I have a few concerns about the suggested solutions:
Solution 1 (be smaller): Being smaller means less maze-nature within your organization, but more interfaces with other organizations (since you’re forced to contract out a lot of things). Interfaces with other organizations tend to bring issues of coordinative communication that are similar to, and potentially worse than, the internal mazes they replace.
Solution 2 (minimize levels of hierarchy): I agree, to a limit. That limit is usually about six direct reports per supervisor. Beyond that, people and projects get lost in the shuffle; a single manager can only manage so much and six staff is a fair estimate for competent managers.
Solution 6 (resist “objective criteria”): When serious money and careers are on the line, that’s very dangerous. You will make mistakes; objective criteria (however flawed) will allow your boss to “fix the problem” by changing the criteria instead of by firing you. You will upset people with your hiring, promotion, and firing decisions; having an objective basis for your actions is extremely helpful to avoid or minimize lawsuits. Sadly, this is true even if the “objective criteria” are fatally flawed; hardly anyone will have enough information to tell.
Solution 8 (avoid other mazes): All things being equal I’d agree. In practice, the organizations that have huge budgets are usually mazes. As customers, mazes have excellent qualities in terms of budgets (often large) and demands for performance. Mazes demand compliance and reports; other customers demand results.
That limit is usually about six direct reports per supervisor.
I think it’s important to say that if companies aimed for this limit then they would be very different places. In the upper-middle echelons where I work the average is around 3. This introduces an additional 2 layers vs having 6 direct reports.
I also suspect that the 6 limit makes sense for mazes. If you are in a non-maze and working hard on solutions 3-7 then this can be considerably higher. In a previous role I had 8 direct reports and still spent the vast majority of my time on object level work because managing people was easy—people enjoyed work and were committed to it so managing them required less input. I think 12-15 direct reports would have been tricky but achievable.
You will make mistakes; objective criteria (however flawed) will allow your boss to “fix the problem” by changing the criteria instead of by firing you.
I don’t think having subjective criteria makes you more likely to get fired—you just wouldn’t get into the problem in the first place unless you actually were underperforming. This of course assumes trust but in a non-maze this is less of an issue.
You will upset people with your hiring, promotion, and firing decisions; having an objective basis for your actions is extremely helpful to avoid or minimize lawsuits.
I think this is a good point, especially as you get bigger. Maybe there are creative ways to avoid this—the old zappos offer of $2000 to leave after a week comes to mind as a way to choose the right staff without objective criteria.
Six direct reports is the rule of thumb I use but it depends on the job, the manager, and the staff. Use a number that’s demanding but realistic for your purpose; it should take good managers but not great managers.
I have a few concerns about the suggested solutions:
Solution 1 (be smaller): Being smaller means less maze-nature within your organization, but more interfaces with other organizations (since you’re forced to contract out a lot of things). Interfaces with other organizations tend to bring issues of coordinative communication that are similar to, and potentially worse than, the internal mazes they replace.
Solution 2 (minimize levels of hierarchy): I agree, to a limit. That limit is usually about six direct reports per supervisor. Beyond that, people and projects get lost in the shuffle; a single manager can only manage so much and six staff is a fair estimate for competent managers.
Solution 6 (resist “objective criteria”): When serious money and careers are on the line, that’s very dangerous. You will make mistakes; objective criteria (however flawed) will allow your boss to “fix the problem” by changing the criteria instead of by firing you. You will upset people with your hiring, promotion, and firing decisions; having an objective basis for your actions is extremely helpful to avoid or minimize lawsuits. Sadly, this is true even if the “objective criteria” are fatally flawed; hardly anyone will have enough information to tell.
Solution 8 (avoid other mazes): All things being equal I’d agree. In practice, the organizations that have huge budgets are usually mazes. As customers, mazes have excellent qualities in terms of budgets (often large) and demands for performance. Mazes demand compliance and reports; other customers demand results.
I think it’s important to say that if companies aimed for this limit then they would be very different places. In the upper-middle echelons where I work the average is around 3. This introduces an additional 2 layers vs having 6 direct reports.
I also suspect that the 6 limit makes sense for mazes. If you are in a non-maze and working hard on solutions 3-7 then this can be considerably higher. In a previous role I had 8 direct reports and still spent the vast majority of my time on object level work because managing people was easy—people enjoyed work and were committed to it so managing them required less input. I think 12-15 direct reports would have been tricky but achievable.
I don’t think having subjective criteria makes you more likely to get fired—you just wouldn’t get into the problem in the first place unless you actually were underperforming. This of course assumes trust but in a non-maze this is less of an issue.
I think this is a good point, especially as you get bigger. Maybe there are creative ways to avoid this—the old zappos offer of $2000 to leave after a week comes to mind as a way to choose the right staff without objective criteria.
Six direct reports is the rule of thumb I use but it depends on the job, the manager, and the staff. Use a number that’s demanding but realistic for your purpose; it should take good managers but not great managers.
At one level above the actual production staff, having 50+ direct reports is common, and not really a problem.