You Can Only Do So Much

How many direct reports should a leader have?

I get this question a lot, and while there is research that shows current averages hover around 9, there isn't much out there that can really pinpoint an optimal number. Various articles and studies argue for 5, 7, and 9 as good numbers (interesting how the most common recommendations are odd, not even).

The answer is nuanced and varied depending on the range of work expectations for the leader in question and the style of leadership employed.

Interestingly, the average number was around 5 back in the early 1980's, and it has done nothing but climb since then. I believe one of the main reasons for this is the overall trend toward "flatter" organizational structures as opposed to more "hierarchical" ones. In pursuit of giving workers more autonomy and discouraging supervisors from micromanaging (both good things), we may have forgotten that properly supporting employees from a leadership perspective takes a lot of effort and a lot of time.

To me, "flattening" organizations should be a mindset and a way of operating from a communications and product improvement perspective, not a wholesale excuse to get rid of management positions. Trust me when I say, a micromanager is a micromanager no matter how many direct reports they have, but a supportive leader is much more effective when they can focus on fewer people to support.

Personally, I've had 9 direct reports, and that was about the maximum I could support properly employing my style of servant leadership.

In my mind, the greatest leader of all time is Jesus Christ. He had 12 disciples and one of them went completely rogue.

I use that thought as both a caution for myself as a leader to limit my direct reports AND a reminder to avoid beating myself up too much when I fail to capture the heart of someone I'm striving to lead.