> "one objective is to reduce layers of management"
This seems a common theme: even in a company like Microsoft that takes pains to emphasize and support the IC track in addition to management there is a tendency towards creating layers that end up reducing agility.
Maybe it's just an excuse though. I am surprised they announced the 3% rather than just accomplishing it with attrition and slowing hiring. Maybe it looks smart to stockholders so they want the attention.
I know it's definitely been a theme in every org I've worked in. Higher level manager is unable to attend all meetings, so spawns a new lower level manager. Repeat. Then you're left with a hierarchy that is more about meeting attendance than actual enabling/planning/accountability, where having project leads would probably work just as well.
This seems a common theme: even in a company like Microsoft that takes pains to emphasize and support the IC track in addition to management there is a tendency towards creating layers that end up reducing agility.
Maybe it's just an excuse though. I am surprised they announced the 3% rather than just accomplishing it with attrition and slowing hiring. Maybe it looks smart to stockholders so they want the attention.