Is there any evidence of managerial excess at the expense of profits (I don't mean anecdata)? Genuine question. I've always worked in small companies, so I don't have any experience with large companies.
But someone is footing the bill for a salary on the premise that enough revenue will be generated to cover managerial costs and some. Right?
Headcount is probably the more appropriate number. Original commenter's claims on whether it's gone up or down aside, there is some minimum number of managers for a number of employees, and of support staff for same.
That number may be larger or smaller, but it exists. An organization can't function effectively with 1,000 people reporting to one manager. (See: Valve)
Note: from what I can find, it historically and currently hovers around 10:1.
If we're talking about profits though, headcount matters more, because it requires the other things. If you can run the same revenue on 100 people as you can on 1,000, you save on their salaries, but also on the salaries of all the management and support the extra 900 would require.
But someone is footing the bill for a salary on the premise that enough revenue will be generated to cover managerial costs and some. Right?