One manager for 5.6 workers

  canarieslover 13:42 01 Feb 2010

As admirable as it is that our County Council are reducing their headcount of managers I fail to see how they needed so many in the first place. click here On current figures it works out at one manager for 5.6 workers and even when the dust settles there will still be a manager for every 7.75 workers. No company that I have ever worked for in manufacturing has ever had that few heads per manager, and I include foremen in management. Are council workers unable to think for themselves and need that many managers or is it too much paperwork, or, heaven forbid, the result of empire building???

  peter99co 19:47 01 Feb 2010

Is Manager a name for the a team leader and it is the name Manager just to give the person some prestige instead of a decent wage.

  Snec 20:06 01 Feb 2010

Of Course. Spot On.

  Snec 20:13 01 Feb 2010

But as FE would say, that is (an understanding of)) human nature.

  morddwyd 08:12 02 Feb 2010

"team leader"

I think your "management speak" is a bit out of date.

Isn't it now a "focus group co-ordinator"?

  Pine Man 11:37 02 Feb 2010

I would have thought that it was entirely reasonable to have one first line supervisor for every 5.6 workers.

  T0SH 18:04 02 Feb 2010

I think you will find this refers to only those in the lowest levels of management, the senior management layers will still remain intact to carry on the tradition of employing more and more managers to look after less and less workers and provide less and less services

Cheers HC

  karmgord 18:47 02 Feb 2010

The phrase
"Too many chiefs not enough Indians"
springs to mind.

  dms_05 09:36 03 Feb 2010

Or maybe too many Chiefs and too many Indians.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Sea of Thieves Review

Dell Canvas review: the cheap Wacom Cintiq alternative

How to use iMovie for Mac, tips and more

Comment filmer l’écran d’un iPhone ?