I keep hearing and reading about this. Can someone explain?
I also heard managers have too many direct reports under them. That it should be six to seven? My manager has about 18.
8 replies (most recent on top)
At BNY when Charlie started his reorg the rule was no more than 7 layers between him and entry level no exceptions. How many direct reports was less relevant as long as 7layers was achieved. And it was. He also divided managers from dual roles people/processes to single roles people managers separate from operating managers in the same group/dept similar to how technology companies are organized. Many managers who did both manage people and processes had their roles split which led to reduced responsibilities and to managers that could take on additional processes at the detriment of others who were let go. BOLO for the same modus operandi at your firm. If you are a middle manager with 2 or 3 others in your line who you believe could manage your process should the need arise you are vulnerable. Next, you will be subject to new perf guidelines where 10% of you will be forced ranked below expectations. It is not a new thing. GS was/ might still be practicing this "rule". This will serve as 2 prong tactic 1 zero raises and 2 a constant cohort ready to be eliminated as needed. BOLO if you are getting below expectations perf review. Also if you are involved in anything manual that can be replaced by technology -this does not need repeating but here it goes- you are exposed. Charlie is big on technology and will not hesitate to reduce headcount and reallocate money to tech even if the payoff is not immediate. In 2019 expense as % of revenue aka efficiency ratio was about 68 for WFC vs about 57 for JPM if i have # correct. Keep an eye on this ratio. The lower it goes and you are still there the more likely you are to keep your job.
Good luck to you all.
Depending on title depends on number of direct reports. A biz support mgr is currently 8, up from 5. An ops manager can go to 15. There are many with title manager and 0 team. Risk and financial crimes where you see title yet not enough directs.
There are 2 things that has been said
- There are too many layers of management which means they want to reduce the levels of management to have people report up to a higher level.
- You have too many managers without enough direct reports. It has always been said that 7 plus is required to be a non-producing manager.
You have entire front line layers of management with individual managers only having 3-5 direct reports and few having 7 direct reports. Those managers report yet to another level that also may have only 3-5 direct reports including an admin.
While 7 is the minimum, there is no reason why a leader can’t have 9-10 direct reports.
I manage and I’m just under the seven directs requirement. I not only manage my team, development opportunities that were not known, and attend many meetings, but I also carry a heavier workload than my team and work alongside them as well. If my team is turned over to where they came from, you can kiss any development for them, goodbye. My team would go to less productive contributors bc those they reported never managed them. Also, not sure what that means for me. I manage PLUS I contribute. I don’t just manage.
Basically the problem is wells has too many managers whose job is to simply manage other people. This is a problem all over but especially in areas of the bank that do not generate revenue (I.e. risk, compliance, HR, audit and technology). You have a ton of middle managers whose job is to collect a high salary for being a mentor to 5 people and providing upper managers updates on individual contributor projects. It also creates a ton of bureaucracy like another poster mentioned where it takes ten different approvals to get a project going. The goal seems to be eliminate those middle managers to cut back on salary and make things more efficient...
Yes to the comment below. And all those layers with 2-4 people = work takes forever to get done, too much bureaucracy. So collapsing them, and making sure managers have at least 7 directs, is intended to save money and make work more efficient. Consensus-driven decision making is a tough beast to conquer, though.
18 directs? That's nuts!
It's the other way around. The real concern is managers with not enough direct reports - they're seen as not really "managing" a team at all, and should be individual contributors or displaced instead.
That's true, multiple layers. This was a strategy so that the senior managers could adopt the title of Managing Director, which placed them in a higher salary range.