When the span of control becomes too wide

What happens when a manager is responsible for more employees than they can effectively support?

In many organizations, managers face an ever-increasing span of control – the number of employees reporting directly to a single manager. The span of control affects both the organization's structure and the amount of attention, availability, and support a manager can actually provide to each individual employee. This increase often happens gradually: more tasks, more projects, and fewer management positions. The result can be a situation where the manager is formally responsible for many, but in practice only has time to follow up with a few.

This is rarely the result of a lack of will or competence on the part of the individual manager. It is more often about structural choices, efficiency logic, and an implicit assumption that "more can be done with less." Nevertheless, this has clear consequences – for employees, managers, and the organization as a whole.

Why does this happen?

There are several typical drivers behind excessively large spans of control:

Efficiency requirements and cost reductions
Organizational growth without a corresponding increase in management capacity
The assumption that independent and competent employees require less management
The belief that systems, reporting, and digital tools can replace relational follow-up

The problem is that leadership does not scale linearly. Relationships, trust, dialogue, and the exercise of judgment require time and presence – even when employees are skilled and independent. When the span of control becomes too large, it becomes a structural limitation, not an individual performance issue.

Consequences for employees

When a manager has too many people to support, it is quickly felt in the daily work environment:

Less access to clarifications, prioritization, and support
Less feedback and weaker learning over time
Unclear expectations and shifting signals
A reduced sense of being seen, valued, and taken seriously

Over time, this can weaken motivation, psychological safety, and connection to the workplace. Employees are left more to their own devices – not necessarily because they are ready for it, but because the manager lacks the capacity to provide the necessary follow-up.

Consequences for the manager

For the manager, an excessive span of control often entails:

Constant time pressure and fragmented attention
A shift from proactive leadership to reactive firefighting
Limited opportunities to build and maintain relationships and trust
Increased risk of stress, burnout, and feelings of inadequacy

Research shows that wide spans of control are linked to increased role conflict, higher perceived workload, and lower job satisfaction, particularly for frontline managers in complex and knowledge-intensive services. Many managers describe a persistent feeling of falling short, while knowing that the problem cannot be solved by personal efficiency alone.

Organizational effects

At an organizational level, large spans of control can lead to:

Weakened execution and an increased gap between decision-making and practice
More misunderstandings, re-litigated issues, and delayed decisions
Lower quality in prioritization, risk assessment, and learning
Increased turnover, absenteeism, and long-term recruitment challenges

Research suggests that very wide spans of control are associated with lower performance and lower employee satisfaction compared to more moderate spans. Paradoxically, this can undermine the very gains one sought to achieve through streamlining and leaner structures.

Where is the limit?

There is no universal answer to how large a span of control should be. It depends on factors such as:

The complexity of the work and the need for professional judgment
The employees' experience, competence, and autonomy
The pace of change, pressure for reform, and degree of unpredictability
The need for collaboration, coordination, and interdisciplinary work

Research, particularly from the public sector and healthcare services, indicates that moderate spans of control often provide more visible leadership and higher employee satisfaction than both very narrow and very wide spans. The more complex, knowledge-intensive, and change-oriented the job is, the smaller the span of control should typically be.

When formal structures do not compensate

Many organizations attempt to compensate for large spans of control through:

Standardized performance reviews
Digital follow-up and HR tools
Increased reporting, management by objectives, and structured processes

Such measures can support leadership, but they cannot replace genuine contact, dialogue, and presence. Without sufficient leadership capacity, follow-up risks becoming formal, infrequent, and imprecise. Psychological safety, learning, and quality are not built in forms, but through ongoing interaction between manager and employee.

What can organizations do?

Managing excessively large spans of control is primarily a systemic responsibility, not an individual leadership problem. Possible measures include:

Reducing the number of direct reports where complexity is high
Introducing middle manager, team leader, or professional coordinator roles
Clarifying what managers should actually prioritize removing – not just what they should do more of
Differentiating spans of control based on task complexity, pace of change, and risk profile
Investing in leadership capacity where relational follow-up, learning, and quality are critical success factors

A key question should be:
What do we lose when leaders do not have time to lead—for the employees, for quality, and for the organization's long-term sustainability?

Reflection questions for leaders and decision-makers

How many employees are our leaders actually responsible for, and what does that mean in practice?
What are we able to follow up on effectively, and what remains as a persistent backlog?
What are the consequences of current spans of control for quality, learning, HSE, and psychological safety?
Do we treat span of control as a conscious, structural design choice—or as an individual performance requirement to "learn to handle more"?

‍

Leadership is largely about relationships, attention, and presence. When a leader is given responsibility for more people than they can effectively support, leadership is reduced to administration—and the potential of both people and the organization is lost. Taking span of control seriously is therefore not a question of comfort, but of sustainability, quality, and responsible organization.

References

Vogel, R., Homberg, F., & Gericke, A. (2021). Not too narrow, not too broad: Linking span of control, leadership behavior, and employee job satisfaction in public organizations. Public Administration Review.

Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2007). Examining the relationships between span of control and manager job and unit performance outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management.

Svanström, J., Skytt, B., Lindberg, M., & Lindberg, M. (2025). Expanded span of control, leadership and management performance, work-related stress, and job satisfaction among first-line managers.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. Pearson.

Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing. Berrett-Koehler.

Edmondson, A. (2018). The Fearless Organization. Wiley.