5 ms·
This article is great. I particularly liked this part: > Some management experts advocate strict limits to the number of people reporting to a common superior—
by sjy 7y ago
This article is great. I particularly liked this part:
> Some management experts advocate strict limits to the number of people reporting to a common superior—generally five to seven. But if one has capable people who require but a few moments of his time during the day, there is no reason to set such arbitrary constraints. Some forty key people report frequently and directly to me. This enables me to keep up with what is going on and makes it possible for them to get fast action.
It’s interesting to know that at least one successful manager of a large organisation found that limit of 5 or so direct reports to be unnecessary. The article was written in 1982. I would have thought the increased use of technology in the workplace would make it easier to manage many people these days – but the trend seems to be the reverse.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Aloha 7y agoIt just depends on the nature of the reporting - if you need intensive reporting from your directs, then yes, less is more - if your people work in relative isolation then more is more.
- lonelappde 7y agoRight, it's silly to compare the line manager of 40 assembly line workers doing the same task, vs a leader of a SEAL team.
- Aloha 7y agoYou can have one manager managing 20 engineers doing project work too, because often there is a project manager attached managing the specific issues with the project.
- Viliam1234 7y agoThe rule seems invented to create more manager jobs. And then all those managers need to report some activity to their superiors, which is how we get micromanagement, arbitrary changes in the project, meetings, evaluations, forms to fill, etc.