←back to thread

Google has eliminated 35% of managers overseeing small teams in past year

(www.cnbc.com)
574 points frays | 1 comments | 27 Aug 25 21:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.217s | source
Show context
mikestew ◴[27 Aug 25 21:52 UTC] No.45045782[source]▶
The 35% reduction refers to the number of managers who oversee fewer than three people, according to a person familiar with the matter.

If you oversee 0-2 people, in most cases that’s probably not an efficient ratio. How did Google get so many folks in that position in the first place? And I assume the other 65% take up the slack to fluff their teams? Or what? Leave the other 65% managing 0-2 people?

replies(16): >>45045800 #>>45045814 #>>45045815 #>>45045827 #>>45045863 #>>45046087 #>>45046207 #>>45046272 #>>45046285 #>>45046335 #>>45046408 #>>45046621 #>>45047565 #>>45047573 #>>45051289 #>>45052082 #
TheBigSalad ◴[27 Aug 25 21:54 UTC] No.45045800[source]▶
How is it not efficient?
replies(3): >>45045873 #>>45045880 #>>45046167 #
1. michaelt ◴[27 Aug 25 22:33 UTC] No.45046167[source]▶
In certain types of company, it's workers without management responsibilities who do the work that brings in the money.

Think of a delivery company, for example, where drivers make deliveries, which is what the company gets paid for. Too many managers - AKA too few employees per manager - will sink the company, because managers draw a salary but don't make deliveries.

Of course, this analysis might not work as well for a company like Google. I'm pretty sure I can publish an ad without any human intervention on Google's end, so maybe they have no equivalent to the drivers, making the ratio incalculable.