By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 27 March 2012
Edit Thread
Stefl1504 said:
theprof00 said:

Look, the problem with Playstation the past many years is sole accountability to one man.

One person cannot make all the decisions for all of Playstation.

You need one person to have several directors that report to him all capable of making management decisions. Then each of those have their own subordinates making decisions for each branch. Every head should be able to make the right decisions and break up the work among more people. Basically, each had is a visionary. Each visionary is hired by the president based on his own vision.

Breaking up vita and playstation is a smart move because it allows more focus to be given on each. One person simply cannot run both effectively.


It just feels like a lot of companies have a too big upper management and completely forget about middle management, or if they have middle management they don't let them make some decisions but rather make them in the upper management and then just delegate. Every layer of management in a company should be free to make certain decision, of course you can't let the middle management make strategic decisions, but short term decisions should be able to be made by them and sometimes it should be in the hands of the middle management on how to put the plans into reality (of course with guidance from the upper-management).

Now puting the Vita and PlayStation 3 in two separate is fine, but the "Online Service" and "First Party Developement" department do sound a lot like a section below top management, but the article makes it sound like its going to be a major departmet (which I can kind of understand with Online Service)...

I just get the feeling that they are wasting money needlesly on new departments... in my opinion they should trim the upper-management and top-management, put it on a intelligent organised middle management base. Now I don't know how exactly Sony is organised since I have never seen one of their organizational charts... but it seems like their are only trimming down the top-management but broaden the upper management... which is just wrong... trim down both or expand both and looking at Sonys overall financial situation, I don't think they are in a position to hire more personnel for management positions and throw money at them...

I think they did not make an optimal decision, but like I said, I don't know how they are exactly structurised... so I might very well be wrong with my opinion...

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

If there is more upper management, by default there must be also more middle management.

If you take one head, and say 3 directors under him, and then 5 directors under each of those, and then split it into 2 heads, you must also provide those heads with their own directors and middle management.

Oftentimes, a president and vice president will also have an upper level manager doing exactly what they do.

I would imagine they took the head, split it into two, creating a new VP, and are likely creating new middle management.

When my company took Admin and split it into Admin and HR, they created three new positions. Payroll administrator, Accounts Payable administrator, HR assistant. Those are all middle management, and created a new director role, the HR area director. Before, the HR assistant and the Director assistant was the same person, me. Now, I report only to the Area Director, and not to HR.

Now, as the administrator, I don't have to make decisions for both HR and Admin, just admin. This improves my work quality and reduces my workload, allowing me to focus on the administration level processes.