←back to thread

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

(www.cnbc.com)
574 points frays | 3 comments | 27 Aug 25 21:16 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
toast0 ◴[27 Aug 25 22:39 UTC] No.45046207[source]▶
IMO, overseeing 0 people is great. I'm not likely to take any position where I have to oversee more or less than that; although I'm willing to compromise and oversee one person where they're actually independent and I don't have to do much overseeing.
replies(3): >>45046278 #>>45047000 #>>45049675 #
1. LambdaComplex ◴[27 Aug 25 22:48 UTC] No.45046278[source]▶
> overseeing 0 people is great. I'm not likely to take any position where I have to oversee more or less than that;

I would have so many questions if I got an offer for a position where I had to oversee less than 0 people

replies(1): >>45046409 #
2. fuzzy_biscuit ◴[27 Aug 25 23:07 UTC] No.45046409[source]▶
Would that mean you have to undersee one or more people? cue rimshot
replies(1): >>45046791 #
3. shoo ◴[28 Aug 25 00:05 UTC] No.45046791[source]▶

  Up on the shore they work all day
  Out in the sun they slave away
  While we devotin'
  Full time to floatin'
  Under the sea