 Your Article Library

Span of
Management
(Wide versus
Narrow Span)
Article shared by :

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Span of Management: Wide

versus Narrow Span and Factors
Determining Span!

Span of management is the

limitation of the number of
subordinates who can be
effectively supervised by a
manager in the discharge of his
or her management duties. The
incapacity of human beings
restricts the number of persons
who can be managed effectively.

Actual spans in business

organization indicate that there
is no single best number that
can be universally applied.
However, all management
experts agree that there is a
definite span limiting the
number of subordinates who
can be managed effectively by
one executive. There are various
approaches in determining the
ideal span of management.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Classical approach:

This approach has dealt with

generalizations embodying
specific number of subordinates
for an effective span. Classicists
have suggested span of upper
and top level from three to
seven to eight subordinates.
However, the recent operational
approach has suggested that
there are too many variables in
management and no exact
number can be fixed.

Graicunas’ theory on superior-

subordinate relationships—A.V.
Graicunas (1933), a French
management consultant,
analysed superior-subordinate
relations and classified these
relationships into three forms.
His study was not based upon
empirical observation, but
rather upon theoretical
projection by mathematics. His
formula was based on a
geometric increase in
complexities of managing as the
number of subordinates
increase.

The three types of superior-

subordinate relationships as
identified by him are:
ADVERTISEMENTS:

(i) Direct single relationships:

Such relationships arise from

the direct and individual
contacts of the superior with the
subordinates. Thus if A as a
superior has three subordinates
X, Y, Z, there would be three
direct single relationships.

(ii) Direct group relationships:

This arises between the superior

and the subordinates in all
possible combinations. Thus, a
superior may consult the
subordinates with a second in
attendance, or with all the
subordinates or with various
combinations of them.
Depending upon possible
combinations, there would be
nine relationships like X with Y,
Y with Z, X with Y, and so on.

(iii) Cross relationships:

These are mutual relationships

among subordinates necessary
for working under a common
superior, such as X and Y, Y and
X. The two relationships are
different because in the first
case Y consults X and in the
second case X consults Y and in
both cases situations may be
different. There are six cross-
relationships for the sub-
ordinates. On the basis of
analysis of the above
relationships, Graicunas
developed the following
mathematical formula based on
geometric increase in the
complexities of managing.
Wide versus Narrow Spans:

Span of management directly

affects the number of levels in
the organization. Wider spans of
management lead to flat
organizations whereas narrow
spans of management result in
tall organizational structures. A
narrow span, which results in
many levels in the organization,
creates problems both in terms
of cost and efficiency.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

First, the levels are very expen-

sive because more supervisory
staff is needed, which leads to
larger expenses in the form of
executive remuneration.
Expense is further increased on
account of additional
subordinates for more number
of managers. Hence, in both
executive and operative level,
cost increases.

Secondly, communication in a
tall organization has several
limitations. Communication
through scalar chain has to
travel through various levels,
which not only delays its
reaching the appropriate points,
but also leads to the
communication getting distorted
or sometimes missed altogether.

Thirdly, narrow span (tall

structure) presents problems in
coordination and control, as the
top management is far away
from the operatives where
actual work is performed.
Encouraging lower level
managers to develop cross-
relationships, however, can
eliminate this problem.

Fourthly, narrow span also

adversely affects employee
morale. A subordinate who finds
himself submerged at the
bottom of die organization
pyramid feels sensitive about the
fact that he bears nothing from
the top organization
(leadership). Due to such a
placement, he gets very few
opportunities to develop self-
reliance and initiative, and
therefore, hardly enjoys any
feeling of belonging. Hence, the
employee may be less
enthusiastic about the job.

Finally, narrow spans also

reduce opportunities for
management development. Too
many levels hardly allow for
delegation of any real authority
and greatly limit the supervision
to a very few activities at lower
levels. The result is that the
subordinate is deprived of the
benefit of managing a larger
number of related activities.

However, the tall structure has

certain advantages such as
reinforcing the authority
relationships through emphasis
given to status, placing burden
on cross-communication, which
sometimes becomes a problem,
and providing opportunities for
promotion because of many
positions.

Wide span or flat structure calls

for supervision of too many
people. Supervision will become
less effective because the
manager will not have sufficient
time and energy to attend to
each subordinate. Large number
of contacts may also distract the
manager to the extent of
neglecting important questions
of policy.

Advantages of flat structure are

that the communication chain is
shorter and is free from
hierarchical control.
Subordinates feel more
autonomous and develop an
independent spirit. The flat
structure also reduces cost as a
lesser number of executives are
required.

The factors responsible for

wide span may be identified as
follows:

(i) Trend towards

decentralization

(ii) Improved communication

technology

(iii) Increasing size of

organizations

(iv) New pattern of leadership

evolving from a growing
acceptance of group processes

While deciding span, advantages

and disadvantages of these two
situations should be carefully
examined in terms of tangible as
well as intangible factors, and
actual span should be
determined keeping in view all
the pertinent factors in a
particular situation and at a
given time.

Factors Determining Span:

The determination of span

depends upon the number of
relationships that can be
managed by a superior. As such,
the important determinant is the
manager’s ability to reduce the
frequency and time impact of
superior- subordinate
relationships, though this ability
itself is determined by several
other factors.

Factors that determine the

optimum span may be stated
as follows:

Ability of executives:

The supervisory ability of

executives is composed of the
capacity to comprehend
problems quickly, to get along
well with people, and to
command respect and loyalty
from subordinates. In addition,
the communicative skill,
decision making, leadership
ability, and controlling power
are important determinants of
supervisory ability. Accordingly,
executives differ from each
other in their ability to supervise
others. When the ability is high,
a larger number of subordinates
can be supervised. In contrast, a
poor ability results in limiting
the span of supervision.

Capacity of subordinates:

Efficient and trained

subordinates can discharge their
duties satisfactorily without
much help and direction from
the superiors. In such a case, the
span may be larger because a
superior will be required to
devote less time in managing
them. Similarly, changes in
subordinates make the span
narrower.

Nature of work:

When the work involves routine,

repeated efforts or where the
executive manages similar
functions, he/she becomes well
versed with jobs and can handle
a larger number of
subordinates. On the contrary,
activities and functions with a
degree of variability and
probably more complex in
nature increase inter-
relationships and consume more
time of the executive to dispose
them of and thus warrant a
fewer number of persons to be
handled by the supervisor.

Time required to be spent on

supervision:

Every manager needs time for

contacting/attending to various
persons, for doing
administrative jobs of planning
and policy making, and also for
the other processes. These
functions are not directly related
to guiding the subordinates.
Hence, the span to a great extent
depends on the availability of
time for supervision.

Delegation of authority:

Ambiguous or inadequate
authority delegation consumes
disproportionate time of the
manager in counselling and
guiding subordinates. Where
subordinates are delegated with
authority sufficient to carry out
the assigned duties and their
authorities are clearly defined,
they would considerably reduce
the time and attention of the
senior and thus help to increase
the span of the executive
provided they are trained
enough.

Degree of decentralization:

An executive operating under a

decentralized set up is relieved
of much of the burden of making
programmed decisions and can
afford to supervise a relatively
larger number of subordinates.

Use of objective standards:

Reviewing the performance of

subordinates can either be done
by personal observation or
through use of objective
standards. In the latter case, a
manager is saved of many time-
consuming relationships and
can therefore concentrate on
points of strategic importance,
thus widening the span of
supervision.

Territorial continuity of
functions supervised:

Where functions are

geographically separated,
supervision of components and
personnel becomes more
difficult and time consuming.
The manager must spend
considerable time in visiting the
separate units and make use of a
more time consuming formal
means of communication.
Geographic continuity of
functions supervised by the
manager, therefore, operates to
reduce the span of control.

Availability of staff assistance:

When an organization is
equipped with staff services,
subordinates gain much of their
guidance on methods, schedules,
and personnel problems from
staff experts and, thus, require
fewer contacts with line
managers. The manager
normally gets involved when the
staff fails to run the show. Thus,
provision of staff assistance
helps the executives to supervise
a large number of subordinates.

According to Allen, the

following points determine
spans:

1. Diversity

2. Dispersion

3. Complexity

4. Volume

5. Attitude towards delegation

Additional factors that

determine span in an
organization can be listed as
follows:

1. Training of the manager

2. Capacity and the mind-set of

the subordinates

3. Dynamic and complex nature

of activities

4. The degree to which objective

standards are established

5. The extent of delegation and

the clarity of delegation

6. Existence of a good
communication system

7. Degree of decentralization.

Home ››

You Might Also Like

Regrow Your 50 Most Anyone Youtubers

Hair Easily Embarrassin Shouting Seeing Red
With This 1 g Dirty Pics ‘Allahu After Recent
Magical Tip Akbar’ Will Policy
(Try Today) Be Shot, Changes
Venice
Mayor
Claims

Jennifer Trump Fails Powerball 10 Most

Aniston: To Condemn Ticket Sold Dangerous
Should White In Weapons
Rachel Have Supremacist Massachuse You Can
Ended Up s In tts Wins Legally Own
With Joey? Charlottesvil Record in the US
le $758.7
Million
Before publishing
your articles on this
site, please read the
following pages:

1. Content
Guidelines 2.
Prohibited Content
3. Plagiarism
Prevention 4. Image
Guidelines 5.
Content Filtrations
6. TOS 7. Privacy
Policy 8. Disclaimer
9. Copyright 10.
Report a Violation

ADVERTISEMENTS
Copyright © 2017 yourarticlelibrary.com, All rights reserved.