When I ask individuals with empirical experience and self-awareness how many people can they successfully manage? The answer is usually between five and eight individuals. Some of us working the frontlines are put in charge of eighteen plus (not exactly ideal). We have to come up with our own way of managing.
Regardless, there's usually a reason we have a chain of command, action plans, and standard operating procedures (SOPs). The point is to trust the process.
Additionally, if your boss is incompetent and/or an idiot, certainly feel free to update your resume and apply for other jobs. At the very least you're sharpening the saw (Covey. 1989). Regardless, we've got to do the right thing for ourselves, our family, and our community. That's all that matters (in my humble opinion).
A rule of thumb we’ve observed is to base your max direct report number on the number of weekly 1on1 meetings you can practically maintain. But your industry might not do weekly 1on1 meetings at all? So getting creative is probably typical with 18 plus?
If I can offer some advice - 1) make sure people are subject to more than one change every year or so if you can. And 2) if you layered any high performers, schedule monthly skip level check-ins.
When you’ve done or recommended these monthly skip level meetings with high performers… is it something you project doing on a limited time frame that will sunset?
I don’t sunset them for high performers. They may not always be a 1:1, but I find ways to stay connected to them through projects or special task forces.
I've never heard it termed 'being layered', but I kind of like it. It's less judgemental and assumptive than demoted, which has all sorted of negative connotations. Being layered seems neutral and has the potential to be simply about too many reports. I'll use this in the future because demoted creates a whole heap of pain! Thanks
Good morning,
When I ask individuals with empirical experience and self-awareness how many people can they successfully manage? The answer is usually between five and eight individuals. Some of us working the frontlines are put in charge of eighteen plus (not exactly ideal). We have to come up with our own way of managing.
Regardless, there's usually a reason we have a chain of command, action plans, and standard operating procedures (SOPs). The point is to trust the process.
Additionally, if your boss is incompetent and/or an idiot, certainly feel free to update your resume and apply for other jobs. At the very least you're sharpening the saw (Covey. 1989). Regardless, we've got to do the right thing for ourselves, our family, and our community. That's all that matters (in my humble opinion).
Thank you for your time.
A rule of thumb we’ve observed is to base your max direct report number on the number of weekly 1on1 meetings you can practically maintain. But your industry might not do weekly 1on1 meetings at all? So getting creative is probably typical with 18 plus?
If I can offer some advice - 1) make sure people are subject to more than one change every year or so if you can. And 2) if you layered any high performers, schedule monthly skip level check-ins.
When you’ve done or recommended these monthly skip level meetings with high performers… is it something you project doing on a limited time frame that will sunset?
I don’t sunset them for high performers. They may not always be a 1:1, but I find ways to stay connected to them through projects or special task forces.
I've never heard it termed 'being layered', but I kind of like it. It's less judgemental and assumptive than demoted, which has all sorted of negative connotations. Being layered seems neutral and has the potential to be simply about too many reports. I'll use this in the future because demoted creates a whole heap of pain! Thanks
I am at the other side of this equation... I was the added layer to the org.
An opportunity for me to develop/prove management skills and dedicate more time to the people.
It proved a mixed experience. I concur that open communication is key to get to the bottom of it.