[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.22″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.8.1″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
Adapted from my newsletter, The Briefing<\/em>. Originally published March 18, 2019.<\/p>\n One C-suite exec I did some work for struggled with having 13 direct reports after coming to a high-tech company from a more traditional manufacturing business where she had managed 5. I say \u201cstruggled\u201d because she characterized it that way but also because just having regular 1:1s with 13 people took an inordinate amount of time and wasn\u2019t sustainable in a constantly-adapting, high-growth company. Were 13 too much? Too little? How would she know? How could her chief of staff influence her thinking?<\/p>\n The exec in the example above could minimize or eliminate regular 1:1\u2019s, just asking her directs to set up time when needed and articulating and enforcing some boundaries around what constitutes \u201cneeded.\u201d As Organizational Psychologist Adam Grant posted on LinkedIn this week:<\/i><\/p>\n <\/i> In the March issue of HBR<\/a>, physicist and entrepreneur Safi Bahcall argues that the ideal number of direct reports, what he calls management span, is ultimately a question of organization design and depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Specifically, if you\u2019re trying to build an organization that continuously innovates, flatter can be better, which means more directs.<\/p>\n <\/i> Of course, the term \u201cspan\u201d connotes span of control, as even Bahcall notes. With more and more holocracies coming online and fewer and fewer traditional, command-and-control structures that work in today\u2019s world, the game is changing. Honestly, I\u2019m not sure how much, or how quickly, because a lot of companies still operate with command-and-control hierarchies, but it\u2019s changing. And your answer to the question of how many probably depends on which type of organization you\u2019re in.<\/p>\n As Mike Myatt<\/a>, author of Hacking Leadership<\/em>, offers:<\/i><\/p>\n <\/i> What happened with the exec above? The exec\u2019s chief of staff, who had been watching a number of dynamics unfolding across the entire organization (changing needs, services from one department that multiple departments could benefit from, and multiple departments that had similar, redundant processes) posed a couple minor restructuring scenarios to the exec, which ultimately made sense for the organization to work more effectively and not just for the exec\u2019s \u201cstruggle.\u201d One of the scenarios reduced the total number of directs to 10, and that\u2019s the one the exec rolled out.<\/p>\n Email<\/a> or\u00a0call<\/a> me today if you or your exec need a thought partner in determining the right number – and funcctions – of direct reports.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Is your exec managing too many direct reports? How would you know? Explore some different approaches to span of control.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":1411,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":" Adapted from my newsletter, The Briefing<\/em>. Originally published March 18, 2019.<\/p> \u00a0<\/strong><\/p> One C-suite exec I did some work for struggled with having 13 direct reports after coming to a high-tech company from a more traditional manufacturing business where she had managed 5. I say \u201cstruggled\u201d because she characterized it that way but also because just having regular 1:1s with 13 people took an inordinate amount of time and wasn\u2019t sustainable in a constantly-adapting, high-growth company. Were 13 too much? Too little? How would she know? How could her chief of staff influence her thinking?<\/p> The exec in the example above could minimize or eliminate regular 1:1\u2019s, just asking her directs to set up time when needed and articulating and enforcing some boundaries around what constitutes \u201cneeded.\u201d As Organizational Psychologist Adam Grant posted on LinkedIn this week:<\/i><\/p> <\/i> In the March issue of HBR<\/a>, physicist and entrepreneur Safi Bahcall argues that the ideal number of direct reports, what he calls management span, is ultimately a question of organization design and depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Specifically, if you\u2019re trying to build an organization that continuously innovates, flatter can be better, which means more directs.<\/p> <\/i> Of course, the term \u201cspan\u201d connotes span of control, as even Bahcall notes. With more and more holocracies coming online and fewer and fewer traditional, command-and-control structures that work in today\u2019s world, the game is changing. Honestly, I\u2019m not sure how much, or how quickly, because a lot of companies still operate with command-and-control hierarchies, but it\u2019s changing. And your answer to the question of how many probably depends on which type of organization you\u2019re in.<\/p> As Mike Myatt<\/a>, author of Hacking Leadership<\/em>, offers:<\/i><\/p> <\/i> What happened with the exec above? The exec\u2019s chief of staff, who had been watching a number of dynamics unfolding across the entire organization (changing needs, services from one department that multiple departments could benefit from, and multiple departments that had similar, redundant processes) posed a couple minor restructuring scenarios to the exec, which ultimately made sense for the organization to work more effectively and not just for the exec\u2019s \u201cstruggle.\u201d One of the scenarios reduced the total number of directs to 10, and that\u2019s the one the exec rolled out.<\/p> Email<\/a> or\u00a0call<\/a> me today if you or your exec need a thought partner in determining the right number - and funcctions - of direct reports.<\/p>","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[114,41],"tags":[120,110,113,112,111],"class_list":["post-29450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-chief-of-staff","category-home-news","tag-ceo","tag-chiefofstaff","tag-pmp","tag-program-management","tag-project-management"],"yoast_head":"\nToo many managers value presence instead of performance. Let go of face time. Ask people to show up for collaborative work\u2014and let them do their individual work wherever and whenever they choose.<\/h5>\n
The questions about the number of direct reports is not unique to this exec. The topic has come up in our current Chief of Staff Mastermind Cohort as well as my research in the CoS role, generally.<\/p>\nNarrow spans (fewer average direct reports at each management level, or more total levels and a deeper hierarchy) aren\u2019t inherently worse than wide ones. Narrow is better if you want lower error rates and high operational excellence. Wider spans and looser controls are better for experimenting and developing loonshots and new technologies\u2026. Google\u2019s former head of engineering, Bill Coughran, once had 180 direct reports.<\/h5>\n
13 doesn\u2019t sound so bad in comparison, and it makes sense in the context of comparison between an innovative tech company and a more established traditional parts company.<\/p>\nI want leaders to think span of influence and awareness, to shift thinking from rigid structures to loose collaborative networks, and to think open source not proprietary.<\/h5>\n
The truth is, there are no 3-easy-steps to figuring out the right number of directs. As with a lot of things, it takes thoughtfulness, intentionality, and contextualization to know what a defensible number is (there is no \u201cright number\u201d).<\/p>\nToo many managers value presence instead of performance. Let go of face time. Ask people to show up for collaborative work\u2014and let them do their individual work wherever and whenever they choose.<\/h5>
The questions about the number of direct reports is not unique to this exec. The topic has come up in our current Chief of Staff Mastermind Cohort as well as my research in the CoS role, generally.<\/p>Narrow spans (fewer average direct reports at each management level, or more total levels and a deeper hierarchy) aren\u2019t inherently worse than wide ones. Narrow is better if you want lower error rates and high operational excellence. Wider spans and looser controls are better for experimenting and developing loonshots and new technologies\u2026. Google\u2019s former head of engineering, Bill Coughran, once had 180 direct reports.<\/h5>
13 doesn\u2019t sound so bad in comparison, and it makes sense in the context of comparison between an innovative tech company and a more established traditional parts company.<\/p>I want leaders to think span of influence and awareness, to shift thinking from rigid structures to loose collaborative networks, and to think open source not proprietary.<\/h5>
The truth is, there are no 3-easy-steps to figuring out the right number of directs. As with a lot of things, it takes thoughtfulness, intentionality, and contextualization to know what a defensible number is (there is no \u201cright number\u201d).<\/p>