“Span of control”, or simply, the number of direct reports a manager or leader has, often generates confusion and debate.
Should this role have that many direct reports? Does it make sense?
Does this one have too few?
Should we set a target number across the company?
These are common questions when it comes to organizational design. But before trying to answer them, it’s important to understand why span of control matters.
Why is span of control important?
Across different areas and leadership levels, getting this number wrong can hurt performance.
If a leader has too many direct reports, it becomes difficult to offer the right level of guidance, coordination, and coaching. Performance might suffer, feedback can become inconsistent, and team members may feel adrift, wasting time, making avoidable mistakes, or heading in the wrong direction.
On the other hand, if a leader has too few direct reports, the structure might be inefficient. That leader could potentially handle a broader team, generate more impact, and delegate more effectively. Instead, they might end up doing work that others could take on, increasing the risk of micromanagement or underutilization.
Studies suggest that very narrow and wide spans can negatively impact employee experiences.
When do companies usually worry about span of control?
The topic tends to become especially relevant in certain situations. There are three in particular where it typically surfaces:
1. When there’s a strong push for efficiency and cost-cutting.
In these moments, it’s common for companies to assess spans of control in hopes of identifying areas where teams can be merged or layers of leadership removed. But as we’ll discuss later, this isn’t so simple; there’s no magic number or formula.
2. When teams are merging.
If the merger makes sense from a design standpoint, it’s legitimate to ask whether the resulting leader can realistically support the combined team.
One of the risks in these situations is that the pursuit of synergies leads to a structure with too many direct reports, ultimately jeopardizing performance.
3. During rapid growth.
Many growth pains are tied to spans of control: leaders who were once effective suddenly struggle to support and guide a larger or more complex team.
Anticipating these moments, or at the very least, avoiding late and reactive corrections, helps reduce stress across the organization and supports a smoother growth process.
In short, span of control is a crucial factor to examine any time an organizational restructuring is on the table.
But it must be considered within the broader logic of organizaitonal design. The structure must make sense first.
Span is about sizing. If the design logic is flawed, the sizing discussion is pointless.
Why is it hard to create a magic formula?
Determining the optimal number of direct reports is highly context-dependent. It’s shaped by the nature and complexity of the work, the team’s maturity and autonomy, the manager’s role and leadership style, among other factors.
Trying to force formulas or universal ranges across the entire organization is a losing game. Without a deep understanding of a leader’s responsibilities and the scope of work of the direct reports, it’s virtually impossible to make sound decisions.
Bottom line? Don’t go chasing a silver bullet. There’s no magic formula for the ideal span of control, only informed, case-by-case decisions.
Span of control is highly context-dependent
What makes span of control so complex is that it depends on a variety of factors unique to each team and leader.
For instance, a leader with seven direct reports might have capacity for two more, while another managing five might already be stretched too thin. The numbers alone don’t tell the full story.
Extremes can flag issues, but aren’t always red flags
Looking at the extremes, such as managers with fewer than three or more than fifteen direct reports, can help flag potential areas for review.
But even then, there may be valid reasons for those structures. It’s not always a sign that something is wrong. The real question is whether the structure supports performance, autonomy, and effective leadership.
Team maturity and work standardization play a major role
The level of team experience and the standardization of processes can dramatically affect the right span of control.
A group of experienced, high-autonomy professionals operating within well-structured processes typically needs less managerial involvement. In these cases, broader spans may be entirely appropriate.
On the other hand, newer teams, roles in flux, or environments with high variability require more hands-on guidance. In these situations, a narrower span doesn’t indicate inefficiency.
It reflects the leadership bandwidth genuinely needed to support team development and performance.
Local context matters more than it seems
Even when structures look similar on paper, copying designs across regions or countries can be risky. Local context, such as regulation, culture, market complexity, and team maturity, can drastically change what span of control makes sense.
It’s not hard to grasp: compare the operational overhead of running a company across Europe, with its many languages and regulatory frameworks, to doing business in the U.S.
Or consider the size of accounting teams in a complex tax environment like Brazil: it’s very likely to differ from what you’d need in countries with simpler systems.
No magic formula, only informed, context-specific decisions
Every span of control decision must be tailored to the specific reality of the leader, team, and environment. Without that, formulas and benchmarks will lead to poor conclusions.
There’s no shortcut: careful, context-driven thinking is the only reliable way to make sound span of control decisions.
Span of control: separating myths from reality
Before we get into how to define the right span of control, it’s worth clearing up a few common misconceptions.
Myth 1: Every manager should have 6–8 direct reports
Reality: That range might work in some contexts, but it overlooks several of the factors mentioned above, such as work complexity, leadership style, and specific team responsibilities.
Take, for example, commercial leaders focused on key accounts. They may carry their own high-touch portfolio and need a leaner team.
Meanwhile, a peer handling volume-based sales might be able to lead a much larger group, with less direct involvement.
Myth 2: A wider span always means more efficiency
Reality: In some cases, it means less support, more bottlenecks, and overloaded managers.
That leads to disengagement, burnout, and turnover, all of which disrupt operations and hurt performance in the long run.
Myth 3: Narrow spans are always bad (a sign of inefficiency)
Reality: This is the other angle of the previous myth: in some cases, narrow spans are intentional and necessary.
This happens, for instance, during early team formation, innovation phases, or in complex environments.
Myth 4: You can define the optimal span by benchmarking other companies
Reality: Every organization has its own structure, culture, and leadership model. Copy-pasting rarely works.
Over-relying on benchmarking is a common mistake when reviewing organizational structures (more information on this topic can be found in the article “6 Common Mistakes When Changing an Organizational Structure“).
While it’s helpful to gather reference points, those benchmarks need to be interpreted carefully and never used as a substitute for doing the work of assessing your own reality.
Myth 5: Span of control should be consistent across the company
Reality: Different functions (Sales, R&D, Operations, Support) often require very different spans based on the nature of their work.
This need to tailor span of control to different contexts reflects a broader insight from design thinking. As 37signals, a software company known for its clarity-driven approach to product and interface design, puts it: “Choose context over consistency,” or what they call “Intelligent Inconsistency.”
Originally applied to user experience, this principle translates well to organizational design: treating different cases differently isn’t a flaw. It’s often a sign of thoughtful, context-aware decisions.
Principles for defining the right span of control
Defining the right span requires following a few key principles and applying a structured approach. It’s not about using a formula, it’s about designing with intention.
Principle 1. It’s not about control, it’s about leverage
The goal of defining span isn’t simply to decide whether someone should “manage more or fewer people.” It’s about setting up the leader to add value where it matters most.
Span should reflect a thoughtful distribution of responsibilities across the team. One that allows the leader to focus their time and energy on what truly requires their judgment, support, or coordination.
The right span maximizes the leader’s effectiveness, not just fills a number on a chart.
A leader’s role and style also shape what span they can realistically sustain. Someone who’s hands-on and contributes directly to delivery (think tech leads or senior experts) may need a narrower span.
Meanwhile, someone whose primary focus is coaching and enabling others may support a larger team without sacrificing impact.
Principle 2. Context is everything
As mentioned earlier, span decisions are highly context-dependent, which is exactly why this needs to be a core principle.
Even similar roles in similar organizations can require different spans, depending on factors like team maturity, work complexity, and leadership expectations.
To make sound decisions, you need a deep understanding of the specific area in question. That includes the scope of work, how responsibilities are distributed across direct reports, and how the team actually operates day to day.
Without that context, any discussion about span of control will be superficial, and likely to lead to poor decisions.
Principle 3. Span is a design decision, not just a numeric one
You can’t adjust span of control in isolation. Every span decision should be made in the context of the broader organizational design, considering adjacent teams, key interfaces, and how work flows.
What may seem like a simple change can ripple through the structure and create misalignment if the design logic isn’t solid.
Span revisions should always be treated as part of a broader org design exercise, not as isolated headcount tweaks. They affect how work flows, how teams interact, and how leadership capacity is used across the system.
Also consider whether the leader is expected to contribute directly to business outcomes (e.g., managing key accounts, solving critical problems, leading negotiations).
That work may not involve their team, but it reduces the capacity to lead others, and should influence span decisions.
Principle 4. Not all spans are real: beware of inflated structures
Sometimes leaders are given 8–10 direct reports who function almost entirely independently, or who aren’t aligned to a logically integrated scope of work.
That span may look efficient on paper, but it doesn’t reflect actual leadership dynamics or create meaningful synergy.
These structures aren’t necessarily wrong, but they should be recognized for what they are. They often serve administrative, symbolic, or political purposes, not true managerial effectiveness.
Typical examples include:
- Cross-functional dotted-line reporting that’s formal but not real.
- Senior individual contributors grouped under a manager “for convenience”.
- Hybrid or matrix structures where the “manager” has no real oversight.
These setups shouldn’t be confused with effective team design and shouldn’t be used as evidence of a well-structured span of control.
By following these principles, you significantly increase your chances of making sound span of control decisions, especially when they’re applied in combination with the step-by-step approach that follows.
How to define the ideal span of control: a step-by-step approach
Once you understand that defining the span of control isn’t about applying a fixed number, the next step is to analyze the current setup, clearly and carefully, before jumping to solutions.
Here’s how:
Step 1. Clarify the scope of activities
Start by understanding the scope of the leader’s responsibilities.
- What is this person accountable for?
- What are the main responsibilities of the area as whole?
Then, go one level deeper: look at the team.
- What is each team member responsible for?
- How does each role contribute to the leader’s overall effectiveness?
- Where are they autonomous, and where do they rely on the leader’s involvement?
This will give you a clearer view of the work being done by the area, and how each direct report contributes to that collective scope.
Step 2. Estimate the leader’s time distribution
How much attention is each direct report currently receiving?
Think in terms of three key types of interaction:
- Orientation: Helping direct reports think, plan, grow, and make better decisions.
- Validation: Reviewing work, making decisions, ensuring quality.
- Coordination: Creating shared understanding across the team or with other parts of the organization.
Don’t just measure time spent in meetings. Consider the full investment: 1:1s, async reviews, chat messages, document feedback, etc.
Also factor in time spent on the leader’s individual responsibilities, such as managing key clients, contributing to cross-functional work, or directly owning strategic deliverables.
These demands reduce the leader’s available bandwidth to support their team, and must be part of the equation.
Step 3. Identify structural issues and opportunities
This is a critical point where it’s important to involve the team. Ask direct reports how things are working:
- Do they feel they’re getting the support and guidance they need?
- Are there gaps in clarity, development, or availability?
- Or, on the other end of the spectrum, is the leader overly involved or micromanaging?
It’s essential to assess this from both the leader’s and the team’s perspectives. Look for misalignments between how things are perceived and how they’re actually functioning.
Watch for signs like:
- Bottlenecks in decision-making
- Low value-added supervision
- Coordination issues with other teams
- Talented people being underused or overly dependent on the leader
Once this picture is clear, you can start exploring structural alternatives, such as adding or removing reports, splitting scopes, or redistributing responsibilities across the team.
At this point, the conversation shifts from span of control to organizational design, and it should follow the same logic outlined in the article “How to Manage Small but Frequent Organizational Changes“.
Bottom line: This is not a numbers game. Span of control must be treated as part of a broader structural analysis.
Only with a clear understanding of how the work happens and where the issues and opportunities lie can you design better.
Final considerations on span of control
Span of control should never be treated as a standalone metric. It belongs in a broader conversation about organizational design and leadership capacity.
High-level KPIs like “average span” can be useful for diagnosis, but dangerous as a decision trigger. No structural change should be made without a clear, context-based assessment of how that part of the organization actually operates.
There’s no magic number or universal formula, but there is logic. By applying the principles and steps outlined above, you’ll be better positioned to make thoughtful, performance-oriented decisions.
In cost-reduction or efficiency-driven moments, the risk of oversimplifying span of control is especially high. Pressure and urgency often become enemies of good design.
Whenever span discussions rely solely on ratios, benchmarks, or abstract targets, without a real understanding of the team’s reality, consider it a red flag.
A bad decision might be just around the corner.
In case you require further assistance, here are two ways we can support you:
- Consulting: We can tailor our methodologies to meet your needs if you lack the bandwidth or need external expertise and support. We aim to assist you and your company in enhancing organizational effectiveness through customized solutions.
- Advisory: This approach offers expert guidance to teams engaged in organization design projects. While your internal team executes the work, our external advisory services ensure the project is well-structured and progresses in the right direction.
Do you want to reach out to us?
Fill out our contact form or send us a message at contact@thinkorg.net.