OUT
OF
THE
BOX
“Reducing the number of direct reports to a role provides a learning space that enables the company to grow managerial capability.” The concept of SOC provides a metric that companies understand. It is easy to link SOC to headcount costs and generate statistics, like “average cost per manager.” Clearly, for SOI to take root, it must be able to translate into a metric or family of metrics that can guide productive action. One dimension of the metric must reflect the volume of work the manager directs through different workgroups or teams. The size of these teams and the extent to which they report to the manager directly, indirectly, by objectives or purely by interpersonal influence should impact the metric. In addition, the complexity of the team itself must be taken into account. Traditional SOC metrics take into account whether or not the team members are of the same or different skill pool. An SOI metric would also need to take into account the degree of geographic dispersion of the team, which is a key driver of complexity. As an example, a co-located team—or even a team sitting in the same time zone— can select any of six to eight hours out of five days a week in which to come together. A globally dispersed team will have about one hour each day—if it is lucky—when all team members can come together. While work clearly happens in dispersed teams, there are times when people need to be together to discuss or resolve complex issues. Another way in which SOI should differ from SOC is in reflecting context. Current thinking assumes there is an optimal SOC that can be determined. The thinking around this concept has evolved in Western educated, individualistic, rich, developed (aka WEIRD) markets like the United States and the United Kingdom. In high-growth or emerging markets, such as those experienced in Western nations when the concept first evolved, the need for experienced managers was and remains one of the most painful barriers to growth. The original intent of SOC was to limit the number of subordinates to a reasonable range to ensure effective management, not to reduce the number of leaders to achieve simple cost savings. Reducing the number of direct reports to a role provides a learning space that enables the company REFLECTING CONTEXT
MWORLD WINTER 2013-14
American Management Association
to grow managerial capability. Thinking in terms of SOI provides an alternative way to consider and determine an appropriate number of direct reports for a manager. It begins with the assumption that contextual factors, such as the nature of the work, organizational growth rates and culture, will impact the definition of “optimum” or “ideal.” Optimum or ideal are very dynamic concepts. The Industrial Age view considered these things static and absolute. In our generation, we are seeking an “appropriate” or “suitable” rather than an objectivist “ideal.” If someone has a large raft of direct reports, that person will lack adequate personal bandwidth to deal with large numbers of stakeholders and network interfaces. If that person has fewer formal direct reports, he would presumably have sufficient bandwidth for these other complex relationships where influence and co-created intended outcomes can be built and deployed. Furthermore, this can provide a multifaceted view into the complex reporting structures a manager today must guide. MW Editor’s Note: This article is intended to stimulate a dialogue. We need to communicate how this concept would help—and not just in a conceptual way. We see it enabling the line manager to articulate the “degree of difficulty” and complexity of his/her role. Compensation, of course, should map to complexity and results. Isn’t it time to get past the historical heuristic loaded with assumptions that just don’t fit the 21st century organization? Hasn’t the time for SOC come and gone? Is it now time for SOI? Should the new metric include a composite measure of direct and indirect leadership relationships? What will it take to dislodge and supersede the simplistic SOC? What are some other areas for consideration? Share your opinion with readers of MWorld. Email the editor at fstone@amanet.org Karen R. Detweiler, EdD, is an engineering section leader with The MITRE Corporation’s Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) for National Security Engineering. Alison Romney Eyring, PhD, is the founder and CEO of Organisation Solutions. Dan L. Ward works within The MITRE Corporation’s Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) for National Security Engineering.
19