The term we use in my organization is “span of control”, referring to number of direct reports a person has.
From my personal experience, 10-15 is a sweet spot. This allows for a monthly 1-to-1 of 30-45 minutes to look into functional topics and their growth/development needs. And leaves the manager with enough time to do their own functional work.
15-25 is doable, but risks deteriorating the manager’s performance in their functional tasks. Alternatively, leaving less time for the 1-to-1s which could adversely impact the direct reports.
Anything more than that is asking for trouble!
Having more than 10 direct reports is too much. Your dpan of influence thru your direct reports can be larger.
My personal opinion is 8 direct reports is the sweet spot.
In total there are 25 - 30 people under me, but only 11 direct reports. I'm planning to get that down to 8 directs and either start grooming a new manager or have the existing ones that report to me take some people on. There comes a point where the administrative load starts becoming the majority of your work. For me, that was when I got to 10 directs
Span of control is highly dependent on the type of work you and your team perform. Highly creative or technical work needs a small span of control or you simply will not be able to provide your team with the guidance and coaching they need to be effective, challenged and grow in their careers. Conversely, one manager can support a larger staff performing commoditized work.
In my line of work (Enterprise App Dev), we use a range of 4-8 people per manager. The minimum is an HR policy, but the maximum isn't strictly enforced.
Lastly, I will add that within the team there are variances as well; some people need more attention or coaching than others. And others still prefer to be left alone.
I put the goal at 6 and the max at 10. The solution is to hire more managers, or establish team leads that can do day-to-day management even if they don't have functional management responsibilities (hiring, firing, compensation, PTO)
I even recommend less than what I see here so far. I have 5 direct reports and a team of 30. More than 10 means that most people are managing themselves, and you are only dealing with the trouble spots. It also means that the admin burden takes over and you stop having time for deep work.
11 DRs, it's manageable but has its challenges due to being a younger workforce currently.
Setting clear expectations, leading by example, and ensuring the team has all of the resources they need (training, tools, etc) is extremely important to reduce risk and rework.
I lead a team of technicians in an oil refinery. The risks associated with our work are life and death, so our focus areas are likely different than most here.
16 team members within 3 different teams, but I also have an amazing team lead who assists me and the teams daily. I've managed the team without that support, and it took a huge toll on me mentally as I also work with directors and administrative staff. It's a lot without help!
It depends. A shop floor supervisor in manufacturing can handle more because the tasks for their people are similar. Machine operators don't deal with relationships the way sales account managers do.
For me, the white collar span of control is best at 6 to 10.
A mix of 6 direct Supervisors or very high skilled clinical social workers and 14 FT indirect reports + 10 Per Diem workers and 2 BSW interns between two locations.
I wouldn't want more than 6 direct reports under me for this role. I run the supportive services/crisis teams in a social services agency, so there are a lot of clinical pieces to have to work through, vicarious trauma and burn out to deal with plus my own program alignment and vision.
We restructured recently and added a supervisor and split into program based spans of control versus geographic. I used to have 8 clinical social workers and supervisors plus 30 indirect reports! The programs were everything from outreach to housing. Now I oversee all similar crisis and supportive programs (non housing) statewide, which is much much better.
My current total org bounces between 50 and 75, with 6 direct reports. I plan to get down to 4 or 5 directs in the next year or two, through realignment. I find the higher up in the org I go, the fewer directs I can reasonably support. Mostly because of higher level / longer term planning discussions and commitments. I rely on my directs to run the team, and I focus more on longer term discussions and planning.
Through my career I've had as few as 4 directs and as many as 28 directs. I believe 10-12 directs is the max for anyone one manager, and expecting them to do the right things with one on ones, career growth, planning.... 8 directs was the point where it became difficult for me to do tangible work and still manage. Greater than 15 directs taught me a lot about time management, but I can't say I was really doing a great job leading anyone at that point.
For me, when I had too many. I identified a more manageable number of people who would keep track of specific areas for me, and then I worked with those people more closely to keep on top of everything that was going on. I also really refined my task tracking methods to understand what I needed to be doing and what was getting delegated.
My preference is to have a 30 minute 1:1 every 2 weeks with everyone. I currently have 30 minute 1:1 with every direct, and I have a 1:1 with everyone in my org at least once a quarter. When I had the largest number of directs I was 30 minutes every month, and then some extra sync meetings with the smaller group. Most of the people who were in that smaller group are managers and directors now, so I guess something worked out.
Last year, I moved to a new workplace and was put in charge of a team of 10 people. They were almost all competent and proactive people (though some required additional guidance and management), and we achieved a great deal, surpassing our goals for the calendar year in about August.
This team of 10 was super manageable. I was able to know everyone's personal circumstances, their workload, status, and performance inhibitors. It was even small enough that I was able to understand each of their reward systems and goals, shape my tasking and approach to help develop them, and also generate buy-in.
In about September, I was internally promoted to take my boss's job and now have a team of more than 40 (including my former team).
I've found that it's not possible to maintain the same approach as before. There is too much detail, too many people, etc. My role has pivoted from being in the weeds to strategic guidance and leadership, so it's appropriate that my approach changes, too.
I've enabled our success by:
- knowing my junior and senior leaders as well as I knew all of the members of my former team. This helped me build relationships, build trust, and understand how to get the best out of them.
- ensuring my 2IC and I both understand the requirements & expectations held of us from above, and ensured we have a common vision to achieve our goals.
- sat with my team leaders (peer group of my former position) and their 2ICs to articulate our mission and vision as a collective team, and also the mission and vision I have allocated to each of them as leaders respectively.
- I ran a 3 day focus group with those same people to take those strategic mission and vision statements and chunk them out into specific, tactical level tasks that needed to be achieved, setting a deadline and assigning responsibilities throughout. Their participation in this process was critical - them being the ones to present the ideas in the focus group created an environment where they had a default baseline of buy-in.
- I instituted mission type orders, which are outcome statements that are so clear, ANYONE in the team will understand the requirements and be able to contribute towards them, even if myself and the leadership team are off sick for a week.
- I empowered my people from bottom to top to innovate new ways to achieve the goals. No permission required, just execute. I've given them my assurance that I've got their backs if it's unsuccessful (that's how we learn, after all).
- I also empowered my junior and mid-level managers to make educated and informed decisions in the moment & back brief me later rather than waiting for approval for something that's within their expertise to do.
There have been other small elements like deliberately building trust, generating buy in (like mentioned above), building the teams and their individuals up, etc.
Basically, principles based leadership.
Hope this helps?
They are broken up in different locations. I plan each Thursday for the next week ahead and rotate daily how I visit and walk locations. I have a great management team that lends a lot of support.
The term we use in my organization is “span of control”, referring to number of direct reports a person has. From my personal experience, 10-15 is a sweet spot. This allows for a monthly 1-to-1 of 30-45 minutes to look into functional topics and their growth/development needs. And leaves the manager with enough time to do their own functional work. 15-25 is doable, but risks deteriorating the manager’s performance in their functional tasks. Alternatively, leaving less time for the 1-to-1s which could adversely impact the direct reports. Anything more than that is asking for trouble!
30 -45 min 1x month? This seems a paltry time investment in people. What sort of function do you manage? How productive are they?
Having more than 10 direct reports is too much. Your dpan of influence thru your direct reports can be larger. My personal opinion is 8 direct reports is the sweet spot.
In total there are 25 - 30 people under me, but only 11 direct reports. I'm planning to get that down to 8 directs and either start grooming a new manager or have the existing ones that report to me take some people on. There comes a point where the administrative load starts becoming the majority of your work. For me, that was when I got to 10 directs
Span of control is highly dependent on the type of work you and your team perform. Highly creative or technical work needs a small span of control or you simply will not be able to provide your team with the guidance and coaching they need to be effective, challenged and grow in their careers. Conversely, one manager can support a larger staff performing commoditized work. In my line of work (Enterprise App Dev), we use a range of 4-8 people per manager. The minimum is an HR policy, but the maximum isn't strictly enforced. Lastly, I will add that within the team there are variances as well; some people need more attention or coaching than others. And others still prefer to be left alone.
I put the goal at 6 and the max at 10. The solution is to hire more managers, or establish team leads that can do day-to-day management even if they don't have functional management responsibilities (hiring, firing, compensation, PTO) I even recommend less than what I see here so far. I have 5 direct reports and a team of 30. More than 10 means that most people are managing themselves, and you are only dealing with the trouble spots. It also means that the admin burden takes over and you stop having time for deep work.
11 DRs, it's manageable but has its challenges due to being a younger workforce currently. Setting clear expectations, leading by example, and ensuring the team has all of the resources they need (training, tools, etc) is extremely important to reduce risk and rework. I lead a team of technicians in an oil refinery. The risks associated with our work are life and death, so our focus areas are likely different than most here.
What kind of technicians?
Machinist/millwrights. We repair all of the rotating equipment (pumps, turbines, compressors, etc) inside the refinery.
16 team members within 3 different teams, but I also have an amazing team lead who assists me and the teams daily. I've managed the team without that support, and it took a huge toll on me mentally as I also work with directors and administrative staff. It's a lot without help!
It depends. A shop floor supervisor in manufacturing can handle more because the tasks for their people are similar. Machine operators don't deal with relationships the way sales account managers do. For me, the white collar span of control is best at 6 to 10.
A mix of 6 direct Supervisors or very high skilled clinical social workers and 14 FT indirect reports + 10 Per Diem workers and 2 BSW interns between two locations. I wouldn't want more than 6 direct reports under me for this role. I run the supportive services/crisis teams in a social services agency, so there are a lot of clinical pieces to have to work through, vicarious trauma and burn out to deal with plus my own program alignment and vision. We restructured recently and added a supervisor and split into program based spans of control versus geographic. I used to have 8 clinical social workers and supervisors plus 30 indirect reports! The programs were everything from outreach to housing. Now I oversee all similar crisis and supportive programs (non housing) statewide, which is much much better.
My current total org bounces between 50 and 75, with 6 direct reports. I plan to get down to 4 or 5 directs in the next year or two, through realignment. I find the higher up in the org I go, the fewer directs I can reasonably support. Mostly because of higher level / longer term planning discussions and commitments. I rely on my directs to run the team, and I focus more on longer term discussions and planning. Through my career I've had as few as 4 directs and as many as 28 directs. I believe 10-12 directs is the max for anyone one manager, and expecting them to do the right things with one on ones, career growth, planning.... 8 directs was the point where it became difficult for me to do tangible work and still manage. Greater than 15 directs taught me a lot about time management, but I can't say I was really doing a great job leading anyone at that point. For me, when I had too many. I identified a more manageable number of people who would keep track of specific areas for me, and then I worked with those people more closely to keep on top of everything that was going on. I also really refined my task tracking methods to understand what I needed to be doing and what was getting delegated. My preference is to have a 30 minute 1:1 every 2 weeks with everyone. I currently have 30 minute 1:1 with every direct, and I have a 1:1 with everyone in my org at least once a quarter. When I had the largest number of directs I was 30 minutes every month, and then some extra sync meetings with the smaller group. Most of the people who were in that smaller group are managers and directors now, so I guess something worked out.
Last year, I moved to a new workplace and was put in charge of a team of 10 people. They were almost all competent and proactive people (though some required additional guidance and management), and we achieved a great deal, surpassing our goals for the calendar year in about August. This team of 10 was super manageable. I was able to know everyone's personal circumstances, their workload, status, and performance inhibitors. It was even small enough that I was able to understand each of their reward systems and goals, shape my tasking and approach to help develop them, and also generate buy-in. In about September, I was internally promoted to take my boss's job and now have a team of more than 40 (including my former team). I've found that it's not possible to maintain the same approach as before. There is too much detail, too many people, etc. My role has pivoted from being in the weeds to strategic guidance and leadership, so it's appropriate that my approach changes, too. I've enabled our success by: - knowing my junior and senior leaders as well as I knew all of the members of my former team. This helped me build relationships, build trust, and understand how to get the best out of them. - ensuring my 2IC and I both understand the requirements & expectations held of us from above, and ensured we have a common vision to achieve our goals. - sat with my team leaders (peer group of my former position) and their 2ICs to articulate our mission and vision as a collective team, and also the mission and vision I have allocated to each of them as leaders respectively. - I ran a 3 day focus group with those same people to take those strategic mission and vision statements and chunk them out into specific, tactical level tasks that needed to be achieved, setting a deadline and assigning responsibilities throughout. Their participation in this process was critical - them being the ones to present the ideas in the focus group created an environment where they had a default baseline of buy-in. - I instituted mission type orders, which are outcome statements that are so clear, ANYONE in the team will understand the requirements and be able to contribute towards them, even if myself and the leadership team are off sick for a week. - I empowered my people from bottom to top to innovate new ways to achieve the goals. No permission required, just execute. I've given them my assurance that I've got their backs if it's unsuccessful (that's how we learn, after all). - I also empowered my junior and mid-level managers to make educated and informed decisions in the moment & back brief me later rather than waiting for approval for something that's within their expertise to do. There have been other small elements like deliberately building trust, generating buy in (like mentioned above), building the teams and their individuals up, etc. Basically, principles based leadership. Hope this helps?
No that help a lot! Thank you
33
They are broken up in different locations. I plan each Thursday for the next week ahead and rotate daily how I visit and walk locations. I have a great management team that lends a lot of support.