Span of Control

Recently we tackled an organizational design project. This particular project, like most, included determining the appropriate organizational shape.

Organizational shape is exactly what it sounds like – if you're looking at an org chart. People talk about flat organizations, tall organizations, etc. A flat organization is one that has a lot of direct reports for every manager, and a tall one has fewer. If you're staring at an org chart, you can see the difference in the “shape” of the chart, a rough triangle with the head of the organization at the top.

The number of direct reports a manager has is that manager's span of control.


So what's the appropriate span of control for an organization? As an economist would say, it depends.

There is no absolutely correct answer, and four variables should be considered. The rule of thumb is that 6-8 directs is about right for most managers in organization, and if someone asks you, that's the “right” answer.

Here are the four variables: the process, consistency of the managed roles, capacity of the manager, and capacity of the direct reports.

The first consideration is the process. Before looking at the org chart, look at the process. Learn what it is that you're trying to accomplish and deliver, what inputs are necessary, and what needs to happen to move from the inputs to the deliverable. Humans are an input (could have written laborer/worker/people, but like the word “humans”), and those inputs need to be managed.

With the knowledge of how many people are needed, consider the consistency of the managed roles. The more similar the roles being managed, the greater the span of control can be. In many sales organizations, the roles being managed are remarkably similar: sell products X and Y to target market Z, and use these tools to do so. In organizations like this, a manager's span of control can be north of 50 directs. The manager can deliver the same message to all directs at the same time (sales conference), share changes and updates to product with the same emphases and messages (email blast, video message, handout). Communicating in the other direction is also homogenous: standard reports, standard feedback mechanisms, etc. Even compensation can be consistent throughout, usually based on some factor of sales, production, etc. Everything the manager does is leveraged across the entire group of direct reports, and everything the directs do is standardized and condensed to make the manager more effective. This flattened the org chart considerably.

However, if the roles being managed are a mix, say scientist, engineer, sales professional, and physician, the manager cannot package the messages around product the same way. Also, the manager will spend more time delegating and assigning function-specific tasks – and aggregating and synthesizing the information on the back end as well. Separate meetings for all but the highest level conversations are likely appropriate, since the scientist and the sales professional will be engaged in different activities, deliver different value, etc.

Next is the capacity of the manager. If the manager is fluent across the disciplines of the direct report team and manages complexity well, then there is likely capacity to manage a larger span of control. If the manager is new to leadership or tends to be siloed in thinking, then a smaller span of control is likely appropriate.

The onus is not only on the manager, however. If the directs are able to communicate with the manager in a consistent way, are able to position their messages, work, and the management of themselves in a way that highlights the manager's strengths, then a greater span of control may be appropriate. This type of relationship is only possible with a dedicated direct and a dedicated manager – and can be a great win for the organization as a whole.

With these four variables in mind, it's helpful to challenge your own assumptions about the organization at every step. You may find strength where it wasn't expected, and may also discover weakness in areas that you hadn't considered before.We didn't delve into group dynamics at all here, but a high performing team is one that can sometimes stand a few more members. We'll have to dig into that in another post – this one's getting a little long.

-Bryan