The Hidden Cost of Wide Spans of Control
Why This Matters
Recent research confirms that as spans of supervision increase, leadership effectiveness tends to decline.
Over the last few years, I have noticed a consistent pattern of flatter organizational structures and wider spans of control. On paper, it looks efficient. In practice, many mid-level and frontline leaders are quietly running out of capacity.
This usually shows up in my coaching conversations before it shows up in a dashboard. Leaders tell me they feel constantly behind. One-on-ones turn into status updates. Development gets postponed. Hard conversations get delayed. Even strong leaders start to feel reactive instead of intentional.
Recent research confirms that as spans of supervision increase, leadership effectiveness tends to decline. Not because leaders suddenly lose skill, but because the system they are operating in asks too much of them.
Two dynamics are common. First, supportive leadership drops. Leaders have less time for coaching, listening, and context-setting. Those behaviors are not extras. They are central to performance. When time is tight, they are often the first to go.
Second, ownership and follow-through erode. When people feel like one of many, individual ownership can fade. Leaders end up spending more time chasing issues instead of developing people.
The downstream effects are familiar. There can be increased burnout, frustration, turnover risk, and slower execution.
Here is the uncomfortable tradeoff many organizations make. In trying to save on headcount costs, they push complexity downward. Leaders absorb that complexity personally, and the human system quietly degrades.
From a coaching perspective, this is not a “work harder” problem. It is a design problem. When spans expand, leadership infrastructure has to expand too. Otherwise, even good leaders get stuck running faster just to stay in place.
In my work with senior teams, we focus on a few practical shifts.
First, we stop assuming high performers do not need support. They often need it the most. Intentional coaching, feedback, and space to think are not perks. They are safeguards against overload.
Second, we create leverage inside teams. That does not always mean adding managers. It often means being explicit about informal lead roles. People who can guide, coach, and stabilize work so the manager is not the bottleneck for everything.
Third, we get serious about focus. If a leader has 20 or 30 direct reports, they cannot have a long list of top priorities. Someone has to decide what stops. If everything stays important, capacity will be consumed by default.
Finally, we pay attention to energy signals. When leaders are always sprinting, always reacting, and never thinking ahead, the system is already strained. Waiting until results suffer is waiting too long.
If we want performance without burning people out, we have to design spans of control that match human capacity. And when we cannot change the span, we have to change the support around it.
Span of Control and Leadership Capacity Check
Rate each statement based on your current reality.
1 = Strongly disagree · 7 = Strongly agree
Reflection
References
Thompson, G., Buch, R., & Thompson, P.-M. M. (2025). Increased span of supervision: An obstacle for effective leadership style? Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, 14(2), 21–34.
Gallup. (2024, October 16). What’s the ideal team size? It depends on the manager. Gallup Workplace.
Gallup. (2024, January 19). How effective feedback fuels performance. Gallup Workplace.
