Twitter’s new CEO announces major reorganization
washingtonpost.com
Twitter’s new CEO announces major reorganization
1–10 of 89 posts
Re: Twitter’s new CEO announces major reorganization
#2> The changes include moving to a "General Manager model" for teams in the product and technology organizations, which will mean having one person lead the work in those divisions. "This will allow us to operate more cross-functionally and enable faster, more informed decision-making," the spokesperson added.
In other words:
We now have an Overseer role. Individual contributions no longer matter to management. Overseers will ensure the company's decisions are followed through at every level of employment. Now even the design teams will 'be on board' with the changes, or be gone.
No more dissent. No more questioning of the leadership. No more discussions.
The Overseer's word is law, people!
Re: Twitter’s new CEO announces major reorganization
#3> The changes include moving to a "General Manager model" for teams in the product and technology organizations, which will mean having one person lead the work in those divisions. "This will allow us to operate more cross-functionally and enable faster, more informed decision-making," the spokesperson added. In other words: We now have an Overseer role. Individual contributions no longer matter to management. Overse…
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Twitter employees are getting a taste of what has been dished out on Twitter users for years.
Re: Twitter’s new CEO announces major reorganization
#4The URL should be changed to cite the Wapo's story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/12/03/twitter...
Re: Twitter’s new CEO announces major reorganization
#5> The changes include moving to a "General Manager model" for teams in the product and technology organizations, which will mean having one person lead the work in those divisions. "This will allow us to operate more cross-functionally and enable faster, more informed decision-making," the spokesperson added. In other words: We now have an Overseer role. Individual contributions no longer matter to management. Overse…
As a sidenote, "This will allow us to operate more cross-functionally and enable faster, more informed decision-making," is just completely devoid of substance. Do the people crafting these corporate statements actually believe that people don’t see straight through them? Nobody is going to read this and think, “Oh, thank god, they’ve assured us that the change isn’t going to communication worse and decision-making less informed, this is good stuff!”
Re: Twitter’s new CEO announces major reorganization
#6Contrast to Apple, which uses a fully functional model: https://hbr.org/2020/11/how-apple-is-organized-for-innovatio...
I find this evolution fascinating. It makes sense to me that the GM model worked for so long. If much of a company's advantages were cultural, you could put together teams that could out-compete startups within a large organization. Procter and Gamble needs to enter new markets with new products to grow -- there's only so big a market for soap or razors or drills.
But lots of tech companies today have a significant scale advantage. Google ads is most of their revenue; Netflix has a single product. Functional expertise that drives a 2% gain across the entire business is possible and valuable.
So ... why does Twitter want to go to a GM model? Are they watching Meta have success diversifying from Facebook? Or is there something else?
Re: Twitter’s new CEO announces major reorganization
#7> The changes include moving to a "General Manager model" for teams in the product and technology organizations, which will mean having one person lead the work in those divisions. "This will allow us to operate more cross-functionally and enable faster, more informed decision-making," the spokesperson added. In other words: We now have an Overseer role. Individual contributions no longer matter to management. Overse…
Many larger b2b companies operate with a GM model. Why? Their businesses are a portfolio of products that essentially need a CEO rather than a PM. True P&L accountability and control.
Different products within the company will have different needs at different times. Without a GM the Twitter Blue team ends up head to head with the Ads team during planning, and you can guess who wins.
Small products will get overly influential GMs who can move mountains within the company to get them what they need. It's less overlord and more political air cover, if done right.
GMs are almost always the first to get fired as well. It's a sort of end-stage of your career at a company. Few GMs can become CEO, so once you take that GM role you are on borrowed time.
Re: Twitter’s new CEO announces major reorganization
#8I know little about how Twitter works, but it's interesting that a new leader would make such sweeping changes just a few days into the job. Usually, you would want at least a little time viewing and understanding the org from your new job/perspective before changing anything major.
It sort of implies a CEO decision coming from solely a CTO perspective.
Re: Twitter’s new CEO announces major reorganization
#9Contrast to Apple, which uses a fully functional model: https://hbr.org/2020/11/how-apple-is-organized-for-innovatio... I find this evolution fascinating. It makes sense to me that the GM model worked for so long. If much of a company's advantages were cultural, you could put together teams that could out-compete startups within a large organization. Procter and Gamble needs to enter new markets with new products to…
Netflix isn’t quite a single product anymore. They have a huge studio/content arm who likely knows or cares very little about the streaming side - and there are several of them per continent. From a consumer perspective, it may come off as one company though.
Re: Twitter’s new CEO announces major reorganization
#10I know little about how Twitter works, but it's interesting that a new leader would make such sweeping changes just a few days into the job. Usually, you would want at least a little time viewing and understanding the org from your new job/perspective before changing anything major. It sort of implies a CEO decision coming from solely a CTO perspective.
In the reality we have no idea how long this has been planned already. Another name just takes responsibility from that.