#orgstructure

Single-Family, for example, was already top-heavy before the layoffs, and it’s even more bloated now. Rather than streamline, the organization has added layers: senior directors on top of directors, who sit above senior managers, who oversee managers, some of whom have as few as 3 direct reports.
This structure raises a clear question: Why are there so many layers of leadership for such lean teams? The result is diluted accountability, duplicated oversight, and a culture where decisions are filtered through too many hands, often slowing down delivery and hiding ownership. With the number of associates left, there shouldn’t be this much layers. For what?

I’m confused on what’s happening.

Are all leaders in the company expected to be hybrid roles now?
For grades 16+, are those remote roles being eliminated?
Or were these layoffs this week just certain org decisions?

Can someone clarify the moves made this week?

There is a severe imbalance in the manager-to-employee ratio across departments. Airport teams are often unable to take time off because the company claims it cannot afford management coverage, despite having a small number of managers overseeing hundreds of employees. Meanwhile, other departments operate with two to three managers supervising teams of only six to eight employees. This disparity reflects ineffective leadership and fundamental HR mismanagement. A more responsible approach would be for senior leaders to actively evaluate each department’s structure and reallocate resources appropriately, rather than continuing to expend company funds on unnecessary and misaligned management roles.

Many pieces moving in the business channel, but what do you think the next steps will be?

R2B dissolved and absorbed by B2B
B2B dissolved and absorbed by V2B, R2B, I2B
B2B and R2B dissolved and absorbed by V2B and I2B
Something else

What org changes to expect in TIS?

Some rumors say there won’t be any at all, others say it’ll be offered across multiple orgs before layoffs hit. Can anyone actually confirm which is true?

Looks like there are more calls. 12:30 and 1:00. Just labeled touch base and from Sr. Dir. Anyone else have any thoughts on what this might be? I’m thinking explanation of what’s going on followed by the new org structure?

Are y’all hearing about the “spans and layers” conversation? Am being told demotions are on the cards as well? Is there no bottom?

For the SVPs and VPs that were notified, what happens to their roles? Do they just get replaced with someone new? Do their teams get moved under other SVPs or VPs?

With the SVP changes today, both in the business & finance…. I can’t help but to ask myself, how are they deciding who is being let go? These shifts imply that the new leaders do not know their org structure…. Who is good/ who isn’t etc.

All we can do now is, not let our nerves get the best of us. Today just proves that layoffs will be 1. financial 2. Strategic and not personal and reflective of your abilities.

I hope everyone can get some rest after today and realize there is nothing that you can do it. Out of our hands so should be out of our minds.

Did Directors and L7s take the brunt, or were L5 to L6 ICs hit just as hard across digital and merch?

This is tough. Anyone knows which orgs were affected the most?

Do we think they are changing the reporting structure for admins to a higher amount of leaders per person? If your an admin, and you have a open role (vp, SVp or sr) are you getting let go too?

Get your hands on a set of the new orgs charts out today. Dozens of newSVPs and new VPs. The top just got heaver w/blessing of new EVP of perpetual conference attendee (HR)

CVS Health plans to lay off 72 remote employees due to the loss of a contract, which will also effectively end CVS Health's Aetna Medicare Medicaid Program for Ohio residents.

CVS Health said in an Oct. 17 notice filed with state Department of Labor that the layoffs will affect remote employees who report to Aetna's headquarters at 151 Farmington Ave. in Hartford. Most of the effected employees live in Ohio, with one employee residing in Michigan and another in Kentucky.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/cvs-health-to-layoff-72-remote-employees-after-loss-of-ohio-contract/ar-AA1OQ2b9

Manager
Associate Director
Director
Sr Director
Executice director
Asst VP
VP
Executive VP
Sr VP
Chief officers

Meanwhile lean and mean operations in markets . Something that resembles a belly fat with skinny legs.

We're drowning in management layers. Every issue gets passed up the chain until nothing actually gets done. They talk about being efficient, but you have a dozen people giving orders and no one helping. The pay structure is all over the place and new hires are completely lost. How did we even reach this point?

The industry trend has been to flatten orgs and I imagine that is where Paramount is heading. Our new CPO will likely deploy some of the same strategies that were used to restructure Meta (where he came from). Worth a read for those falling under this part of the org.
https://about.fb.com/news/2023/03/mark-zuckerberg-meta-year-of-efficiency/

Go to Slack and check your org chart .. there are many changes and some of us are left with no one to report to ... like an orphan ...

i don't know what it mean .. are the opt ins stil there ? it almost seems live like numbers changing and so far
MTV - seems to be untouched generally in marketing
anyway look before they figure it out ...

Today, my manager informed me that I’m part of the next round of actions, as my role is affected by the organizational health measures set by McKinsey. My team is being reassigned to different functional lines, and my manager mentioned that the RIF notification date is scheduled for 11/19. It appears that McKinsey’s recommendations are driving how our business is structured and managed, with decisions being made based on a set of data rather than the real work being done.

The organization has seen an influx of legacy middle management talent and former strategy consultants whose backgrounds are primarily in general management rather than technical disciplines. In a technology-driven environment, this skills gap has led to a reliance on offshoring key engineering functions. These managers effectively position themselves as coordinators of offshore delivery rather than direct technical contributors.

However, this structure has created a structural disincentive to hire highly skilled domestic technical talent, as doing so would expose inefficiencies in the current management layer. The result is a dependency loop that prioritizes headcount optics and managerial control over genuine technical capability.
OP: @qv+1k6x0r9wm

Putting this up for visibility. It’s definitely a reason for offshoring that comes right after the usual cost-cutting measures.

Hearing it's going to be big org changes. Also, all you publicly complaining about RTO and trying to protest coming into the office, you will get the response of finding out who is in charge.

If you’re a shareholder wondering where all the revenue is going, you should examine the org chart.

Too many chiefs, not enough workers. Anyone else notice the surplus of VPs, directors, and senior market VAS managers—often stacked two or three deep for the same function? Hertz is throwing away over $10 M a year in combined salaries so a handful of people can “manage” 2–3 capable employees. Meanwhile, the frontline is breaking their backs with shrinking fleets, fewer managers, and less staff support—without even a cost-of-living raise. It’s insulting. Back of house is running around putting out fires with little to no staff with very limited OT to pay all the chiefs. This is not a depiction or example of LEAN staffing.

Yet the company is more than willing to hand out six-figure checks for roles that add little to no real value.

I saw information that the number of reports under a manager is being reviewed. Any news? What does this mean?

Ford has sunk millions (and sometimes billions) into initiatives like Model e / FNV4, Ford Next, Canopy, and FordLabs, and what’s becoming increasingly clear is a repeated pattern: massive spending, vague execution, questionable hires or partnerships, and little to no lasting impact.

How do these projects keep getting approved? Who’s actually making the strategic calls? Who signs off on these black-box initiatives, the hiring, the vendors, the direction? The execution feels disconnected from reality. Where’s the accountability for these profound strategic missteps? What oversight exists? I don't understand: is it the board, the CEO, product leads, entire leadership chains, external partners, etc.? Is there an internal innovation council or P&L division that says money is for X and Y but not Z? Is there gatekeeping? Is it greed? Kickbacks? Special vendor relationships that lock us?

Who handles HR and talent acquisition? Did we just bring senior roles with high pay and unclear mandates in the name of innovation? Are our analysts in an ivory tower, not understanding the fundamentals and easily fooled? How come we need so much money to build and do things, and why are we cheap in places that matter? Is it a circular talent problem? Where does the actual money end up being spent? Who is hoarding it? Is it money laundering? Do special committees lack deep domain knowledge? I can't wrap my head around this.

Do executives rotate out before results materialize, or are they promoted elsewhere or hired externally? Does the Media & PR shape the story far more than the product teams? Is the company under existential pressure to look like they're innovating? Why does Ford's structure allow it? Is it due to consultants with strategy decks without deep product execution knowledge? How does HR acquire talent and also place them accordingly? Do we have executive recruiters with vague job specs that drag and drop people like a menial task? Is it because of the whole "who we know" bit which bypasses procurement for strategic partners to add to the reliance on market signaling?

Do we have a siloed org structure that breeds "mini-empires"? Do we have experts that may be downplaying other experts that may threaten an empire? Is talent held back, or perceived as going rogue for initiative and being vocal? Do things repeat because we have an inability to absorb failure lessons due to quietly folding concerns under the rug instead of facing humility and accountability? Did we really bask in what a startup mindset really means? Milchmädchenrechnung?

I really want to hear the rationale behind decisions in such a historic company competing in the now. Are we structurally incapable of absorbing new insight without breaking internal equilibrium? Is it from gov bailouts and subsidies that enable mistakes to continue, compelled through lobbying packets written by "independent" parties? Are people with real execution power and holistic domain knowledge not looped into the work?

Do we suffer with watered down layers of middle management or political handlers? Is it relationship over merit that requires tribal alignment when presenting accurate feedback or data to prevent it from being rejected if it comes from "outside the circle"? Do we monitor sabotage behavior, and do we enable it or step in and put our foot down? Is it ego over mission, where elevation itself upsets social balance and as an org we are unable to cut through biases? Are these divisions, projects, and products "moonshots," as in high risk but necessary for survival, yet poorly executed?

I'm not asking for the benefit of Ford, but to deeply understand and learn from what is going on in this company, I know trolls will come or bash execs and blanket it all, but I'm checking to see angles I may be missing here. Interested in any sort insight for my own education because I don't know what I don't know. Managing the unknown in my case-study. Thanks.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/27/google-executive-says-company-has-cut-a-third-of-its-managers.html

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

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/27/google-executive-says-company-has-cut-a-third-of-its-managers.html

• A Google executive told employees last week that in the past year, the company has gotten rid of a third of its managers overseeing small teams.
• “We have to be more efficient as we scale up so we don’t solve everything with headcount,” Google CEO Sundar Pichai said at a town hall meeting.
• Asked about the buyouts, executives at the meeting said that a total of 10 product areas have presented “Voluntary Exit Program” offers.
  https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/27/google-executive-says-company-has-cut-a-third-of-its-managers.html

Has anyone received their docs to sign if you are getting a new role?!! I got an email with basic information but not docs to sign…

In September there will a massive change in S&T - layoffs… Data Product Management teams and DPA will combine which will create layoffs… others will be affected… hold on to your butts..

https://deadline.com/2025/08/david-bittler-leaving-paramount-evp-corporate-communications-1236497867/

With some added instructions and changes to the org structure. I still feel like cr-p, though. I’m glad I’ll keep getting a paycheck, but I feel numb about hanging on to a job I don’t even like. What really hits me is how awful this is for those who lost their jobs. Let’s support each other, we’re all stuck in this nasty situation together.

Surprise there's no post on this. Discuss.

you too can also continue to remove DEI positions, initiatives and language from the website while promoting the diversity credo! And now that 70%-80% of employees use AI in this Wild West you will be able to fire even more people. not that we'll ever know about who was let go.

There was a smart dude with tons of patent under his belt but was let go and now he is equal to Trim at a healthcare company. While we have a dum--ss AN who doesn’t know sh-t and torch is given by Trim to AN to burn down the house…LOL

What are you reading from this announcement? While many saw this coming, what are the implications for IA?

With the org saying they are laying off 500 director levels and above. How many do we have at the moment. In my mind the ratio would be 10 reports to a director. 5 directors to a VP. 5 VPs to a SVP. An SVP would then have 250 subordinates. This is just my made up figures, but I’d be interested to know the real numbers.

With the CEO stepping down, it’s hard not to feel uncertain about what’s next. Whoever takes over is likely to bring major changes. And we all know that frontline employees are usually the first to feel the impact of any reorganization or cuts. The economy’s slipping, the job market isn’t great, and many of us are already stretched thin, both financially and emotionally. A little stability would go a long way in easing the pressure we’ve all been feeling. But right now, it’s hard to see where that might come from.