First Nations Management & Leadership · Arcus perspective
How Many Management Layers Does a First Nation Administration Need?
A First Nation administration can have too many management layers in one part of the organization and too little supervision in another. Counting levels on an organizational chart will not reveal that difference. The useful question is what each layer contributes to decisions, staff support, service coordination and the Nation’s priorities.
There is no single ideal number of layers or direct reports for every First Nation. Mandates, geography, service complexity, workforce experience and governing arrangements differ. This article helps leaders assess the management work that must be done and whether the structure supports it. The examples are hypothetical and the framework is an original management aid, rather than a benchmark derived from a validated study.
What empirical research can—and cannot—tell leadership
A Swedish public-sector study used surveys from 434 managers in 37 municipal operations, complemented by register data. Larger spans of control were associated with less favourable conditions for most of the seven management demands examined.[5] The publisher abstract supports examining management workload; it does not establish a staffing ratio for First Nations or demonstrate that removing a layer causes a particular outcome.
A separate study of 393 nursing managers and 1,699 nurses in Danish hospitals found more perceived leadership and higher job satisfaction under medium spans than under narrow or broad spans. The authors explicitly state that their design does not resolve causality and that appropriate ranges can differ across professions, organizations and managerial levels.[6] A hospital finding cannot be imported as a target for a Nation’s mixed service portfolio.
Together, these findings challenge both an automatic preference for flatter structures and the assumption that more supervision is always better. They concern span of control, not a direct experiment on the number of organizational layers. Arcus’s design inference is to test the work transferred by a structural change and the receiving roles’ capacity before deciding whether the chart should become shorter or taller.
Begin with the decisions that move through the structure
Choose several recurring decisions that affect services or resources and trace how they move. Identify who prepares information, who provides advice, who authorizes action and who is accountable for completion. Distinguish a required control from a review that occurs because responsibility is uncertain.
A decision that passes through several managers is not automatically overmanaged. Different reviews may address distinct financial, operational or technical questions. The concern is whether leadership can explain the contribution of each stage and whether the people involved have a clear reason to participate.
For a hypothetical maintenance request, a supervisor might confirm urgency, a manager allocate capacity and a financial authority approve an expenditure outside delegated limits. If two additional managers merely forward the same request, examine why. Removing a necessary control could increase risk; clarifying an unnecessary handoff could improve responsiveness without weakening accountability.
Look for missing management, not just excess hierarchy
A flat chart can conceal an absence of supervision. Employees may report directly to an executive who has little time for regular guidance, performance conversations or practical problem-solving. In that situation, reducing management positions further may widen the gap between formal accountability and the support staff actually receive.
Review the supervision required by the work. Consider employee experience, service hours, technical complexity, locations and the consequences of unresolved issues. A group of experienced specialists with reliable processes may need a different arrangement from employees learning unfamiliar responsibilities across several sites.
FMB’s Human Resources guidance addresses organizational roles, job descriptions, qualifications and training.[3] These considerations help define the management support a team needs. They do not establish a universal span of control. The Nation should evaluate the actual work and the capability available, rather than select a ratio because it appears in another organization’s chart.
Test competing explanations for slow decisions
Duplicate authority: two levels reconsider the same question without distinct responsibility. Trace recent cases and compare each review with actual delegated authority. Removing a duplicate handoff may help, provided a necessary control is not lost.
Missing decision capacity: a role has clear authority but insufficient qualified time or information. Compare waiting time with the decision-maker’s workload and input readiness. Combining positions can worsen this problem even if the chart looks simpler.
Cross-service conflict: departments can make their own decisions but cannot settle shared priorities. Review unresolved dependencies and escalation records. A defined integrator may help where a meeting-only coordinator cannot decide; a permanent layer may be unnecessary for a temporary project.
These explanations can coexist. Examine a representative mix of routine and difficult cases, including work that moves successfully. A few frustrating delays do not establish that every layer is unnecessary.
Separate managerial responsibility from status
A position can carry a senior title without owning meaningful management decisions. Conversely, an employee may coordinate people and resolve difficult operational questions without clear authority or recognition. Review the responsibilities behind titles before deciding which positions form a necessary layer.
Ask each manager to identify the decisions they make, the work they integrate and the issues they escalate. Compare those answers with job descriptions and observed practice. Differences should prompt clarification rather than an assumption that an individual is underperforming. The structure may have evolved without updating mandates or delegations.
A hypothetical coordinator might assign daily work but remain unable to resolve staffing priorities between teams. Creating a manager title alone will not settle the issue. Define the decision authority, reporting relationship and support required. If the coordination work does not justify a separate management role, make the alternative arrangement equally explicit.
Examine where coordination belongs
Departments often depend on common services and shared decisions. Some coordination can be handled through clear processes, reliable information or a designated service owner. Other issues require a manager who can reconcile competing priorities and accept accountability for a broader result.
Do not create a management layer solely because departments need to communicate. Identify what decisions remain unresolved and whether the proposed role would have authority to resolve them. A position that convenes meetings but cannot secure decisions may add administrative work without improving the underlying relationship.
The CCP Handbook links community priorities, implementation, resources and monitoring.[1] A management structure should support those connections. Where an initiative crosses several departments, leadership may need a clear sponsor and implementation owner rather than a permanent hierarchy added to every participating service.
Review delegation and controls alongside structure
Layers and delegation interact. An administration may appear too hierarchical because decisions repeatedly rise to the executive, even though only a few formal levels exist. Alternatively, managers may hold substantial authority while reporting through a structure that provides insufficient oversight or support.
FMB’s Administrative Governance guidance discusses delegation, policies and monitoring within its financial-administration framework.[2] Use those questions to examine whether authority and accountability are aligned, while confirming local applicability. Changing reporting lines without reviewing the associated decisions can leave the old bottleneck intact.
For a hypothetical purchasing process, the solution may involve clearer delegated authority and information rather than eliminating a management position. In another situation, overlapping managers may both expect to approve the same service decision. The evidence should distinguish a process problem from a genuine need to combine, separate or reposition management responsibilities.
Consider the demands on the executive
Count direct reports only after understanding their work. An executive supervising a few complex institutions may face a heavier coordination demand than one overseeing a larger number of stable functions. The relevant question is whether the executive can provide the oversight, decisions and support the arrangement requires.
Look for evidence of competing demands: delayed management conversations, repeated unresolved escalations or strategic work displaced by routine decisions. These signs do not establish that another layer is necessary. They identify where leadership should examine delegation, role clarity, service complexity and available support.
If a new management role is proposed, specify what work will leave the executive and how accountability will be maintained. The position should create usable capacity rather than an additional intermediary through which every decision still passes. Include the cost of transition and the support required to establish the role effectively.
Management Layer Contribution Framework
This original framework tests each proposed or existing layer against five contributions. It is not a points-based ranking. Use it to identify evidence, gaps and design choices, and discuss the findings with the people who understand the services involved.
Decision contribution
What decisions does this layer own that cannot be allocated more appropriately elsewhere? Identify authority, limits and the information required. If the answer consists mainly of forwarding requests, investigate whether the role’s mandate is incomplete or the handoff is unnecessary.
People contribution
What supervision, development and support does the layer provide? Consider the work employees need from a manager rather than assuming that a reporting line guarantees effective supervision. Identify whether the manager has sufficient capacity and relevant capability to provide that contribution.
Integration contribution
Which services, resources or dependencies does the role bring together? Explain why they require continuing management attention and how disagreements are resolved. If coordination can be achieved through a dependable process, compare that alternative before establishing a permanent position.
Control contribution
What oversight or assurance does the layer provide, and how is it distinct from other reviews? Identify the applicable requirements before changing controls. A necessary separation of responsibilities should be preserved through an appropriate design, rather than removed simply to shorten the chart.
Capacity contribution
What work becomes more manageable elsewhere because this layer exists? Specify what the executive, other managers and front-line staff will be able to do differently. Compare that benefit with the resources, information and transition effort the arrangement requires.
Arcus can help trace decisions, assess management demands and compare structural and delegation options before leadership commits to changes in positions.
Test alternatives before changing positions
Develop options that address the identified management problem. These may include clearer delegation, revised departmental groupings, stronger supervisory roles, shared support or a different reporting arrangement. Include focused improvements to the existing model so that leadership can compare structural and non-structural responses.
Test the options against realistic service scenarios. Trace how a cross-departmental decision would be made, how an employee would obtain guidance and how an urgent issue would be escalated. Identify dependencies on individuals, systems or policies that are not yet in place. An attractive chart should not conceal an impractical operating model.
Information used in the review should follow the Nation’s stewardship arrangements. FNIGC’s description of OCAP® emphasizes First Nations control over information and Nation-specific application.[4] Collect what is needed to understand management work, protect individual information and distinguish organizational analysis from an assessment of particular employees.
Use a management-work transfer ledger
Extend the Management Layer Contribution Framework with a ledger for each proposed change. Record the current task and annual effort; what disappears because it is genuinely unnecessary; what remains; the receiving role and authority; available qualified capacity; and the cost or service consequence of any gap. This is an original Arcus planning tool, not a validated productivity measure.
A fictional consolidation: suppose a management layer performs 900 hours of relevant annual work. A review identifies 300 hours of duplicate review that could be eliminated. The remaining 600 hours still need an owner. Receiving managers have 250 hours of verified available capacity, leaving 350 hours to resource. Removing the position does not remove those responsibilities.
If qualified support for that gap costs an assumed $80 per hour, recurring replacement cost is $28,000. If the position’s fully avoidable annual employment cost is $160,000, the preliminary recurring difference is $132,000. With an assumed $35,000 transition cost, the first-year difference is $97,000. These invented figures exclude any additional coordination, coverage or transition requirement not yet identified; they are not compensation benchmarks or predicted savings.
The calculation is only usable if the employment cost actually ceases, the 300 hours can be removed without weakening required controls, the receiving capacity is real and the support can perform the specified work. Test peak periods and absences, not just annual averages. Add recruitment, handover, backfill, systems changes and applicable employment obligations to the real transition estimate. Obtain the necessary professional advice before acting on staffing changes.
Compare the consolidation with realistic alternatives
Retain the structure and repair delegation where duplicate review is the main issue. In the example, removing 300 hours of unnecessary work could release capacity while retaining management support. That is not a payroll saving, but it may permit work currently neglected.
Consolidate a layer with funded receiving capacity where responsibilities are sufficiently coherent and authority can move safely. Compare the full recurring and transition cost with the current model. Reject a design that balances only by assuming permanent unpaid overtime or leaving supervision unassigned.
Add or strengthen frontline supervision where staff support is demonstrably missing. It may increase recurring cost while reducing executive interruptions or improving service coverage. Specify the work it assumes and the decisions it can make; do not promise savings simply because an executive has fewer direct reports.
Implementation gate: authorize the change only when essential contributions have an owner, controls remain workable, receiving roles accept a credible workload and recurring resources are identified. Review actual decision time, unresolved escalations, supervision delivery and service continuity against the baseline. If a measure improves only because work is no longer recorded, investigate rather than declaring success.
Make the implementation decision explicit
If leadership chooses structural change, identify the authorities, role descriptions, staffing processes, communications and support required before the new arrangement begins. A reporting line should not change in isolation from the responsibilities people are expected to carry. Obtain appropriate advice where the proposal affects employment or other material requirements.
Review the arrangement after implementation using the original management problem. Are decisions clearer? Do employees receive the necessary supervision? Can leaders coordinate services without repeating reviews? These questions provide a better basis for improvement than celebrating a shorter or taller chart. The right structure is the one the Nation can explain, resource and operate in support of its responsibilities.
Arcus Advisory
Discuss your management structure with Arcus.
Arcus can help diagnose duplicate authority, missing management capacity and cross-service coordination gaps; compare structural and delegation alternatives; and prepare a decision on responsibilities and resources. Deliverables can include decision traces, a management-work transfer ledger, role and delegation options, a recurring-cost comparison and an implementation plan.
Implementation support can clarify handovers and review whether supervision, decision time and service continuity improve against the original problem. The engagement should identify evidence gaps and dependencies on employment, governance or technical advice before leadership commits to a change.
Related research and consulting
When Has a First Nation Outgrown Its Organizational Structure? Seven Warning Signs
Arcus Organization Design consulting · Organizational Design & Change collection · First Nations Knowledge Centre
Sources and further reading
- Indigenous Services Canada. CCP Handbook: Comprehensive Community Planning for First Nations in British Columbia, fourth edition.
- First Nations Financial Management Board. Administrative Governance.
- First Nations Financial Management Board. Human Resources.
- First Nations Information Governance Centre. The First Nations Principles of OCAP®.
- Wallin, Pousette and Dellve. Span of control and the significance for public sector managers’ job demands: A multilevel study. First online June 10, 2013; Economic and Industrial Democracy, August 2014. Publisher abstract reviewed; Swedish survey and register evidence, not a First Nations staffing standard.
- Jacobsen, Hansen and Pedersen. Not too narrow, not too broad: Linking span of control, leadership behavior, and employee job satisfaction in public organizations. First online October 25, 2022; Public Administration Review, 2023. Danish hospital survey evidence; authors explicitly identify causal and contextual limits.
The management analysis, hypothetical illustrations and original framework are practical guidance, not a validated diagnostic or a prescription for every Nation. FMB guidance describes its financial-administration framework; local applicability must be confirmed. OCAP® is a registered trademark of the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC). Sources reviewed October 2026.