicate your vision, who continually develop new leaders who spread throughout your organization, and who embody clear principles that drive productivity and progress toward your mission. I know, that’s crazy talk.

Yes, I’m biased. I care about achieving our leader’s vision and mission for our business. I put that ahead of seniority, loyalty, ambition, politics, and recent results. Want more middle managers like me? Ask them to describe your vision and mission. See how many leaders they have developed who took on roles across your organization and how well they backfilled those roles and grew more leaders. Examine how much they delivered per overall dollar spent over multiple years and how well those deliveries matched the org’s vision and mission at that time. It’s more complicated than just checking how long they’ve worked for you and how much they kiss your behind. But hey, you do you.

You better think

Reducing the number of middle managers can cut overhead and bureaucracy while increasing alignment and responsiveness. However, removing middle managers recklessly and thoughtlessly can undo all those benefits and cause new problems with retention, stress, and poor performance.

To reduce middle managers effectively, recognize the difference between line managers and middle managers. Line managers should ideally have four reports (no more). As for middle managers, start with a minimum of one per 12 feature teams. Increase that number to accommodate middle managers who are new or in particularly challenging situations, or to accommodate collections of fewer than 12 feature teams that make better sense grouped together. Then retain your best middle managers, the ones that understand and effectively communicate your vision, develop leaders for your organization, and deliver the most value that aligns with your mission for every overall dollar spent.

It can be tough to reassign experienced staff to new roles, but streamlined organizations can be more agile, aligned, and cost-efficient. Thoughtfully designing your org structure and selecting your most effective leaders can revitalize your business and drive more responsive value for your customers.