[throwaway2847]

My company did a big round of layoffs and it was pretty revealing that not a single director or above were laid off. Despite reduced headcount, the org chart got DEEPER in some cases. For all the talk of bloat in the tech world, nobody wants to point fingers at directors who have little to do but schedule very expensive meetings with the directors under them.

[Mountain_Skies]

Reminds me of a company I worked for where we up staffed to sixty people plus five managers in my department. Then a recession hit and after two rounds of layoffs, there were fifteen workers left and still five managers. Not only did those of us left have an increased workload, but now had to deal with endless bike shedding by the managers, all of whom wanted to be able to put their name on whatever we were working on, probably because they were scared of what would happen if there was a round three of layoffs. Round three never came and eventually hiring freezes were lifted, but it was really annoying dealing with all the useless petty changes that were pushed on our work during that time so the management layer could look like they were doing something.

[pembrook]

The managerial class looting public companies for outsized compensation while taking near-zero risk, is a huge problem in the modern economy.

Being a steward of an already-giant company...one that has product-market fit, reliable sales/distribution channels, household brand awareness, and a position of gravity in the markets...is infinitely easier than building something from scratch.

Nobody who was employee #1567 should ever be granted $10M+ of equity in a business they didn't build.

It's quite literally stealing from public investors, and boards only enable this because they're incestuously composed of fellow managerial-club members.

[robocat]

> The managerial class looting public companies for outsized compensation while taking near-zero risk, is a huge problem in the modern economy.

From the public’s point-of-view, the “software class” are looting the public: outsized compensation for a risk of say 2% (20% fired over ten years).

Nobody who was employee #13370 should ever be granted $100k+ of equity in a business they didn't build.

I’m being sarcastic: but so many arguments against the “managerial class” can equally be made against the wealthy privileged software engineers earning $X00k (including stock options/RSUs etcetera).

[gwright]

> The managerial class looting public companies for outsized compensation while taking near-zero risk, is a huge problem in the modern economy.

Has it ever not been a problem? In any type of economy? In any type of company? Seems like this a human nature problem and not a "modern economy" problem.

[prettychill]

Agree. I guess it's self preservation - managers decide who is laid off and are more likely to believe it's the ICs who are unproductive, not the many tiers of middle management who do nothing quantifiable.

Quite hilariously engineers are going to be measured by "productive commits" soon, but I saw no guidance created to measure how managers are providing value

[dangwhy]

Meta seems to be flattenning the org and mark has publicly clamied that he doesn't doesn't managers of managers and will lay them off next round.

[peoplearepeople]

How many levels of management is the target? It somewhat caps organization size unless you want someone to have a comical number of direct reports

[xadhominemx]

Seems like something specific to your company. A lot of large companies have flattened their org structures in this round of layoffs.

[stronglikedan]

> directors who have little to do

That's not the director's problem, so why would anyone point the finger at them? Competent directors have a lot to do, albeit mostly behind the scenes to the average employee. If they don't have a lot to do, then the problem is up the chain.