Staff Writer 
By Memory Nguwi
MOST organisations do not struggle solely because of a problematic strategy.
The real problem often sits in how work is structured and managed across the organisation. Two areas that drive performance, yet are often poorly designed, are span of control and reporting levels. These are not technical HR concepts; they determine how decisions are made, how fast the organisation moves, and how accountable people are. When they are wrong, even strong strategies fail to deliver results.
Span of control refers to the number of people directly reporting to a manager. A narrow span means a manager has few direct reports, while a wide span means they have many. Many organisations default to narrow spans because managers feel more comfortable supervising fewer people. This comfort comes at a cost, as it leads to unnecessary roles and inflated management structures. Instead of improving performance, it often creates inefficiencies that are difficult to reverse.
When spans are too narrow, organisations begin to accumulate layers. Each additional manager adds another level of reporting, another set of meetings, and another checkpoint before decisions are made. Information starts to move slowly and becomes distorted as it passes through multiple levels. Employees spend more time reporting upwards than focusing on meaningful work. Over time, the organisation becomes top heavy and unresponsive.
On the other hand, having a span of control that is too wide also creates problems. Managers become stretched and unable to give proper attention to their teams. Coaching and performance management suffer because there is simply not enough time to support everyone. Employees may feel neglected, which affects both engagement and performance. The result is a different kind of inefficiency, where work continues but quality declines.
The correct span of control depends on the nature of the work being done. In roles that involve complex decision-making, problem-solving, and judgment, managers need fewer direct reports. This allows them to engage deeply with the work and provide meaningful guidance. In more routine environments where tasks are standardised, managers can effectively supervise larger teams. Systems and processes in such environments reduce the need for constant intervention.
Many organisations fail to align the span of control with the level of work. They treat all roles as if they require the same level of supervision, which is rarely true. This leads to situations where highly capable teams are over-managed, while complex roles are under-supported. The mismatch creates frustration at both ends of the organisation. Over time, it weakens both performance and accountability.
Reporting levels, on the other hand, refer to the number of layers between the top of the organisation and the frontline. A typical structure includes executives, middle managers, supervisors, and operational staff. While this seems logical, many organisations add layers without clear justification. Each new layer is often introduced to solve a short-term problem rather than a structural need. This gradually leads to organisations that are more complicated than they need to be.
Too many reporting levels create distance between leadership and the actual work being done. Senior leaders rely on filtered information that may not accurately reflect reality. Problems take longer to surface, and by the time they do, they are often harder to fix. Employees at lower levels feel disconnected from decision-makers. This disconnect reduces trust and slows down execution.
Each additional layer also increases costs significantly. More managers mean higher salary expenses, additional support functions, and increased administrative work. Instead of investing in value-creating activities, organisations spend more on managing themselves. This reduces overall efficiency and limits the organisation’s ability to compete. Over time, the cost of maintaining unnecessary layers becomes unsustainable.
Removing layers without careful thought can create new problems. When a layer is removed, the responsibilities do not disappear; they move somewhere else. If the next level is not equipped to handle the increased complexity, performance will decline. Managers may become overwhelmed, and decision-making may become inconsistent. This is why restructuring efforts often fail to deliver lasting results.
Span of control and reporting levels are closely linked and must be designed together. Narrow spans naturally create more layers, while wider spans reduce the need for additional levels. However, simply increasing spans to reduce layers is not a solution on its own. The design must consider the complexity of work and the capability of managers. Without this alignment, changes in structure will not produce the desired outcomes.
A well-designed organisation ensures that each reporting level adds clear value. Each layer should be responsible for a different level of decision-making and problem-solving. If a layer exists only to pass information up and down, it is not adding value. Such roles create delays without improving outcomes. Identifying and removing these roles is essential for improving organisational effectiveness.
Strong organisations typically operate with fewer layers, but each layer is more capable. Managers are responsible for a meaningful number of direct reports and are expected to deliver results through their teams. Roles are defined by the level of work required, not by titles or historical structures. This creates clarity in accountability and improves overall performance. It also allows organisations to respond more quickly to changes in the environment.
Leaders need to approach structure with intention rather than habit. This means understanding what work needs to be done and designing roles around that work. It also requires honest assessment of managerial capability before adjusting spans or removing layers. Structural decisions should be based on logic and evidence, not preference or tradition. Without this discipline, organisations will continue to carry inefficiencies that limit their potential.
In the end, the span of control and reporting levels define how the organisation operates on a daily basis. When designed correctly, they enable faster decision-making, clearer accountability, and better performance. When ignored, they create complexity that slows everything down. Leaders who get this right create organisations that are not only efficient but also capable of sustaining performance over time.
Nguwi is an occupational psychologist, data scientist, speaker and managing consultant at Industrial Psychology Consultants (Pvt) Ltd, a management and human resources consulting firm.
