[ethbr0]

Or, in other words -- you show me a calculated optimal span of control, and I can show you an individual at my company that would wreck it (either as too broad or too narrow).

Org design suffers from the same problem as economics and psychology: you're designing based on a fundamental discrete unit (a person) that's incredibly variable.

Except unlike the other two, you're typically not dealing in large enough numbers that you can handwave away differences and substitute averages.

Furthmore, any hierarchical org (which is to say, all, either formally or informally) exacerbates the problem in that you have some (variable!) individuals with even greater ability to influence the sum.

Which isn't to say it's hopeless, but is to say (to your point) that any approach needs flexibility and intuition.

Or as the author puts it: "As a result, you cannot predict how the humans in your organisation will react to your changes — not with perfect accuracy, at least. So the nature of org design demands that you iterate — that you introduce some set of changes, watch how those changes ripple out in organisational behaviour, and then either roll-back the change, or tweak in response to those observations."