Rapid Evidence Assessment of the scientific

literature on managers' optimal span of control

February, 2021
1. Rationale for this review
Novartis, a global pharmaceutical company with more than 125,000 employees, is involved in several
projects to enhance organizational effectiveness and performance. Part of this effort is to reconsider
managers' 'span of control', the total number of direct subordinates a manager controls or manages.
Although larger organizations tend to have wider spans of control than smaller organizations, it is often
assumed that there is an 'ideal' number of subordinates per manager. For this reason, Dr. Robert Hoffman
and Terence Barnhart from Novartis approached the Center for Evidence-Based Management (CEBMa)
to undertake a review of the best available scientific evidence on this topic.

2. What is a Rapid Evidence Assessment?

Evidence reviews come in many forms. One of the best known is the conventional literature review, which
provides an overview of the relevant scientific literature published on a topic. However, a conventional
literature review’s trustworthiness is often low: clear criteria for inclusion are lacking and studies are
selected based on the researcher’s personal preferences. As a result, conventional literature reviews are
prone to bias. This is why ‘rapid evidence assessments’ (REAs) are used. An REA is a specific research
methodology that aims to identify the most relevant studies on a specific topic as comprehensively as
possible, and to select appropriate studies based on explicit criteria. In addition, the methodological quality
of the studies included is assessed by two independent reviewers on the basis of explicit criteria. In
contrast to a conventional literature review, an REA is transparent, verifiable, and reproducible, and, as a
result, the likelihood of bias is considerably smaller.

3. Main question: What will the REA answer?

What is known in the scientific literature about managers' optimal span of control (SOC)?
Other issues raised, which will form the basis of our conclusion regarding the question above, are:
1. What is span of control and how can it be measured?
2. How is span of control assumed to affect work-related outcomes?
3. What is considered a large and a small span of control?
4. What is the optimal span of control for managers?
5. What are the consequences of a sub-optimal span of control?
6. What factors should be taken into account when determining a manager's SOC?

4. Search strategy: How was the research evidence obtained?

Four databases were used to identify studies: ABI/INFORM Global from ProQuest, Business Source
Premier from EBSCO, PsycINFO from Ovid, and Google Scholar. Our search applied the following
general search filters:

1. Scholarly journals, peer-reviewed

2. Published in the period 1980 to 2020 for meta-analyses and 2010 to 2020 for primary studies
3. Articles in English

A search was conducted for empirical studies using the term "span of control" in the title or abstract. In
addition, the references listed in the retrieved studies were screened in order to identify additional studies
for possible inclusion in the REA. Our initial search yielded 258 studies.

2
5. Selection: How were studies selected?
Study selection took place in two phases. First, titles and abstracts of the 258 studies identified were
screened for relevance. In case of doubt or lack of information, the study was included. Duplicate
publications were removed. This first phase yielded 33 studies. Second, studies were selected based on
the full text of the article using these inclusion criteria:

1. Type of studies: Focusing on quantitative, empirical studies.

2. Measurement: Only studies in which relationships among span of control and organisational
outcomes were quantitatively measured
3. Context: Only studies related to workplace settings

This second phase yielded a total number of 25 studies. An overview of the selection process is
provided in Appendix I.

6.1. Critical appraisal: How was the quality of the evidence judged?
In almost any situation it is possible to find a scientific study to support or refute a theory or a claim. Thus,
it is important to determine which studies are trustworthy (i.e., valid and reliable) and which are not. The
trustworthiness of a scientific study is first determined by its methodological appropriateness. To
determine the methodological appropriateness of the included study’s research design, the classification
system of Shadish, Cook and Campbell (2002) and Petticrew and Roberts (2006) was used. In addition,
a study’s trustworthiness is determined by its methodological quality (strengths and weaknesses).
For instance, was the sample size large enough and were reliable measurement methods used? To
determine methodological quality, all the studies included were systematically assessed on explicit
quality criteria. Finally, the effect sizes were identified. An effect (e.g., a correlation, Cohen’s d or
omega) can be statistically significant but may not necessarily be of practical relevance: even a trivial
effect can be statistically significant if the sample size is big enough. For this reason, the effect size
– a standard measure of the magnitude of the effect – of the studies included was assessed.

For a detailed explanation of how the quality of included studies was judged, see CEBMa Guideline for
Rapid Evidence Assessments in Management and Organizations (Barends, 2017).

6.2. Critical appraisal: What is the quality of the studies included?

The overall quality of the studies included is rather limited. Of the 25 studies included, 18 were based on
cross-sectional designs and were therefore graded level D. As a result, the studies included in this review
lack the methodological rigor necessary to demonstrate a causal link between span of control and work-
related outcomes. However, cross-sectional studies are an appropriate design to demonstrate
differences, in this case whether there are differences in work-related outcomes between units with a
large vs a small supervisory span of control. In addition, when cross-sectional studies fail to demonstrate
an association between two variables, in this case span of control and a specific work-related outcome, a
causal relationship is not likely. As such, the studies included in this review provide sufficient evidence to
draw conclusions regarding differences and (absence of) impact.

An overview of all studies included and information regarding year of publication, research design, sample
size, population, main findings, effect sizes and limitations is provided in Appendix II.

3
7. Main findings

Question 1: What is span of control and how can it be measured?

Traditionally, span of control (SOC) is defined as the number of employees directly reporting to a manager
or supervisor. Most of the studies included in this review measured SOC by determining the number of
people who directly report to a manager - irrespective of the total number in the hierarchy below the
manager. Some authors, however, define SOC as “the number of subordinates who can be effectively
supervised and managed” (Haimann, 1970). For this reason, SOC is also known as span of supervision,
span of responsibility, span of attention, or span of support (Bandiera, 2014).

Question 2: How is span of control assumed to affect work-related

outcomes?
In both the popular and the scientific management literature it is widely assumed that the amount of
attention, support and feedback given to each employee may decrease when the number of subordinates
supervised increases. When SOC is large, time to interact with each subordinate on an individual level is
limited - as a result, managers may be less effective (Napier, 1993; Gumusluoglu, 2013). Another factor
that is assumed to contribute to managers' effectiveness is the proximity and the contact between the
manager and his or her subordinates. Subordinates can interact and communicate more and thus develop
a higher quality relationship with physically close managers, which is more likely to occur in a smaller
SOC (Bass, 1990; Judge, 1993). Finally, it is assumed that increasing SOC weakens the control
environment (Simon 1957, Leavitt 2005). The widely held view that increasing SOC reduces control
effectiveness is based on the assumption that a manager cannot effectively monitor many subordinates
concurrently, resulting in shirking subordinates and, consequently, decreasing performance (Hanan,
2010). Based on these theoretical assumptions, Meier and Bohte (2000) developed the 'Theory of span
of control' which proposes that there is a certain size at which span of control reaches its maximum
capacity to be effective, thus increasing the size beyond this capacity may even be harmful (Doran, 2004).

Question 3: What is considered a large and a small span of control?

Finding 1: There is no consensus on what can be considered a large and a small SOC

The studies in this review show large variations in the mean or average SOC. The table in Appendix III
shows that the mean SOC varied from 9 to 77. Moreover, differences in SOC were also found between
domains, types of manager, and types of services. For example, Wallin (2014) found a mean SOC of 27
(SD = 15), with a substantial difference between human services (mean SOC = 30) and technical services
(mean SOC = 16). In addition, most studies considered SOC as a continuous variable and used linear
regression to identify differential effects of high and low SOC. For example, Doran (2004) found that an
increase of 1.6% in unit turnover rate occurred for every additional ten individuals in a manager’s SOC,
such that a SOC of 100 predicts a turnover rate of 16%. Only a few studies used a cut-off point, such as
a percentile score (Dewettinck, 2017) or the number of employees directly reporting to the manager. Even
in these studies, however, the values of what was considered a large and a small SOC varied. For
instance, in the studies by Gumusluogu (2001) and Naruse (2016), the cut-off value was 8, whereas in
the study by Krasman (2011) the cut-off value was 15, and the mean of a large SOC in the study by Hoffer
(2001) was 34.

4
Question 4: What is the optimal span of control for managers?
Finding 2: There is no magic number for a manager's optimal SOC, nor is there a 'one size
fits all approach' to determine a manager's optimal SOC

Studies on SOC have traditionally focussed on two key factors, that is, 1) the 'magic number' for a
manager's optimal SOC, and 2) factors that limit actual or optimal SOC. For centuries, the “rule of ten”
was the standard SOC, dating from the early Egyptians until well into the 19th century. Although it is
unknown why the number 10 was used, it could be that this number was merely a heuristic based on
experiential evidence (Zoller, 2020). Empirical studies on SOC conducted in the 1950s suggested that
SOC was dependent on multiple factors and therefore a “one-size-fits-all” approach to determine the
optimal SOC may not be applicable (Dewar and Simet, 1981). Partly for this reason, the research on SOC
has declined over the past 40 years. Scholars largely stopped searching for the optimal number of
subordinates that can be managed (Zoller, 2020) and instead focussed on moderating factors to consider
in determining SOC or shifted their attention to related concepts, such as leader-member exchange (LMX,
see also finding 8).

Question 5: What are the consequences of a suboptimal span of control?

Finding 3: In general, a large SOC is negatively associated with performance outcomes

(Level C)

Several cross-sectional studies found that a large SOC is negatively correlated with various performance
outcomes, such as group performance (Hoffer, 2001) and safety performance (e.g., number of accidents)
(Hechanova, 2001). Although the effect sizes found were moderate to large, the methodological quality
of the evidence does not allow for a causal interpretation of this finding. However, qualitative data
suggests that managers with a smaller SOC tend to interact and communicate more with subordinates
and better able to provide coaching and feedback to their employees, thus providing support for the
theoretical assumptions described in section 'Question 2'.

Finding 4: There is an inverse relationship between SOC and subordinates' feedback-seeking

behaviour (Level D)

A cross-sectional study found that when a manager's SOC increases, subordinates are less likely to ask
their managers for feedback (Krasman, 2011). A possible explanation for this finding is that SOC affects
the degree to which managers are accessible to their subordinates. Specifically, as the SOC widens,
managers become less accessible to each subordinate. Indeed, previous studies have shown that
employees are less likely to seek feedback from sources (supervisors, colleagues, clients) that are less
accessible because the effort costs are greater (Vancouver, 1995) - they have to track down the manager,
get the attention of a colleague, find an appropriate time ... and so forth.

Finding 5: SOC moderates the (positive and negative) effects of leadership styles (Level B)

Managers and leaders spend a substantial part of their time “influencing employees to understand and
agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively, and facilitating employees to
accomplish the shared objectives” (Yukl, 2002). The term ‘leadership style’ refers to the way in which this
process of influencing and facilitating is carried out. In the past 80 years, numerous studies have been
conducted on this topic, and, as a result, many different styles are identified, such as transactional-,
transformational-, laissez-faire-, servant-, task oriented-, people oriented-, and a coaching leadership
style. In addition, a large body of evidence is available on the effects of these leadership styles on work-
related outcomes, such as task performance, turnover, work motivation, organizational commitment, team
learning, and innovation (see e.g., Burke, 2006; Dumdum, 2013; Turner, 2005). This review identified

5
several studies indicating that SOC moderates the impact of leadership style on work-related outcomes.
For example, it was found that a large SOC decreases the positive effect of transformational-,
transactional-, supportive-, and servant-leadership styles and increases the negative effect of
management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership styles (Doran, 2004; Thompson, 2016;
Thompson, 2019; Gumusluoglu, 2013). In addition, a longitudinal study found that the relationship of
transformational- and transactional leadership with turnover behaviour is much stronger when the
manager has a narrow SOC (Moon, 2019). Finally, a recent before-after study found that during change
interventions a large SOC decreased the positive effect of constructive leadership on subordinates'
readiness for change (Lundmark, 2020).

Finding 6: A large SOC negatively affects managers' perceived job demands (Level C) and
predicts manager turnover rates (Level B)

Several studies found a negative correlation between a large SOC and managers' perceived work
demands, such as work overload, conflicting logics, group problems, and work control (Brown, 2013;
Wallin, 2014; Wong, 2015). The effect sizes, however, were rather small. This finding could nevertheless
provide a possible explanation for the outcome of a longitudinal study that found that a large manager-to-
employee ratio is a strong predictor for subsequent manager turnover rates (Kraichy, 2019)

Finding 7: SOC is associated with ethical leadership variability and leadership trust (Level D)

Managers and leaders who set clear principles and ethical standards must be consistent in applying them
to themselves and others. A recent cross-sectional study, however, found that subordinates in units with
a large SOC are more likely to perceive their manager to be inconsistent in ethical leadership behaviours
across situations and time (Bormann, 2018). As a result, managers with a large SOC are more likely to
be seen by their subordinates as less trustworthy. The effect sizes found, however, were rather small.

Finding 8: SOC affects the quality of leader-member relationships (Level D)

Managers often have a special relationship with an inner circle of trusted employees, to whom they give
higher levels of responsibility, decision influence and access to resources. In return, these employees
work harder and are more committed to task objectives. This phenomenon is also referred to as leader-
member exchange or LMX. Indeed, several recent meta-analyses have demonstrated that there is a
strong positive relationship between LMX quality and a wide range of work-related outcomes (see e.g.,
Rockstuhl, 2012; Martin, 2016). Several cross-sectional studies have found that a large SOC negatively
affects the quality of leader-member relationships (Schriesheim, 2000; Schyns, 2005; 2012), and
consequently negatively affects performance outcomes. Some scholars argue that organizations should
therefore pay less attention to SOC but instead focus on the quality of the leader-membership relationship
(Zoller, 2020)

Question 6: What factors should be taken into account when determining a

manager's SOC?

Finding 9: A high level of employee autonomy and empowerment allows for a larger SOC
(level C)

In organisations, most line- and middle managers perform two different functions. First, they are at the
top of the 'production hierarchy', and as such deal with problems that employees can't handle themselves,
for example, because they lack experience or professional expertise. It is therefore argued that a unit or
company with workers with professional expertise and/or autonomy need fewer line- and middle
managers and therefore allow for a larger SOC. Second, line- and middle managers communicate

6
information, coordinate activities, set goals (Floyd,1997), implement strategies and policies (van
Rensburg, 2014), but also perform HR activities such as supporting, coaching, supervising and evaluating
employees (O’Shannassy, 2014) - tasks delegated to them by central headquarters. This implies that
when employees have a high level of structural and psychological empowerment, fewer line- and middle
managers are needed and managers' SOC can be increased. Indeed, cross-sectional and longitudinal
studies found that employee autonomy and empowerment and SOC are related (Bloom, 2014;
Hechanova, 2001; Lucas, 2008).

Finding 10: The use of information and communication technologies allows for a wider SOC
(Level D).

As explained above, workers with limited professional expertise and autonomy require more support from
a manager, which will lead to a smaller SOC. In the past decades, however, new ICT technologies such
as email, video communication apps, task management tools, corporate intranet, online repository
systems, and team information sharing tools support workers to quickly find and share information, help
teams to coordinate their activities, and enable them to make decisions regarding planning, resource
allocation, etc. Thus, the use of ICT technologies can facilitate employee decision-making and
consequently allows for a wider SOC (Bloom, 2014).

8. Conclusion
Returning to the overarching question this REA addressed, we conclude that the optimal span of control
varies due to the capacities of employees to self-manage and execute their duties autonomously and the
availability of supports to facilitate communication, coordination, and information sharing. Organizations
where employee capabilities and supports are factored into design decisions are better positioned to
develop appropriate spans of control for their managers than firms that follow bureaucratic rules or non-
evidence based beliefs regarding the 'optimal' span of control for a given manager.

9. Limitations
This REA aims to provide a balanced assessment of what is known in the scientific literature about span
of control by using the systematic review method to search and critically appraise empirical studies. In
order to be ‘rapid’, concessions were made in relation to the breadth and depth of the search process,
such as the exclusion of unpublished studies, the use of a limited number of databases and a focus on
empirical research published in the period 2000 to 2020. As a consequence, some relevant studies may
have been missed.

A second limitation concerns the critical appraisal of the studies included, which did not incorporate a
comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of their tests, scales and questionnaires.

Finally, we note that the research literature has not reported in any detail the outcomes associated with a
specific point value or ranges of SOC. Instead, its focus has been on effects as captured by regression
coefficients, their direction and magnitude.

Given these limitations, care must be taken not to present the findings presented in this REA as
conclusive.

7
References

Bandiera, O., Prat, A., Sadun, R., & Wulf, J. (2014). Span of control and span of attention. Harvard
Business School strategy unit working paper, (12-053), 14-22.

Barends, E., Rousseau, D.M. & Briner, R.B. (Eds). (2017). CEBMa Guideline for Rapid Evidence
Assessments in Management and Organizations, Version 1.0. Center for Evidence Based Management,
Amsterdam. Available from www.cebma.org/guidelines/

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Bloom, N., Garicano, L., Sadun, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2014). The Distinct Effects of Information
Technology and Communication Technology on Firm Organization. Management Science, 60(12), 2859-
2885.

Bormann, K. C., Poethke, U., Cohrs, C., & Rowold, J. (2018). Doing bad through being selective in doing
good: the role of within-unit variability in ethical leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 27(6), 683.

Brown, P., Fraser, K., Wong, C. A., Muise, M., & Cummings, G. (2013). Factors influencing intentions to
stay and retention of nurse managers: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(3), 459-
472.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of
leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The leadership quarterly, 17(3), 288-307.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates.

Dewar, R.D. and Simet, D.P. (1981), “A level specific prediction of spans of control examining the effects
of size, technology, and specialization”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-24,

Dewettinck, K., & Vroonen, W. (2017). Antecedents and consequences of performance management
enactment by front-line managers. Evidence from Belgium. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 28(17), 2473-2502.

Doran, D., McCutcheon, A. S., Evans, M. G., MacMillan, K., McGillis Hall, L., Pringle, D., ... & Valente, A.
(2004). Impact of the Manager’s Span of Control on Leadership and Performance. Foundation CHSR,
editor.

Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional
leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In Transformational and
charismatic leadership: The road ahead 10th anniversary edition. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle managements strategic influence and organisational
performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 465–485.

Gumusluoglu, L., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., & Hirst, G. (2013). Transformational leadership and R&D
workers' multiple commitments: Do justice and span of control matter? Journal of Business Research,
66(11), 2269-2278.

Haimann, T. and Scott, W.G. (1970), Management in the Modern Organization, Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
MA (page 242)

Hechanova-Alampay, R., & Beehr, T. A. (2001). Empowerment, span of control, and safety performance
in work teams after workforce reduction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(4), 275-282.

Hoffer, J. (2001). Supervisory span, relational coordination, and flight departure performance: A
reassessment of postbureaucracy theory. Organization Science, 12(4), 468-483.

8
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of
Management Journal, 36, 80–105.

Kraichy, D., & Schmidt, J. (2019). Collective turnover: organization design and processes or contagion
effects? Employee Relations, 42(2), 492-506.

Krasman, J. (2011). Taking Feedback-Seeking to the Next "Level": Organizational Structure and
Feedback-Seeking Behavior. Journal of Managerial Issues, 23(1), 9-30.

Krasman, J. (2014). Do my staff trust me?: The influence of organizational structure on subordinate
perceptions of supervisor trustworthiness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(5), 470-
488

Leavitt, H. 2005. Top Down: Why Hierarchies are Here to Stay and How to Manage Them More
Effectively. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Lucas, V., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Wong, C. A. (2008). The impact of emotional intelligent leadership on
staff nurse empowerment: The moderating effect of span of control. Journal of Nursing Management,
16(8), 964-973.

Lundmark, R., Nielsen, K., Hasson, H., Ulrica von Thiele, S., & Tafvelin, S. (2020). No leader is an island:
contextual antecedents to line managers' constructive and destructive leadership during an organizational
intervention. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 13(2), 173-188.

Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX)
and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel psychology, 69(1), 67-121.

Meier, K., & Bohte, J. (2000). Ode to Uther Gulick: Span of control and organizational performance.
Administration & Society, 32(2), 115-137.

Moon, K.-K., & Park, J. (2019). Leadership Styles and Turnover Behavior in the US Federal Government:
Does Span of Control Matter? International Public Management Journal, 22(3), 417-443.

Napier, B. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management Review,
3, 321–357.

Naruse, T., Sakai, M., & Nagata, S. (2016). Effects of relational coordination among colleagues and span
of control on work engagement among home-visiting nurses. Japan Journal of Nursing Science, 13(2),
240-246.

O'Shannassy, T. (2014). Investigating the role of middle managers in strategy-making process: An

Australian mixed method study. Journal of Management and Organization, 20(2), 187-205.

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). How to appraise the studies: an introduction to assessing study
quality. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide, 125-163.

Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and
culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of applied psychology, 97(6),
1097.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An examination
of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness on leader–member exchange using
traditional and multivariate within-and between-entities analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5),
659.

Schyns, B., Maslyn, J. M., & Marc, P. M. v. V. (2012). Can some leaders have a good relationship with
many followers? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(6), 594-606.

Schyns, B., Maslyn, J. M., & Weibler, J. (2010). Understanding the relationship between span of control
and subordinate consensus in leader-member exchange. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 19(3), 388.

9
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
generalized causal inference. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.

Shaughnessy, J. J., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1985). Research methods in psychology. Alfred A. Knopf.

Simon, H. 1957. Administrative Behavior, 2nd edition. New York: Macmillan Co.

Thompson, G., Glasø, L., & Martinsen, Ø. (2016). Antecedents and consequences of envy. The Journal
of social psychology, 156(2), 139-153.

Thompson, G., Buch, R., & Glasø, L. (2019). Servant leadership, span of control, and outcomes in a
municipality context. Journal of General Management, 44(2), 87.

Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2005). The project manager's leadership style as a success factor on projects:
A literature review. Project management journal, 36(2), 49-61.

Vancouver, J. and E. Morrison. 1995. “Feedback Inquiry: The Effects of Source Attributes and Individual
Differences.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62: 276-285.

Van Rensburg, M. J., Davis, A., & Venter, P. (2014). Making strategy work: The role of the middle
manager. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(2), 165-186.

Wallin, L., Pousette, A., & Dellve, L. (2014). Span of control and the significance for public sector
managers' job demands: A multilevel study. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 35(3), 455.

Wong, C. A., Elliott-Miller, P., Laschinger, H., Cuddihy, M., Meyer, R. M., Keatings, M., . . . Szudy, N.
(2015). Examining the relationships between span of control and manager job and unit performance
outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 23(2), 156-168.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a
half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15-32.

Zoller, Y. J., & Muldoon, J. (2020). Journey of a concept: span of control – the rise, the decline, and what
is next? Journal of Management History, 26(4), 515-533.

10
 ANNEX II
SELECTION OF STUDIES

ABI Inform BSP PsycINFO

n = 104 n = 103 n = 51

duplicates Articles obtained from

n = 97 search
n = 258

excluded Titles and abstracts screened

for relevance
n = 128
n = 161

excluded Critical appraisal & text

n=8 screened for relevance
n = 33

included studies
n = 25
 Appendix II - Data extraction table

1st Author & Design & Sector / Effect

Main findings Limitations Level
year sample size Population sizes

• In general, information technologies are associated with increased

autonomy and span of control, as this facilitates more effective
employee decision-making), whereas communications
firms from the very technical/
cross-sectional technologies (facilitating more effective communication within the
US, France, econometric study
1. Bloom, study firm) are associated with decreased autonomy and span of control,
Germany, Italy, unclear D
2014 as decisions will be passed up to the centre/top of the firm.
n = 1000 firms Poland, Portugal, concerns industrial
Sweden and the UK • Production technologies that help worker information access organisations (plants)
enable them to do more tasks which makes it possible for the plant
manager to oversee more production workers ( = greater span of
control).
cross-sectional
SOC - eth lead var
study
r = .25
• Span of control was positively related to ethical leadership
2. Bormann, S1 n = 1490 sub. industrial
variability; this, in turn, negatively affected unit job satisfaction no serious limitations D
2018 & 168 lead. company in Germany eth lead var - trust
through decreasing trust in the leader.
r = -.32
S2 n = 1468 sub.
& 137 lead.
systematic review
of mainly healthcare • Two studies included identified that span of control was associated
3. Brown, prospective design of the included
organisations, with nurses' intent to leave and was a crucial element in manager not reported C
2013 studies studies unclear
nurse managers perceived workload.
n=8
cross-sectional front-line managers • Span of control moderates the relationship between managers
4. Dewettinck, study regression weights suggest
and employees of attitude and involvement in/ enactment of the company's formal no serious limitations D
2017 the differences are small
n = 721 Belgium firms performance management and HR practices.

• Span of control was not found to be a predictor of nurses’ job

ns
cross-sectional satisfaction
study nurses and patients • However, span of control moderated the relationship between SOC > transf: R2 = .79
5. Doran,
from 5 Canadian leadership style (transformational, transactional, management by SOC > transa: R2 = .13 no serious limitations D
2004 n = 717 + 680 hospitals exception, laissez faire) and nurses’ job satisfaction SOC > mbe: R2 = .09
(51 units)
• Span of control decreased patient satisfaction. SOC > lsf: R2 = .08

1
 These results suggest that span of control decreases the positive
effect of both the transformational and transactional leadership styles
on nurses’ job satisfaction and increases the negative effect of
management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership styles on
nurses’ job satisfaction.

• When span of control is narrow, transformational leadership

cross-sectional R&D workers of 65 positively affects R&D workers' perceptions of procedural justice
6. Gumusluoglu, study Turkish high and organizational commitment not reported (but SEM
no serious limitations D
2013 technology • When span of control is large, transformational leadership suggests moderate)
n = 445 companies positively affects R&D workers' supervisory commitment, but not
organizational commitment

• When the span of control increases, superiors are more likely to

artificial setting
reject projects that they believe contain excessive slack
randomised undergraduate • As a result, when span of control increases, subordinates submit rather
7. Hanan, controlled study only means, SD and t-stats
students from a large budgets with less slack. technical/econometric A
2010 are reported
n = 16? US university • The net result is that superiors earn more profit per subordinate study
under an expanded span of control. Thus, increasing span of
sample size unclear
control can improve the effectiveness of the budgeting process.

SOC > unsafe behaviors

r = .43
• Span of control (positively) and level of empowerment (negatively) SOC > safety accidents
correlated with measures of poor safety performance (= unsafe r = .44
longitudinal post- behaviors and number of accidents) possible range
test employees of a large Emp > unsafe behaviors restriction (none of
8. Hechanova,
chemical company in A practical implication of this is that empowering employees may not r = -.48 the teams were C
2001 n = 531 be enough if leaders have too many members to handle. It is
3 US states Emp > safety accidents assessed to be fully
(24 workgroups) important, therefore, that organizations consider both the r = -.51 empowered)
competencies of its employees and the capacity of leaders to handle
a greater number of employees when restructuring work groups. SOC/empowerment predicted
1/3 of the variance in safety
measures

• Broad levels of supervisory SOC are associated with lower levels

of group performance SOC > perf
• Supervisors with smaller spans of control achieved higher levels of r = -.75
relational coordination* among their direct reports (broad R2 = .32*
cross-sectional front-line employees Baron & Kenny's
supervisory SOC was associated with less timely communication
9. Hoffer, study and supervisors from method is used to
among group members and with lower levels of problem solving, Rel Coord D
2001 American airline analyse moderation
n = 354 helping, shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect r = .88
companies (not reported here)
among group members. R2 = .48*
• Qualitative data suggests that supervisors with smaller spans
achieved these results through working with, and providing SOC x Rel Coord
intensive coaching and feedback to their direct reports. R2 = .45*

2
 Relational coordination includes a communication component, (*controlled for average flight
reflecting the frequency and timeliness of communication among length, number of passengers
group members. In addition, it includes a relational component, per flight, percent
reflecting the strength of problem solving, helping, mutual respect, of passengers connecting, and
shared goals, and shared knowledge among group members involved flights per month)
in the same work process.
• The organization-level data provided limited support for turnover SOC - manager turnover
longitundinal
spreading at different job levels. Instead, vacancy rate predicted r = .26
(4 year) panel
subsequent non-manager turnover rates, whereas span of control β = .26*
10. Kraichy, study Canadian
predicted subsequent manager turnover rates. R2 = .10* no serious limitations B
2019 n= organizations
• To minimize ongoing manager turnover, organizations may benefit *controlled for union, profit &
40 organizations, from redesigning work units to have smaller manager-to-employee cost per FTE, and non-
232 observations ratios. manager turnover

SOC - feedback seeking from

supervisors
r = .22
β = .19*
full-time employed
cross-sectional • There is an inverse relationship between span of control and R2 = .14*
executive MBA
11. Krasman, study feedback-seeking behaviour from supervisors: when the
students SOC - feedback seeking from no serious limitation D
2011 supervisors' span of control increases, subordinates' feedback-
n = 154 at a Canadian co-workers
seeking behaviour decreases
university r < .1
*controlled for standardization,
routinization, and
centralization

cross-sectional
Canadian full-time
12. Krasman, study • Span of control was not related to subordinates’ perceptions of
workers from various r < .1 ns no serious limitations D
2014 their supervisors' trustworthiness
industries
n = 137

findings in abstract
systematic review
• Research on front line managers span of control found no deviate from findings
of mostly (11)
13. Lee, Canadian front line relationship between span of control and staff nurse job of the studies
prospective not reported B
2008 nurse managers satisfaction. included
studies
included studies are
n = 12
rather old (< 2000)

3
 • Span of control was found to be a moderator of the relationship
between nurses perceptions of their managers emotionally
cross-sectional intelligent behaviour (= social awareness, empathy, relationship β = -.71
14. Lucas, study nurses from two
management) and feelings of workplace empowerment. R2 = .45 no serious limitations D
2008 Canadian hospitals
n = 203 • The results suggest that even managers with strong emotional
intelligence may not be able to empower their staff if their span of
control is large.

SOC - constr leadership

r = -.50 type of intervention
• Results suggest that span of control was negatively related to
SOC - pass destr leadership unclear ('enhance
pre-post study constructive leadership and positively related to passive
r = -.62 managers’ and
15. Lundmark, Swedish process destructive leadership during the change intervention.
n = 137 employees’ skills and C
2020 industry plant • Employee readiness for change was positively related to constr lead - change read
(37 groups) abilities to redesign
constructive leadership, and negatively related to both passive and β = -.31 their work to fit within
active destructive leadership.
pass destr lead - change read the new structure)
β = -.20

• There is a negative relationship between transformational

data were collected
leadership and turnover behavior, but this relationship is
5-year panel from the US Federal
moderated by the span of control such that the relationship is
study Employee Viewpoint
much stronger when the leader has a narrow span of control rather
Survey (FEVS) and
16. Moon, than a broad span of control. unclear (only unstandardized
n = 5 waves the Enterprise no serious limitations B
Human Resources • There is a negative relationship between transactional leadership
2019 beta's are reported)
varying from
and turnover behavior, but this relationship is moderated by the
263.000 to Integration-Statistical
span of control such that such that the relationship is much
687.000 Data Mart (EHRI-
SDM) stronger when leaders have a narrow span of control rather than a
broad span of control.

cross-sectional staff nurses from

study • Span of control was found to be a moderating factor on the positive
17. Naruse, Japanese home- SOC x RC > WE
effect of relational coordination with nursing colleagues on staff no serious limitations D
2016 n = 93 visiting nursing β = .78
nurse work engagement.
(22 agencies) agencies

cross-sectional • The relationship between racial diversity and performance is NOT SOC - productivity or fin low response rate
18. Richard, study HR directors of US moderated by managerial SOC. performance (16%), but no
r < .1 ns D
2006 banking firms • The relationship between gender diversity and performance is indication of response
n = 79 NOT moderated by managerial SOC. all beta's were ns bias

cross-sectional US bank managers identification of high

19. Schriesheim, study and low + high SOC - LMX vs low performers
• Span of leadership was negatively related to LMX D
2000 performing r = -.32 was made by
n = 75 + 150 subordinates supervisors

4
 cross-sectional
study German workers
SOC - LMX
20.Schyns, (*includes MA of from different
• Span of leadership was negatively related to LMX Germany r = -.14 no serious limitations D+
2005 two US studies) professions and
US r = -.27
organizations
n = 252

• Results show that there is a negative relationship between span of

cross-sectional control and average LMX quality
study Dutch leaders and
21. Schyns, • Results show that extraversion, conscientiousness, and
subordinates, sector only t-values are reported no serious limitations D
2012 n = 244 agreeableness moderate the relationship between span of control
unclear
(41 groups) and various dimensions of LMX (note: the results for
agreeableness, however, were in the opposite direction)

cross-sectional leaders and followers

22. Thompson, study • Span of supervision is negatively associated with supportive
from Norwegian r = -.29 no serious limitations D
2016 leadership style.
n = 135 + 772 companies

cross-sectional leaders and followers

23. Thompson, study from a large-sized • The positive relationship between servant leadership and job
r = -.08 (!) no serious limitations D
2019 municipality satisfaction is attenuated by larger span of supervision.
n = 31 + 206 in Norway

cross-sectional • Managers' SOC was negatively related with job demands such as
study managers from (perceived) work-overload, conflicting logics, excessive role all outcome
24. Wallin, only unstandardized beta's are
Swedish demands, and group problems measures were self- D
2014 n = 434 reported
municipalities • Managers who were members of large management teams report
(37 groups) experienced some job demands to a higher extent.

time-lagged role overload r = .29, β = .26

cross-sectional • SOC predicted (perceived) role overload, work control and job
Frontline managers work control r = -.31, β = -.23
25. Wong, study satisfaction,
from Canadian job sat r = -.23, β = -.18 no serious limitations D+
2015 • SOC predicted unit adverse outcomes
n = 121 academic hospitals un adv outc r = .28, β = .35
• SOC did not predict unit turnover. turnover r and β <.1
(14 organisations)

5
 Excluded studies

1st Author & year Reason for exclusion

1. Davison, 2003 Not an empirical study

Qualitative multiple case study (found that nursing staff and their frontline leaders experience challenges in regard to visibility and role of the
2. Holm-Petersen, 2017 leader, e.g., in creating overview, coordination, setting-up clear goals, following up and being in touch. However, large wards also provide
flexibility and development possibilities)

3. Li, 2016 Study examines the relationship between the flattening of a Chinese government hierarchy and economic performance

4. Martin-Morgan, 2016 Concerns employees in project management teams in the Hong Kong construction industry

5. Ortin-Angel, 2002 Study examines the relationship between compensation ratios and spans of control within hierarchical organizations.

6. Salas-Fumas, 2013 Analyses are on the economy/community level (i.e. 18 Spanish autonomous cumunities)

7. Schyns, 2010 Not an empirical study

8. Zoller, 2020 Traditional literature review

6
 Appendix III

Overview of reported SOC values

1st author M SD range

Borman, 2018-1 9 5 -
Borman, 2018-2 10 8 -
Dewettinck, 2017 12 20 -
Doran, 2004 77 - 36 - 151
Hechanova, 2001 47 24 12 - 110
Hoffer, 2001 20 11 8 - 42
Kraichy, 2019 9 9 -
Krasman, 2014 9 9 -
Lucas, 2008 77 39 5 - 151
Lundmark, 2020 19 13 3 - 51
Schriesheim, 2000 11 4 -
Schyns, 2005 16 12 -
Schyns, 2012 15 9 -
Thompson, 2016 15 10 -
Thompson, 2019 15 7 -
Wallin, 2014 27 15 2 - 50
Wong, 2015 77 43 2 - 200