I’m a E6 PM for two unrelated teams each with pretty large scope. This leads to a lot of operational overhead(basically all meetings are 2x’d), constant context switching and feeling like I’m never giving each one sufficient attention. Couple of questions for the community: a) I’m increasingly convinced that this is inherently doomed to fail. Have you all seen successful examples of this? Or should I be talking to my manger about adding a buffer layer below me so each area can have a dedicated PM? b) Assuming I’m wrong and this *can* be done(in a sustainable way), what are some tactics or approaches you all would recommend? Thanks TC: 470
why not just have dedicated PM for each area? If teams aren’t related don’t see why they’d need a single leader
I would definitely try to get layered PMs to run each area. Could work your way toward it by layering only one team and you continuing to run the other. Assuming you can make a solid case for it, this could actually be a good opportunity to increase scope / make a play for direct reports.
Being a PM for 2 unrelated teams seems like red flag territory for the Org.
What org is this ?
India
8h
544
Why Worshipping Lord Ram Important in Hinduism?
New York
7h
566
Real talk: in what way private schools are better than public in nyc?
Personal Finance
Yesterday
1509
IRS Warns Thousands of Taxpayers They Could Face Jail Time
Tech Industry
Yesterday
514
Do we really need Product Managers? 🧐
Tech Industry
3h
710
Racism towards Indians
You need some direct reports