Spans and layers: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|hr|}} | {{a|hr|}}{{d|Span of control|/spæn ɒv kənˈtrəʊl/|n|}} | ||
The number of [[meatsack]]s for whom a [[middle manager]] is formally responsible. Extends to employees, contractors, outsourced service-providers but, as far as we know, modernist management orthodoxy has not yet updated the concept to include sentient algorithms and artificially intelligent chatbots, but the moment cannot be far away. | |||
There is much management theory around the relationship of “spans of control” and “layers”<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=spans+and+layers Let me google that for you].</ref> in the optimal organisation. | |||
You sometimes hear it said that there should be no more than 5 “layers” of hierarchy in an organisation, and each manager in that organisation should “span” no more than 5 direct reports. Seeing as that limits the size of an optimised organisation to 781 people, it should not surprise us to hear that McKinsey (38,000 staff),<ref>[https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/how-to-identify-the-right-spans-of-control-for-your-organization ''How to identify the right ‘spans of control’ for your organization'']</ref> PWC (328,000 staff) <ref>[https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/gx/en/insights/2002-2010/management-spans-layers-streamlining-shape.html ''Management spans and layers: Streamlining the out-of-shape organization'']</ref> and Deloitte (415,000 staff)<ref>[https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/human-capital/us-spans-and-layers-for-the-modern-organization-2020.pdf ''Spans and Layers for the Modern Organization'']</ref> have resiled somewhat from the idea that these are hard and fast proportions. | |||
Ones span depends, says McKinsey, on what kind of manager you are (are you a “Player/Coach”, “Coach”, “Facilitator”, “Supervisor”, “Coordinator”?) For PWC, one must first “baseline the existing spans and layers, then size the prize from a top-down perspective.” Deloitte notes with no meagre perception that “different spans and layers are effective in different environments, and predict different behaviours”. | |||
''To | We were able to find a half-hearted commitment to a maximum span of five, from the consultancy “People Puzzles”. Why? Apparently, ''To make performance appraisal easier''. This is pretty funny: | ||
{{quote|'''How many is too many?''' <br>Around five direct reports seems to be the optimum number, according to Mark and Alison, although there are some scenarios where up to nine can work.<br>When it comes to the senior team in a company, however, too many people reporting directly to the owner manager can really hold the business back. Alison recalls working with someone who had 13 people reporting directly to her. “She had to do 13 [[Performance appraisal|appraisals]] at the end of every year!” she says. “It simply wasn’t an effective use of her time.” <ref>''[https://peoplepuzzles.co.uk/news/ive-got-too-many-direct-reports/#:~:text=Around%20five%20direct%20reports%20seems,really%20hold%20the%20business%20back ‘I’ve got too many direct reports!’]''</ref>}} | |||
If the most significant thing you can do in an organisation is manage people, and the most significant part of people management is [[performance appraisal]], your organisation will not move anywhere very quickly. | |||
On the other hand, if different spans and layers are appropriate for different management styles, operational functions, and layers of the organisation — if depends heavily on ''context'' — then you have to wonder what there is to be gained by looking and spans and layers in the holistic sense that management consultants tend to. | |||
''The theory'': look after the ''form'' and the ''substance'' will look after itself. Look after the pounds and hope the pennies take care of themselves. But of ''course'' they will: that’s what pennies do: they need no licence from the boss for that. | ''The theory'': look after the ''form'' and the ''substance'' will look after itself. Look after the pounds and hope the pennies take care of themselves. But of ''course'' they will: that’s what pennies do: they need no licence from the boss for that. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 21: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Org chart]] | *[[Org chart]] | ||
{{ref}} | |||
Latest revision as of 15:24, 21 October 2023
|
The Human Resources military-industrial complex
|
Span of control
/spæn ɒv kənˈtrəʊl/ (n.)
The number of meatsacks for whom a middle manager is formally responsible. Extends to employees, contractors, outsourced service-providers but, as far as we know, modernist management orthodoxy has not yet updated the concept to include sentient algorithms and artificially intelligent chatbots, but the moment cannot be far away.
There is much management theory around the relationship of “spans of control” and “layers”[1] in the optimal organisation.
You sometimes hear it said that there should be no more than 5 “layers” of hierarchy in an organisation, and each manager in that organisation should “span” no more than 5 direct reports. Seeing as that limits the size of an optimised organisation to 781 people, it should not surprise us to hear that McKinsey (38,000 staff),[2] PWC (328,000 staff) [3] and Deloitte (415,000 staff)[4] have resiled somewhat from the idea that these are hard and fast proportions.
Ones span depends, says McKinsey, on what kind of manager you are (are you a “Player/Coach”, “Coach”, “Facilitator”, “Supervisor”, “Coordinator”?) For PWC, one must first “baseline the existing spans and layers, then size the prize from a top-down perspective.” Deloitte notes with no meagre perception that “different spans and layers are effective in different environments, and predict different behaviours”.
We were able to find a half-hearted commitment to a maximum span of five, from the consultancy “People Puzzles”. Why? Apparently, To make performance appraisal easier. This is pretty funny:
How many is too many?
Around five direct reports seems to be the optimum number, according to Mark and Alison, although there are some scenarios where up to nine can work.
When it comes to the senior team in a company, however, too many people reporting directly to the owner manager can really hold the business back. Alison recalls working with someone who had 13 people reporting directly to her. “She had to do 13 appraisals at the end of every year!” she says. “It simply wasn’t an effective use of her time.” [5]
If the most significant thing you can do in an organisation is manage people, and the most significant part of people management is performance appraisal, your organisation will not move anywhere very quickly.
On the other hand, if different spans and layers are appropriate for different management styles, operational functions, and layers of the organisation — if depends heavily on context — then you have to wonder what there is to be gained by looking and spans and layers in the holistic sense that management consultants tend to.
The theory: look after the form and the substance will look after itself. Look after the pounds and hope the pennies take care of themselves. But of course they will: that’s what pennies do: they need no licence from the boss for that.
Counter-theory, therefore: performance comes despite management, not because of it.