Last week, during a one-on-one conversation, one of our QA Engineers shared something that made me think more deeply about how we structure leadership.
She told me that she wasn’t fully aligned with her current reporting manager.
There was no major conflict. The reality was much simpler.
Most of her day-to-day work and projects were with other leaders. Only a small portion of her work involved the manager she officially reported to. Naturally, the people who worked with her every day had a better understanding of her work, challenges, strengths, and progress.
We listened to her.
The next day, we changed her reporting to the leader she works with more closely.
It reinforced something I strongly believe:
Leaders choose people. People should also have a voice in choosing their leaders.
Don’t Keep People Just for the Sake of Reporting
Sometimes organizational structures stay the same simply because that is how they have always been.
Someone reports to a leader on the org chart, so we continue that relationship even when their actual work has moved somewhere else.
But having someone report to you is not leadership.
If you don’t understand what they are working on, don’t regularly speak with them, and aren’t involved in their development, we should ask ourselves: Are we really the right leader for that person?
There should be no pride attached to the number of people reporting to us.
The goal isn’t to have a bigger team under our name.
The goal is to make sure every person has access to a leader who has the time and context to support them.
Leadership Requires Time
I believe every leader should have a meaningful one-on-one conversation with each person on their team at least once every quarter.
And I don’t mean a project status meeting.
Talk about their career.
What are they learning?
Where do they want to grow?
What is frustrating them?
What opportunities are they looking for?
How can we help them become better at what they do?
These conversations require time and attention.
If, as a leader, we consistently don’t have time for these conversations, maybe the solution isn’t to keep postponing them.
Maybe we should ask whether that person would be better supported by another leader.
Why We Follow the K6 Principle
At Klizer, we have what we call the K6 principle — ideally, a leader shouldn’t directly manage more than 5–6 people.
For me, six is an ideal number.
Once the team becomes much larger, it becomes increasingly difficult to give everyone meaningful attention.
You can probably manage tasks for 10, 15, or even 20 people.
But can you really lead them?
Can you understand what each person wants from their career?
Can you recognize when someone is struggling before it becomes a bigger issue?
Can you coach them?
Can you celebrate their progress?
Can you spend meaningful time with them?
That’s where the difference between managing people and leading people becomes visible.
The Org Chart Should Follow the Relationship
An org chart is useful. But it shouldn’t become more important than the actual working relationship.
Leaders should have a say in building the teams they believe they can lead effectively.
And people should also be able to speak openly when they believe another leader is better positioned to guide them.
Not every request can or should result in a reporting change. But every genuine request deserves to be heard.
Because ultimately, people shouldn’t report to us just because their name happens to sit underneath ours on an org chart.
They should report to leaders who have the context, capacity, and commitment to help them succeed.
Are you currently working day-to-day with one leader while officially reporting to someone else on the org chart?
How does that work for you? Have you ever asked for the reporting structure to change?
I’d love to hear your experience in the comments.
Discover more from Reflections by Mohan Natarajan
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.