Span of Control Isn’t One-Size-Fits-All (Here’s What to Do Instead)

The term “span of control” basically refers to how many people a manager can effectively oversee. It sounds simple, but it’s one of the most debated topics in management. Everyone seems to be chasing the idea of the “ideal” or “optimum” span of control—how many direct reports should one manager really have? Should it be five? Ten? Twenty?

Well, here’s the thing: there’s no magical number that works for every organization. The debate is still alive and kicking, and opinions are split. Some experts push for a narrow span—meaning fewer people per manager—while others say a wide span works better. And honestly, both camps make valid points depending on the situation.

You’ll often hear this question thrown around: “What’s the ideal span of control?” And it’s a good one. Evaluating your organization’s span of control can be like taking a pulse—it shows where things might be too bloated, too lean, or just inefficient. When companies visualize their spans and layers, it often uncovers hidden inefficiencies or even bigger structural problems.

To break it down: if a manager has five people reporting directly to them, that’s a span of control of five. Simple, right? But the real question isn’t just how many people report to a manager—it’s how effectively that manager can lead them. That’s what matters.

Back in the day, Haimann (1970) defined span of control as the number of people a manager can supervise effectively. That word—effectively—is key. It’s not about stuffing a manager’s calendar with meetings or flooding their inbox. It’s about productivity and achieving outcomes without burning out the manager or their team.

Where Did the Concept Even Come From?

Span of control didn’t just pop out of nowhere. Its roots go back to the Industrial Revolution and military management. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when or where it all began, but several big names—like Fayol and Urwick—played a role in shaping how we think about organizational structure.

Back then, some scholars and military strategists threw out all sorts of numbers. You had folks suggesting that a manager should oversee anywhere from 15 to 60 people. Fayol was more conservative—he recommended 6 direct reports at the top of the hierarchy, and 20–30 at the bottom. Urwick? He thought 5 was ideal for top management and 25 at lower levels. Everyone had their own idea of what “worked,” but the goal was the same: find that sweet spot where managers could actually lead without drowning in responsibility.

In the 1950s, the focus shifted toward identifying that so-called “optimum span.” The thinking was: too small, and you’re wasting resources; too large, and management quality takes a nosedive. By this point, many studies had landed on the idea that senior managers should ideally oversee about 3–8 people, while those lower in the hierarchy could manage 10–30.

Even today, the idea of a perfect span of control remains a moving target—because, frankly, every organization is different.

Read Also: Amazon Human Resources Management: Complete Guide for 2025

So, How Many People Can a Manager Handle?

Let’s get something straight: there’s no universal answer here. The number of people a manager can effectively supervise really depends on the nature of the work, how big the organization is, and how much attention each person needs.

Take a call center, for instance. A single manager might oversee 100 employees because most of the work is routine, and there’s a system in place to monitor performance. But compare that to executive roles, where responsibilities are complex and highly collaborative—you’re probably looking at 3 or 4 direct reports max in that kind of setup.

The point is, context matters. Trying to force-fit a one-size-fits-all rule for span of control is just not realistic.

What About the “Ideal” Span of Control?

Here’s where things get murky. People throw the term “ideal span of control” around like it’s some universal truth, but honestly, it’s just a judgment call.

Some define it as the number of people reporting directly to a manager. Others calculate it more broadly, by dividing the total number of employees by the total number of managers. That gives you an average span of control, which can help with big-picture org design.

Formula:
Average Span of Control = Total number of employees / Total number of managers

But remember, averages don’t tell the full story. They don’t account for job complexity, team dynamics, or even how tech-savvy your company is.

In fact, some research on Fortune 500 companies showed that the average CEO span of control increased over the years—from about 4.5 direct reports in the 1980s to 6.8 in 1988, and even higher by the early 2000s. Companies have been moving toward flatter, more agile structures, especially in fast-moving industries.

Still, don’t fall into the trap of thinking more reports = better. Studies show that once a manager’s span of control crosses a certain point, their effectiveness starts to drop.

Case in Point: Scandinavian High-Tech Companies

Here’s a fascinating stat: in a study of high-tech firms in Scandinavia, the span of control among managers at the same level ranged from 1 to 286 subordinates. That’s wild—but it makes sense. It shows how factors like the manager’s education, experience, and the type of work involved really shape what’s possible.

Managers with more education and experience were typically able to handle 25 to 30 direct reports. But at the higher levels—where decisions are more complex and strategic—those same managers had fewer reports. Why? Because the stakes were higher, the decisions were more nuanced, and the margin for error was smaller.

What Factors Affect Span of Control?

A lot, actually. Here are just a few:

Specialization of Roles: More specialized jobs usually need more guidance, which shrinks the span. Interestingly, studies show that specialization decreases span at lower levels but can increase it at upper levels, where expertise matters more.

Functional Area: A manager in HR might have a very different span than someone in procurement or sales—even if they’re at the same rank. The type of work being done really shifts the balance.

Industry Type: According to the Centre for Evidence-Based Management, average spans of control can range from 9 to 77 depending on the industry. Human services managers often have more direct reports than those in technical services.

Employee Autonomy: Teams that are more empowered and self-directed need less oversight. This means the manager can handle a broader span without sacrificing performance.

Technology: Tools like dashboards, project management software, and real-time analytics help managers keep tabs on more people with less effort.

Competency Level: Experienced employees typically need less day-to-day supervision. When a manager has a solid, capable team, they can handle a wider span of control.

Work Complexity & Risk: The more complex or high-risk the work, the smaller the span should be. Think hospitals, labs, or nuclear plants—these roles demand close supervision.

The Concept of Span of Control
Geographic Spread: If your team is spread across different cities or countries, it’s harder to manage a large group effectively. Location absolutely matters.

Let’s talk about something that sounds super corporate but actually matters a lot: span of control. In simple terms, it’s about how many people report to a manager—and this little detail can seriously affect how well a company runs.

But to fully get it, you also need to understand two things about how an organization is structured: width and height.

Width is about how many people report to a single manager. A wide span means a manager has a ton of direct reports. A narrow span means they don’t.

Height is about how many levels there are in the company—like layers in a cake. A tall structure has lots of layers (more managers, more levels of approval), while a flat one has fewer layers.

Most experts say five layers is plenty for most companies—beyond that, things can start to get…well, messy.

Read Also: What Does “Ability” Really Mean?: 45 Examples of Abilities

So, What’s Better: Tall or Flat?

Honestly, it depends. Both tall and flat structures have their perks and their problems.

Tall Organizations (Narrow Span of Control)

✅ Pros:

1. Easier to manage small teams
2. Managers can give more attention to each employee
3. More chances for promotions (more levels = more job titles)
4. Employees often get closer supervision, which can be reassuring
5. Less skill needed from managers since they’re not stretched too thin

❌ Cons:

1. It gets expensive—more managers = more salaries and overhead
2. Messages take forever to travel up and down the ladder
3. Employees can feel stuck or micromanaged
4. Teams can become disconnected, working in “silos” instead of together
5. Decision-making slows down—too many cooks in the kitchen

Flat Organizations (Wide Span of Control)

✅ Pros:

1. Fewer layers = less red tape and faster decision-making
2. Communication flows more freely
3. Employees tend to feel more empowered and autonomous
4. Cheaper to run since you need fewer managers
5. Encourages delegation—managers can’t micromanage, so they’re forced to trust their teams

❌ Cons:

1. Managers might get overwhelmed with too many people to supervise
2. Relationships can suffer—hard to bond with 20 direct reports
3. Not much room for promotion (not many levels)
4. Discipline and role clarity might take a hit
5. Performance may drop if employees don’t get enough guidance

What Are People Saying About Span of Control?

This isn’t just a textbook concept—managers and professionals debate this stuff all the time online. Here’s what people are saying:

On Reddit’s r/ITManagers, folks agree that the “ideal” number is somewhere between 6–15 direct reports.

On r/Leadership, users argue that it depends on the job—creative or technical teams tend to need a tighter (smaller) span of control.

Military structures often stick with a 1:3 rule of thumb.

A Quora post made a solid point: span of control isn’t just about numbers. It’s also about influence, awareness, and how well a manager actually connects with their team.

What Makes Span of Control Vary?

You can’t slap one number on every team or industry. A few things can really impact what works best:

• Job complexity: More complex tasks = need for more oversight = narrower span.
• How similar the jobs are: If everyone’s doing the same thing, it’s easier to manage a bigger group.
• Physical proximity: Managing a remote or globally scattered team? That’s tougher.
• Employee skills: If your team is inexperienced, they’ll need more guidance. Smaller span is better.
• Manager skills: Experienced, organized managers can handle more people. Inexperienced ones? Not so much.
• Technology: Tools like Slack, Teams, and email help expand the span because they make communication easier and faster.

Remote Work Changed the Game

Remember 2020? Yeah, thanks to COVID, remote work blew up—and it shifted how managers handle their teams.

Some research shows remote work leads to a narrower span of control because managers can’t monitor as closely.

But on the flip side, tech tools make it easier to manage more people across distances. Some companies even saw productivity go up with wider spans.

The key? Managers need to adapt. You can’t manage a remote team the same way you’d manage an in-office one.

Read Also: Amazon PTO & Vacation Policy: You Need to Know

One Last Thing: Performance Matters

High-performing managers often get handed more direct reports—and they’re also more likely to move up the ladder. One study even found some managers got up to 30% more team members when they proved themselves.

Span of control isn’t just about structure—it’s also about recognizing and rewarding talent.

Final Thoughts

Look, span of control might sound like a boring HR term, but it affects everything: how fast decisions get made, how connected employees feel, how much stuff gets done. There’s no perfect number, but there is a perfect fit—and it depends on the team, the manager, the tools, and the work itself.

So before slapping a fixed ratio onto your org chart, maybe stop and ask: “Does this actually make sense for the way we work?”

FAQs (Because Everyone Has Questions)