Need Advise on Management approach 2 to 1's vs. 1 to 1's

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'segregate the group'?

I worked in a team structured the way you suggested to your manager.  I was in the role of the Lead and the relatively more junior folks reported in to me.  Then myself and the other senior team members reported into the Senior Lead.  The overall size of the group was similar to the size of yours, and our structure was put in place also following a restructuring.

We did not do 2 on Ones, I did one on ones for the members in my team and my manager did one on ones for me and his other directs.  We had an overall group meeting once a week which my directs and my manager's directs all attended. 

As the Lead and Manager, I was directly responsible for my directs which included all the normal activities from hiring / firing / developing / performance reviews etc.

The overall team worked well together and we achieved good results.  We also were all located in the same area.  Given what I've seen work, I'd suggest re-opening the line of discussion with your manager about the structure and re-examine why you feel this might segregate the team.  And depending on how you are defining this, what could be done to mitigate it. 

In my experience 13 directs is a lot of directs to have reporting into one person. 

Do not do 2 O3s.  You should do them with your directs, your lead should do them with hers. 

You have a good opportunity to take a clean pass at the team assignments.  I suggest work with your lead and deciding together what break out best meets the business needs your team is there to provide.  Here are some angles to consider:

• How collaborative is the work?  If several folks need to work for days or weeks on one assignment, does it make sense to have them all report to the same manager (either you or your lead).
• How independent is each person?  The more involvement they need from their manager to do their job, the more likely they are to be a fit for your leads team vs. your own.  You have more responsibility outside your team, so you need to be able to delegate harder tasks than your lead should need to.
• What type of development do they need?  What areas are you likely to coach them on and give feedback on?  Does this sway the team decision one vs. the other?
• What are the personal dynamics of the members?  Do certain team members perform better with others?  Are there any combinations that you know will be problematic?
• How will you manage the overall team?  Will you treat it as 1 big team (team meetings with all 13, one work queue for everyone, etc)?  Will they feel like 2 different teams vs. 1 department with different managers?  This will impact the culture of the teams and how "segregated" folks feel.  I am not suggesting a right or wrong approach here, just listing it as a factor to consider.
• Is there potential for another lead?  Is there someone you will be grooming for a potential lead?  They should be reporting to you out of the gate.  Should you consider adding another lead to the mix?

There are probably more considerations, but that is all I can think of at the moment.  The only consideration that I would not put any weight in is "who do they report to now".

As long as your direct has an opportunity to shape the new structure, she should buy in and support you.

Hope that helps.

Mike

I can't be sure, because I don't quite understand the group you're leading.  What do you mean by both of you having supervisory roles?  It sounds like everyone reports to you (if I have that wrong, please say so).  If that's the case, what does the less senior lead do?  

If everyone reports to you, we recommend you do one on ones and the other lead not do them.

We definitely don't recommend 2 on 1's, which we define as 2 managers with one direct (or vice versa) AT THE SAME TIME.

Mark

I am in the US Navy, and we generally have a similar setup.  At the junior officer levels, division officers (usually 21-25 years old and straight out of school) manage a division.  Technically, they have a single direct report, the leading chief petty officer (LCPO), who is a seasoned enlisted technician, with anywhere from 10-20 years of experience, including 7-17 years of graudating experience in leading junior enlisted.  The LCPO will then have a leading petty officer (LPO) who supervises 2-4 work centers (each with its own supervisor).  This is somewhat similar to the standard Army setup of a platoon commander (2nd lieutenant) with a platoon seargent and three squads.  Clearly an O3 between the division officer and the LCPO is appropriate.  How about for the LPO - is this just the LCPO and the LPO, or are there two O3's?

At a higher level, a ship's captain normally has an executive officer (XO).  The XO is senior to the five to seven department heads, and although the department heads directly report to the captain, the XO is responsible to the captain for "execution" and therefore has positional authority and supervisory responsiblity over the department heads.  In practice, department heads go through the XO for all personnel, planning, and routine matters, and go directly to the captain in urgent matters, though they need to backfill the XO.  The XO prepares, but the captain signs the department heads' annual evaluations.  So should the captain and XO team up for O3's with the department heads, should they each have separate O3's (so two for each department head), or should the captain leave department head O3's to the XO?

Just to beat the dead horse, I've seen that many DOD contract teams are similarly run.  A contract lead is the manager, responsible for strategic direction and is the final decision maker, but there is also an "operations manager" or similarly titled person who reports to the contract lead, and manages the day-to-day execution of the contract.  Individual contractors or small-team leads report to the operations manager for the execution of tasking, but to the contract lead as their boss.  Same question, who does the O3's?

Sorry for the long post; I thought the details may be important.  In any case, these scenarios struck me as very similar to Keith's.