(www.cnbc.com)

574 points frays | 1 comments | 27 Aug 25 21:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.209s | 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 #

1. JCM9 ◴[27 Aug 25 22:48 UTC] No.45046272[source]▶

>>45045782 #

Fewer than 3 people? That almost never makes sense. Right on Google to sort that out but I’d have a lot of questions for whatever leaders allowed such nonsense to develop on their watch in the first place.

Also 35% is way too low if it’s really less than three. Should be more like eliminating 95% of those scenarios.

↑

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