Why limiting the number of super admins matters — and how to choose them

Access management is often treated as a secondary consideration when implementing or scaling an ATS. In practice, the way permissions are distributed has a direct impact on how stable and reliable the system remains over time. One of the most common patterns observed in growing organisations is the gradual increase in the number of super admins, often without a clear structure behind it.

In the early stages, access is usually limited to one or two individuals. As the organisation grows, additional access is granted to solve immediate needs — to fix an issue, adjust a workflow, or support a specific team. Over time, this leads to a situation where multiple people can modify configurations, often without full visibility on what others are doing.

When too many individuals have the ability to change system settings, inconsistencies can emerge:

• Workflows may be adjusted in one part of the system without considering the impact elsewhere.

• Fields may be added, renamed, or repurposed.

• Integrations may be modified without clear documentation.

These changes are rarely problematic on their own, the difficulty comes from the accumulation of small, uncoordinated adjustments.

Limiting the number of super admins is not about restricting autonomy. It is about maintaining coherence: a smaller group can ensure that changes are made with a broader understanding of the system and its dependencies. It also makes it easier to track decisions, document changes, and maintain a consistent structure over time.

Choosing the right profiles

The choice of super admins is less about hierarchy and more about perspective. The individuals best suited for this role tend to:

• have a clear understanding of how the business operates across teams

• be comfortable with both operational detail and system logic

• take a structured approach to changes rather than reacting to immediate requests

They are often found in operations roles, but not exclusively. What matters most is their ability to consider the impact of a decision beyond a single use case. While system ownership can be concentrated within a small group, it does not mean that feedback or improvement ideas should be limited. Consultants and managers still play a key role in identifying what works and what does not, the difference lies in how changes are implemented — through a more controlled and coordinated process.

The number of super admins is not always an issue in the short term. It becomes one as the system evolves. Limiting access early can help avoid a situation where the system becomes difficult to manage, not because of its complexity, but because of the way it has been modified over time.