3 ms·

> It's simply not possible to have 100,000+ employees and less than 6 levels, unless you have managers with tons of employees Math does not check out. 5 levels

> It's simply not possible to have 100,000+ employees and less than 6 levels, unless you have managers with tons of employees Math does not check out. 5 levels for 100k employees results in 10 reports per manager (assuming a top level with 10 people rather than 1, which is approximately correct given CEO/CTO/CIO/etc/etc/etc). Maybe 10 qualifies as 'tons' for you? Going down to 4 levels gives 18 reports per manager, which feels a little closer to 'tons'.

dvirsky 7y ago
10 direct reports on average is a lot. It might be okay at the highest levels where you mostly make strategic decisions, but it's too much for a manager that's involved in day to day processes and decisions.
chadash 7y ago
I think we agree in principle, just different understanding of how to count levels. Based on the article, a company with a boss and one employee is two levels ("With only two levels, a boss and those who report to the boss..."). So for 100,000 people, with average 10 employees per manager: 1 Big Boss (Level 1) 10 (Level 2) 100 (Level 3) 1000 (Level 4) 10000 (Level 5) 100000 (Level 6) That's six levels. In practice, some people will have more than 10 and some less, but unless the people under you are doing menial work, I think 10 is probably middle of the road.
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  Fair enough if you want to include the one person level. It seems rare that any large company uses a structure like that though
- Aperocky 7y ago
  The math stop checking out at level 4. You have level 5 managers managing 10 each, and you have level 4 managers managing 10 teams each? That stops checking out. The higher you go the more disciplined you have to be about grouping relating teams under the same umbrella for efficient execution. In fact, the levels don't matter as much as the autonomy at each level. The more autonomy, provided that the right people are hired and are focused on the goal, makes it better and less managerial burden going up the chain.
cbhl 7y ago
In my experience, if you are stuck in a maze, you need your manager to show you the way through the maze. They'll only have enough time to show you the way if the number of reports is bounded.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Math does not check out. 5 levels for 100k employees results in 10 reports per manager It results in 10 reports with full-depth organizations per manager, which is a lot at any level except line managers. Except for line managers of nonprofessional staff, 5 full-depth subordinate organizations and 5 support staff or shallow (~2-3 levels less than a full-depth subordinate organizations) is about the limit of what is reasonable. A full-depth span of control at 10 at each level , with 6 levels, is pretty certain to be an “immoral maze”.
yibg 7y ago
Second line managers with 10 first line managers is pretty unmanageable. Similar going up. In most places I’ve seen, a second line manager will only have anywhere from 3-5 teams and maybe some ICs.

dvirsky 7y ago

10 direct reports on average is a lot. It might be okay at the highest levels where you mostly make strategic decisions, but it's too much for a manager that's involved in day to day processes and decisions.

chadash 7y ago

I think we agree in principle, just different understanding of how to count levels. Based on the article, a company with a boss and one employee is two levels ("With only two levels, a boss and those who report to the boss..."). So for 100,000 people, with average 10 employees per manager: 1 Big Boss (Level 1) 10 (Level 2) 100 (Level 3) 1000 (Level 4) 10000 (Level 5) 100000 (Level 6) That's six levels. In practice, some people will have more than 10 and some less, but unless the people under you are doing menial work, I think 10 is probably middle of the road.

Misdicorl 7y ago
Fair enough if you want to include the one person level. It seems rare that any large company uses a structure like that though
Aperocky 7y ago
The math stop checking out at level 4. You have level 5 managers managing 10 each, and you have level 4 managers managing 10 teams each? That stops checking out. The higher you go the more disciplined you have to be about grouping relating teams under the same umbrella for efficient execution. In fact, the levels don't matter as much as the autonomy at each level. The more autonomy, provided that the right people are hired and are focused on the goal, makes it better and less managerial burden going up the chain.

cbhl 7y ago

In my experience, if you are stuck in a maze, you need your manager to show you the way through the maze. They'll only have enough time to show you the way if the number of reports is bounded.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Math does not check out. 5 levels for 100k employees results in 10 reports per manager It results in 10 reports with full-depth organizations per manager, which is a lot at any level except line managers. Except for line managers of nonprofessional staff, 5 full-depth subordinate organizations and 5 support staff or shallow (~2-3 levels less than a full-depth subordinate organizations) is about the limit of what is reasonable. A full-depth span of control at 10 at each level , with 6 levels, is pretty certain to be an “immoral maze”.

yibg 7y ago

Second line managers with 10 first line managers is pretty unmanageable. Similar going up. In most places I’ve seen, a second line manager will only have anywhere from 3-5 teams and maybe some ICs.