Rate Accountability Before Cutting Manager Levels

Many companies eliminate levels of management, becoming "flatter," to cut costs. For example, where there might be six levels of management between the line workers and the CEO before, the company cuts that to four (often empowering teams to fill the gaps). A consultant who has spent "3,000 hours…interviewing managers around the world" warns against doing so without first determining which management levels are adding value. To do so he suggests focusing on accountability, "when one is answerable to a higher authority for work, resources, results, or services." He says you can determine levels of accountability and see if they match the levels of management. The ideal number of management levels are "the total of accountability levels minus one." Eliminating too many management levels can lead to loss of direction or control in the company.

The article mentions several elements of accountability:

• the relative degrees of planning, supervisory, and line work (the first two are more accountable)
• the types and numbers of "people, capital, technology, and knowledge" the position is accountable for
• how abstract the problem-solving is (greater abstraction is more accountable)
• the position's responsibility for creating (not just managing) change and the impact of those changes on the company
• the number of people the position influences inside and/or outside the company
• the length of time over which the position's tasks extend (a task that takes two years is more accountable than one lasting two hours)

Source: Dive, B. (03), "When is an Organization Too Flat?" Across the Board 7-8/2003:21.