←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: 0.45s | source
Show context
AnotherGoodName ◴[27 Aug 25 22:01 UTC] No.45045883[source]▶
This was called the TLM role at google. Technical Lead/Manager. You were expected to code and manage a couple of more junior engineers.

It’s part of an effort to have dedicated managers and dedicated engineers instead of hybrid roles.

This is being sold as an efficiency win for the sake of the stock price but it’s really just moved a few people around with the TLMs now 100% focused on programming.

replies(15): >>45045891 #>>45046165 #>>45046216 #>>45046446 #>>45046469 #>>45046545 #>>45046627 #>>45046811 #>>45047198 #>>45047268 #>>45048052 #>>45048255 #>>45048293 #>>45048558 #>>45049014 #
corytheboyd ◴[27 Aug 25 23:13 UTC] No.45046446[source]▶
TLM role has always sounded like a trap to me, I would never say yes to it personally. I’m sure it’s sold as an expected 50% code, 50% management but everyone I’ve talked to who has been near it says the expectation is more like 80% code 80% management.
replies(5): >>45046592 #>>45046770 #>>45046997 #>>45047867 #>>45048059 #
xenotux ◴[27 Aug 25 23:34 UTC] No.45046592[source]▶
TLM roles are a trap, but not in that sense. There's no expectation that you do two jobs at once.

It's just a way to ease unsuspecting engineers into management. If you don't suck at management, your team inevitably grows (or you're handed over other teams), and before long, you're managing full-time.

Which means that there are three type of people who remain TLMs in the long haul: those who suck at management; those managing dead-end projects on dead-end teams; or those who desperately cling on to the engineering past and actively refuse to take on more people. From a corporate point of view, none of these situations are great, hence the recent pushback against TLM roles in the industry.

replies(4): >>45046606 #>>45047808 #>>45048629 #>>45049028 #
devcamcar ◴[27 Aug 25 23:36 UTC] No.45046606[source]▶
Usually it means you have to manage people but you have no real input on their career trajectory, and in the worst case, if they need to be fired you do not have the power to do so.
replies(1): >>45047051 #
1. gdbsjjdn ◴[28 Aug 25 00:49 UTC] No.45047051[source]▶
This was my experience in a TLM role - you have to manage down to your ICs but you have little lateral or upward power. You're basically just conveying whatever your manager decides to do with your team, but with all the additional responsibilities of a staff engineer.
replies(2): >>45047095 #>>45047979 #
2. xenotux ◴[28 Aug 25 00:58 UTC] No.45047095[source]▶
In big FAANG-style workplaces, I don't think that middle managers without the TL- prefix have the kind of influence or leverage you're talking about here. It changes at VP level, but ultimately, most of the corporate management hierarchy is just spreadsheet misery.
3. itsanaccount ◴[28 Aug 25 03:17 UTC] No.45047979[source]▶
its called the straw boss.

as in "and the strawboss said well a-bless my soul, you load 16 tons.."