Regarding protokol's first post in the Sticky Thread. I don't want to fill that thread with a discussion so here I am...
---
How does working with 2 managers suit you?
We only have one at a time. (Actually there are more than one manager, using "rotation" system and experience based, but only one at a time for the current project we are working on...) Just interested in how that could work as I've never experienced it myself. To me it sounds wierd to have 2 managers overlooking the progress as in gettnig along at all times...
Reason is that we are getting quite large, not very unlike your own work description and the discussion about adding more managers has been on the topic back and forth.
[Edited: Making it more public asked. Everyones input is of course interesting. --JAM]
How does >2 managers work out?
Moderator: General Moderators
How does >2 managers work out?
Last edited by JAM on Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
- feyd
- Neighborhood Spidermoddy
- Posts: 31559
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
- Location: Bothell, Washington, USA
although it wasn't directed at the general public, I do have some experience with multiple managers.
For the most part, I'd say they helped. They would work out designs and things with the different groups (programmers, artists, sound designers, music guys, voice over talent, publishers).. They would meet with the group managers, who would then toss stuff out to us. Every week we'd have a large group meeting with all the dev staff (programmers, artists, music and sound) where we'd discuss all the issues going on, current positions, and ETAs on finishing.
It was great in that we had 2 people we could bring issues to.. So while one was busy, the other typically wasn't so actively busy. That was great. Also, one would come in early, and the other would stay late, with a good amount of overlap. That helped when we went into crunch times a lot. Especially when something came up where we needed a decision.
This is in game development though.. so might not be too applicable.. but I thought I'd share.
For the most part, I'd say they helped. They would work out designs and things with the different groups (programmers, artists, sound designers, music guys, voice over talent, publishers).. They would meet with the group managers, who would then toss stuff out to us. Every week we'd have a large group meeting with all the dev staff (programmers, artists, music and sound) where we'd discuss all the issues going on, current positions, and ETAs on finishing.
It was great in that we had 2 people we could bring issues to.. So while one was busy, the other typically wasn't so actively busy. That was great. Also, one would come in early, and the other would stay late, with a good amount of overlap. That helped when we went into crunch times a lot. Especially when something came up where we needed a decision.
This is in game development though.. so might not be too applicable.. but I thought I'd share.
...
Two managers:
Good sides: Mentioned by Feyd above.
Also to add - those two heads if combined - have twice as many knowledge so you could learn something from them. And you ( workers ) can talk to your managers about how the job is best organised ( taking in account you and their deadlines and objectives - plan together, much better way of working )
Bad sides: each one wants to look better in the eyes of his boss, which means he/she will have to have extraordinary results, which off course you as his personell will have to achieve ( within your regular salary and working time ). And off course the other manager will not tolerate for that - so just double the text I'w written
. And last but not least when you get instructions from one and 30 minutes comes other and tells you to drop the work the first did and work his way.
Why am I writing this?
In case this happens there is a way to fight back:
Find either their boss, all of you ( workers ) together go to him and tell them what the situation is - off course, some evidence must be gathered before.
The second way is if the company has some in-house sector that deals with these kind of things - so do the same as with boss of the boss tehnique.
And the absolutly last measure would be to threat to ruin the company's reputation in public ( news papers, specialised tv - shows for that industry, bad word-of-mouth amongst the consumers, silent strikes ( sit in the firm but not work at needed output ) ... at the end, in the firm there are usualy 5 - 500 employees and only 1 - 5 managers, so to beat them is not so impossible if nececary.
Hope this helps !
Good sides: Mentioned by Feyd above.
Also to add - those two heads if combined - have twice as many knowledge so you could learn something from them. And you ( workers ) can talk to your managers about how the job is best organised ( taking in account you and their deadlines and objectives - plan together, much better way of working )
Bad sides: each one wants to look better in the eyes of his boss, which means he/she will have to have extraordinary results, which off course you as his personell will have to achieve ( within your regular salary and working time ). And off course the other manager will not tolerate for that - so just double the text I'w written
Why am I writing this?
In case this happens there is a way to fight back:
Find either their boss, all of you ( workers ) together go to him and tell them what the situation is - off course, some evidence must be gathered before.
The second way is if the company has some in-house sector that deals with these kind of things - so do the same as with boss of the boss tehnique.
And the absolutly last measure would be to threat to ruin the company's reputation in public ( news papers, specialised tv - shows for that industry, bad word-of-mouth amongst the consumers, silent strikes ( sit in the firm but not work at needed output ) ... at the end, in the firm there are usualy 5 - 500 employees and only 1 - 5 managers, so to beat them is not so impossible if nececary.
Hope this helps !
Re: ...
It was intended for everyone, feyd, no need to be shy at all. ;)
Interesting, as allways for me when it comes to others work situations. Thanks for the input.
We use a sort of rotation system among ourselves for those interested to manage different projects due to the fact that we are so much alike. Might sound wierd, but it works very well. It also brings the "Me, boss - You, worker" thoughts down to a limit aswell so to speak.
But surely a multible managers situation requires a managers-manager?
Interesting, as allways for me when it comes to others work situations. Thanks for the input.
I see your point, but that however does not appy to our particular enviroment. We are all "alike" more or less. I might know more than the current manager for the current project, but i concentrate on creating as she concentrates on managing (hence the work title).Calimero wrote:Also to add - those two heads if combined - have twice as many knowledge so you could learn something from them. And you ( workers ) can talk to your managers about how the job is best organised ( taking in account you and their deadlines and objectives - plan together, much better way of working )
We use a sort of rotation system among ourselves for those interested to manage different projects due to the fact that we are so much alike. Might sound wierd, but it works very well. It also brings the "Me, boss - You, worker" thoughts down to a limit aswell so to speak.
But surely a multible managers situation requires a managers-manager?
- feyd
- Neighborhood Spidermoddy
- Posts: 31559
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
- Location: Bothell, Washington, USA
Re: ...
This depends greatly on their personalities and the likelihood of a conflict between personell on these issues. There should be a manager above them, but that'd be only a small part of his job. From my places of work, the managers-manager is the president, or rather, executive of that division/group/what-have-you. He acts as counselor for anyone having issues with anyone below him. He'll listen to any concerns you have, or ideas for helping the company. He also interfaces with the clients a lot. So in reality, he's probably already existing at your company.. unless you guys are fairly small..JAM wrote:But surely a multible managers situation requires a managers-manager?
Re: ...
Yah, he's there, the division executive. But, between us here, I don't see him as a managar for me or my coworkers...feyd wrote:So in reality, he's probably already existing at your company.. unless you guys are fairly small..
But don't tell anyone...
...
Well, as said: expiriences are many, so the talk could lead to a new book ( and maybe some cash
)
Managers manager: As Feyd said - don't use it exept as a last resort to trow down your slayer ( manager ), or if maybe you want to take his place - career must always be in mind when adressing high-level chief's
As I completed ( almost ) these damn studies of management and 'm becoming u full-bread manager - I have one request ( although dont take me as a rude person ): Blaber later, real problems and situations now - so to save everyones time and make it usefull.
Thats all for me now - off to create a PC-like humanoid - to resemble me - so I start hating it from my guts
Hmmm, women at the wheel: That must be great management ( and motivation to outperform yourself again and again )but i concentrate on creating as she concentrates on managing
Managers manager: As Feyd said - don't use it exept as a last resort to trow down your slayer ( manager ), or if maybe you want to take his place - career must always be in mind when adressing high-level chief's
As I completed ( almost ) these damn studies of management and 'm becoming u full-bread manager - I have one request ( although dont take me as a rude person ): Blaber later, real problems and situations now - so to save everyones time and make it usefull.
Thats all for me now - off to create a PC-like humanoid - to resemble me - so I start hating it from my guts