Joshua, thanks a lot! I work with and in organisation of 10 up to a few hundred. That's why some layers, etc. weren't relevant to me until now. I can fully support two things in this article from experience:
* The Ratios are important! Being PM-Heavy creates an overhead, often a pulling in differing strategic direction and is thereby making complex situations worse!
* Keep it flat! there is no need for I-shaped organisations - especially if it only about promoting people so there is an excuse to pay them more than others!
**Being “PM heavy” or worse, “PM-manager-heavy,” means you have folks churning out ideas that you don’t have the people to build. Avoid this if you can.**
So true! (and I'm a PM!)
I've seen a similar dysfunction with program manager ratio -- too many people inventing process you don't need/slicing up initiatives into smaller programs and then failing on cross-coordination. Would love your take on the ratio for key roles like program/project management and design.
Hi Joshua, thanks for posting, I think there are some good points but also some troubling ideas in what you are sharing. I have spent 30+ years in tech myself and have worked almost every position up to VP for world-class brand name companies and bootstrapping startups. Here are my thoughts; your article is very qualitative, and you are not backing any of your suggestions with good references or data, only personal opinions or experience. You are also mirroring old models and we keep copying broken code. In management, I would suggest much smaller tiger teams, 5-6 max, after that point, it quickly becomes unwieldy to effectively build a high-performing team. The manager-senior manager - director - senior director- vp model is so bloated and dead. Half the time the top-level management is very out of touch with what is going on at the front lines and they are spending all their time operating in the same circles as their peers, they need to be in high contact with their teams on the plant floor. Organizations should be much flatter to have effective communication and quick decision-making - many small teams with managers > 1-3 high-performing directors (if you go past 4 something is very wrong) > 1-2 killer VPs. Cut the cruft and eliminate the excess directors, the senior managers and senior directors, you are just creating a very bloated organization. There are at least a couple of things needed to back this optimization - a good organizational framework, a supportive non-tribunal environment that encourages transparency and communication, standardized seamless high-frequency clear channels for naturally communicating state, continuous revision and improvement to how teams are working the list goes on... We don't need highly technical managers; we need good quality managers who understand their mission and are good at getting people to execute. Managers are the bread and butter of getting your work done, to often left to support the game of telephone to the elongated management chain. The number of organizations I have seen where the management chain is bloated and appears out of touch with the state of their business is ridiculous, I would say it has been 8 out of 10. Businesses continue to adopt aging broken models and expect them to perform, we need to be agents for change.
What's the definition of "early stages" of a product when 1:1 PM to engineer ratio is considered, and how is it different from Early Life Shipped Products when 1:7 to 1:10 is more acceptable?
love it. I Feel seen. Another problem with junior going beyond 30%, besides onboarding, increases what I call the institutional senior engineers. Those promoted from within with little actual experience in the field.
Joshua, thanks a lot! I work with and in organisation of 10 up to a few hundred. That's why some layers, etc. weren't relevant to me until now. I can fully support two things in this article from experience:
* The Ratios are important! Being PM-Heavy creates an overhead, often a pulling in differing strategic direction and is thereby making complex situations worse!
* Keep it flat! there is no need for I-shaped organisations - especially if it only about promoting people so there is an excuse to pay them more than others!
**Being “PM heavy” or worse, “PM-manager-heavy,” means you have folks churning out ideas that you don’t have the people to build. Avoid this if you can.**
So true! (and I'm a PM!)
I've seen a similar dysfunction with program manager ratio -- too many people inventing process you don't need/slicing up initiatives into smaller programs and then failing on cross-coordination. Would love your take on the ratio for key roles like program/project management and design.
Hi Joshua, thanks for posting, I think there are some good points but also some troubling ideas in what you are sharing. I have spent 30+ years in tech myself and have worked almost every position up to VP for world-class brand name companies and bootstrapping startups. Here are my thoughts; your article is very qualitative, and you are not backing any of your suggestions with good references or data, only personal opinions or experience. You are also mirroring old models and we keep copying broken code. In management, I would suggest much smaller tiger teams, 5-6 max, after that point, it quickly becomes unwieldy to effectively build a high-performing team. The manager-senior manager - director - senior director- vp model is so bloated and dead. Half the time the top-level management is very out of touch with what is going on at the front lines and they are spending all their time operating in the same circles as their peers, they need to be in high contact with their teams on the plant floor. Organizations should be much flatter to have effective communication and quick decision-making - many small teams with managers > 1-3 high-performing directors (if you go past 4 something is very wrong) > 1-2 killer VPs. Cut the cruft and eliminate the excess directors, the senior managers and senior directors, you are just creating a very bloated organization. There are at least a couple of things needed to back this optimization - a good organizational framework, a supportive non-tribunal environment that encourages transparency and communication, standardized seamless high-frequency clear channels for naturally communicating state, continuous revision and improvement to how teams are working the list goes on... We don't need highly technical managers; we need good quality managers who understand their mission and are good at getting people to execute. Managers are the bread and butter of getting your work done, to often left to support the game of telephone to the elongated management chain. The number of organizations I have seen where the management chain is bloated and appears out of touch with the state of their business is ridiculous, I would say it has been 8 out of 10. Businesses continue to adopt aging broken models and expect them to perform, we need to be agents for change.
Hey Joshua, your knowledge of and thoughtfulness about bureaucratic structures is impressive! I have 2 things I'm wondering.
1 Could you please explain the difference between org health and org effectiveness more explicitly? This didn't sink in for me.
2 More so I'm really intrigued to know if you have a take on completely different org designs like holacracy, self-management or even DAOs?
What's the definition of "early stages" of a product when 1:1 PM to engineer ratio is considered, and how is it different from Early Life Shipped Products when 1:7 to 1:10 is more acceptable?
Hello!
I’m curious, do you have golden rules around organization of research (design, market, UX, etc.) in this space?
Thank you?
love it. I Feel seen. Another problem with junior going beyond 30%, besides onboarding, increases what I call the institutional senior engineers. Those promoted from within with little actual experience in the field.