If a team has too many handoffs, unclear accountability, or managers carrying incompatible workloads, the answer is not to copy a standard org-chart shape. Use the staffing pyramid as a picture of reporting levels, then design roles and reporting lines around the work the organization needs done.
What is the staffing pyramid?
A staffing pyramid is a visual way to describe a hierarchy: fewer people sit in senior roles, with more roles beneath them. In a functional structure, people are grouped by specialty and report through clear vertical lines. OpenStax identifies specialization and straightforward reporting as advantages, while noting that functional structures can encourage silos and slow coordination across departments. OpenStax’s overview of organizational structures explains these trade-offs.
The pyramid is not a validated formula for how many people belong at each level. The available guidance does not establish a universal staffing ratio or ideal number of company layers. A useful structure depends on the work, decisions, and coordination the organization must support.
How do I structure a team?
Start with the work rather than the chart. The following sequence synthesizes guidance on managerial spans, team composition, and organizational structures; it is a practical design aid, not a tested formula.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
- The Five Dysfunctions of a Team
- English
- hardcover
- First Edition
- gelatine plate paper
- Define outcomes and decisions. Specify what the team must deliver and which decisions it needs to make. Make decision authority explicit so people know who owns each call.
- Map the work and dependencies. Identify the tasks, handoffs, and relationships between teams. Where work depends on another group, assign a clear owner for coordinating it.
- Identify required skills and independence. Determine which expertise the work needs and how much direction or review team members will require.
- Assign accountable roles. Give each outcome and key decision an owner. Build membership around the team’s purpose and complementary skills, not just the existing organization chart.
- Set reporting lines and manager spans. Match each manager’s number of direct reports to the actual demands of the role, including coaching, supervision, facilitation, and coordination.
- Check cross-functional fit. If important work repeatedly crosses specialties, decide whether functional reporting is enough or whether a structure with stronger horizontal coordination is needed.
How many people should report to one manager?
There is no single span-of-control number that works for every manager. McKinsey’s practitioner guidance recommends matching a manager’s span to the managerial work required by the role and the work performed by direct reports. Consider how the manager spends time, how standardized the processes are, how varied the work is, and how much experience or independence employees have. McKinsey’s guidance on managerial spans describes five role archetypes:
- Player-coach: contributes to the work while coaching others. The manager’s own delivery work competes with time for guidance.
- Coach: develops people and helps them improve. The needed span depends on how much individualized support employees require.
- Supervisor: oversees work that may be more standardized or closely monitored. The role’s workload is shaped by the amount of review and oversight needed.
- Facilitator: helps people collaborate and remove obstacles. The number of relationships and dependencies to manage matters.
- Coordinator: aligns interdependent work across people or groups. Coordination demands can make a nominally large team difficult to manage.
These archetypes describe different kinds of managerial work, not fixed span benchmarks. Nor should a company assume that every layer needs the same span. INSEAD Knowledge reported that, in a survey discussed around 2017, 12 percent of respondents said span stayed constant across layers, while 39 percent said there was no systematic pattern between span and hierarchy layer. INSEAD Knowledge’s account of the findings underscores why a uniform pyramid is a poor substitute for examining each role.
How large should a leadership team be?
Leadership-team membership should provide the expertise, perspective, and bandwidth needed to make decisions together. McKinsey cautions that, in its experience, top teams with fewer than six members may lack diversity and bandwidth, while effectiveness may diminish above ten. These are practitioner observations, not universal thresholds; the right membership depends on the team’s purpose and the work it must cover. McKinsey’s discussion of high-performing teams offers context for that guidance.
Should we use a functional or matrix structure?
Functional and matrix designs make different trade-offs. A functional structure groups people by specialty and favors clear vertical reporting. A matrix adds horizontal coordination across functions or projects, but may leave employees reporting to two bosses. Team-based and networked designs are other possibilities, but no single alternative is established as best for every organization.
Rank #3
| Structure | Specialization | Reporting clarity | Cross-functional coordination | Decision authority and accountability | Potential trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional | Strong: people are grouped by specialty. | Generally clearer vertical reporting. | Can be slower when work crosses functions; silos may form. | Authority follows functional reporting lines. | Cross-functional handoffs can slow work or obscure ownership. |
| Matrix | Retains functional expertise while organizing work across projects or dimensions. | More complex when employees report to two managers. | Designed to strengthen horizontal coordination. | Requires clear agreements about which manager decides what. | Dual reporting can create competing priorities or conflict. |
| Team-based or networked | Depends on how teams or networks are formed. | Depends on the design. | Can support coordination across functions. | Depends on the design. | Coordination demands and accountability need deliberate handling. |
OpenStax describes functional and matrix structures alongside other organizational forms; the trade-offs above should be read as design considerations, not guarantees about performance. See OpenStax’s organizational-structure overview.
How many layers should a company have?
Choose layers only when they help the organization make decisions, coordinate work, or provide appropriate supervision. The cited sources do not establish an ideal number of layers. A hierarchy may be too cumbersome when decisions require avoidable handoffs; a flatter design may be a poor fit if managers cannot give employees the direction or support their work requires. Assess what each layer contributes rather than preserving a familiar pyramid shape.
Rank #4
Audit the structure against the work
Review the design when work or strategy changes, and check whether:
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Managers have enough time for the coaching, supervision, facilitation, or coordination their roles require.
- Employees understand who makes which decisions.
- Dependencies between functions or teams have clear owners.
- Team membership covers the expertise and bandwidth needed for its purpose.
- Reporting lines make accountability clearer rather than adding avoidable handoffs or competing priorities.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
