Blog #246
When I begin working with a new organization, it is commonfor the existing corporate structure to be a bit clunky. Typically, this is aresult of the company going through growing pains.
I have witnessed numerous instances where a company functionswell, but is not reaching its full potential for growth. Often, the seniorleaders realize they need to reorganize the org chart for smoother reportingand less micromanaging. Sometimes, they have too many direct reports, so a significantamount of time is spent micromanaging the direct reports instead of trustingthe team. In some cases, senior leaders will have 12 or more direct reports –the result of a legacy culture created by the previous senior leader or owner. Likely,the former leader was involved in every decision on the micro level, which isdue to a myriad of reasons.
One reason is that the senior leader has been with theorganization for many years and grew with it. When that leader first started workingwith the organization, it was much smaller, so they were needed to help withall the decisions. The organization grew little by little, and that leader heldonto the old style of involvement and decision making. Eventually, this individualbecame the bottleneck for growth because they could not invest the time neededwith each direct report. Although none of this was intentional, the company’sgrowth was stunted.
Other times this limitation comes to life is when a newleader takes over for the former leader, who was insecure. This may be the typeof former leader who is reluctant to let go, and as a result, feels the need tobe involved in every decision. Leaders with this behavior generally have lowtrust and an unwillingness to let others make decisions; they continue usingnumerous direct reports and have far too much involvement in the daily functions,which may be a reason the organization is stuck. The new leader may feel handcuffedto the old leader, unable to make the changes that are needed.
In either of these examples, the unintended consequences ofthe management styles are often the same. Usually, an excessive amount ofpeople are in leadership meetings. Endless discussions happen, no one is trulyheard, and very few issues are resolved (except by the senior leader). Themeetings often become doom loops of discussing the same thing, but neversolving anything. As a result, little gets done.
When a senior leader has too many direct reports, thosedirect reports might start playing politics to earn time with the managementteam; they become needy in this regard. Or, they may side-step and hide fromaccountability altogether. In other words, direct reports tend to associatetheir worth to the organization with which meetings they are invited to attend,and not necessarily the results they are driving.
I can’t say that I blame them. Direct reports are likely workingoff of a limited number of past experiences, leading them to believe they mustbe in that meeting to be considered relevant.
So, how many people should be at the leadership table? Theanswer is always, “It depends.” Ideally, each senior leader or director willhave no more than seven to eight direct reports. If you feel you are able to doyour job well, and your team is thriving, you may be able to succeed withfewer.
It is for this reason that when I am working with a new team,we always start with building an ideal accountability structure or functionalorg chart. In EOS, it is referred to as an “accountability chart” (I prefer tocall it an “empowerment chart”). The studies suggest that when working in asenior leadership role where you are managing department leaders, it is notrecommended to have more than eight direct reports. The primary reason for thisis as senior leaders grow, the requirement for them to become better coachesand mentors for their team members grows exponentially. The highest and bestuse of their time often entails being a mentor and coach to help their teams developbetter leaders.
As the facilitator of these structural sessions, it is myjob to challenge the current structure while providing a safe space to have theuncomfortable conversations. There have been multiple occurrences where peoplewho were initially at the senior leadership team table were no longer seated atthe table following a structural rework. Sometimes, people get their feathers abit ruffled; however, I have talked with many of these people about six monthsafter the restructure, and I can honestly say that not one person has said theymissed being in those meetings. Across the board, we have been able torestructure the accountabilities and empower people to focus on their strengths.As a result, everyone excels and the organization thrives.
So, the question is this: how many direct reports do youhave and how many do you truly need?
As a senior leader, do you have too many direct reports? Do you need help with restructuring your organization to run more efficiently? Reach out to us today to find out how!
Keep Smiling,
Kris
