Adapting Your Number of Direct Reports for Role and Work Type
Here are some tips on how to determine how many direct reports you should have
Kayla Ambrose
, Fri 25 July 2025
When considering the appropriate number of direct reports to manage within a team, the easier answer would be to follow the rule of seven. While this rule encouraging managers to not exceed 7 direct reports appears to be a simple solution, it isn’t always the right answer. Depending on various factors, such as the complexity of work, experience of team members, and supporting systems in place, managers may be equipped to manage more or fewer numbers of direct reports.
Why does having too many direct reports matter?
When teams are comprised of too many direct reports, both engagement and performance may suffer. Overly large teams may struggle to have enough tasks that allow team members to contribute in a meaningful way. Without stimulating tasks that encourage direct reports to take ownership of their work and observe their own impact, they may feel their work isn’t important and lack motivation.
Other consequences of too many direct reports that a team may encounter include communication complications and missed development opportunities. With a large quantity of direct reports, maintaining clear and effective communication may pose a challenge. The more people there are, the more people that need to be kept in the loop for the team to function properly. Furthermore, more direct reports leads to less opportunities for them to experience direct mentoring and coaching by their manager, thus causing their development to suffer.
Not only does a large number of direct reports negatively impact the team, but it has direct implications for the manager as well. More reports require more time dedicated to oversight and mentoring. Managers with too many direct reports to oversee may experience higher stress levels, ultimately leading to burnout and decreased productivity.
Why does having too few direct reports matter?
Managers with too few direct reports are more susceptible to micromanaging their reports. With fewer people to focus on, these managers may become more compelled to hold unnecessary check-ins and become overly involved in the work of their direct reports. Micromanaging employees will only slow down productivity and create a more stressful work environment.
Another complication for managing too few direct reports is the potential for consolidation. Upper management may perceive managers with few direct reports as nonessential because it creates too many redundancies in the management hierarchy. Organizations looking to make a flatter structure will more likely remove these management positions with few direct reports.
What factors should be considered when evaluating the ideal number of reports?
- Complexity of Work: Teams with more complex and varied work will need more guidance from their manager. Given the more involved nature of complex work, managers should have smaller teams to allow for ample time spent on guiding their direct reports.
- Employee Experience: Experienced employees with higher skillsets require direct oversight, allowing for more direct reports. Conversely, less experienced employees will require more hands-on management, preventing managers from taking on more direct reports.
- Manager Experience: Managers with experience that allows them to effectively manage, lead, and communicate with their teams give them the ability to take on more direct reports.
- Support Tools: Managers with access to strong performance management tools and efficient communication software have more streamlined information sharing, allowing them to manage more direct reports.
- Type of Work: Highly collaborative teams often benefit from fewer direct reports, since there is more communication within the team and coordination required. Whereas direct reports that work more autonomously may thrive with more direct reports to help divide the work.
- Time Constraints: More direct reports equate to more one-on-ones per week. Holding more individual meetings along with team meetings, managers' work, mentoring/ coaching, and other unexpected issues that arise can really limit a manager's time. Consider if the additional time for one-on-ones makes sense in addition to all other time requirements in a given week.
- Industry Specific Considerations: Industries that are more labor-heavy may require less oversight when compared to industries requiring more knowledge and expertise. The latter may require managers to be more involved, thus limiting the number of direct reports able to be managed effectively.
What is the best method to apply these considerations?
McKinsey devised a method to determine an ideal range of direct reports depending on 5 categories of manager archetypes: player/coach, coach, supervisor, facilitator, and coordinator.
Here is a short synopsis of the 5 archetypes:
- Player/Coach
This managerial archetype requires a considerable amount of individual responsibility as well as extensive expertise.
Recommended amount of direct reports: 3-5 direct reports
2. Coach
A coach archetype requires individual responsibility and leads to self-sufficiency through structured apprenticeship.
Recommended amount of direct reports: 6-7 direct reports
3. Supervisor
A moderate level of individual responsibility while incorporating a standard work process.
Recommended amount of direct reports: 8-10 direct reports
4. Facilitator
A facilitator's main responsibility is managing the day-to-day work of their direct reports, as work is mostly standardized.
Recommended amount of direct reports: 11-15 direct reports
5. Coordinator
The work overseen by coordinators is highly standardized, and direct reports perform similar work.
Recommended amount of direct reports: 15+ direct reports
As the team evolves and new tools are introduced, don’t be afraid to adjust the number of direct reports. Just because a certain number of direct reports is more standard for a specific work style, doesn’t mean managers should be constrained by these recommendations. Continue to evaluate the optimal balance of direct reports that is most appropriate for work responsibilities.
