Span of Control: Principles and Factors Affecting It

After reading this article you will learn about the principles and factors affecting the span of control.

Principle of Span of Control:

It is the number of subordinates which are directly under their superiors. The number of subordinates, over whom control is to be exercised, should be reasonable. As, too small number will lead to non-utilisation of full time and energy of the manager, while large number will lead to difficulty in exercising proper control.

An ideal number of subordinates for superior authority is 4; and at the lowest level the ideal number is 12 to 16. Thus a manager may have 4 deputy managers and a foreman may have 16 workers. In practice the ratio is, therefore, kept between 3 to 5 and in exceptional cases 6. Generally, where the work is of routine nature the number is more.

For example, a General Manager has 5 managers in a factory of 3000 employees. Then he will however be a boss of 3000 but he will have a direct contact with 5 only. Hence for him, span of control is 5 and not 3000.

Factors Determining Span of Control: 

Proper span of control is determined on the basis of circumstances.

Some of the circum­stances affecting the span are as follows:

(i) Nature of Work:

When the work is of routine and standardised nature, greater span of control can be kept. Such jobs require general instructions and will need very rare changes and additions. But for the posts having works of frequently changing nature, instructions need be given each time and in such cases span of control must be kept low.

(ii) Define Responsibility:

In organisations where responsibilities of supervisors are defi­nite and clear, and the plans and policies are clear and easily understandable at different levels, officers can control a wide span.

But where the policies and responsi­bilities are not clear officers need more time for giving the clarifications to their sub­ordinates and will also require more time in discussions and in deciding the problems. Hence in such cases span of control is required to be kept smaller.

(iii) Capacity of Person Involved:

While deciding the span of control for an organisation, it is necessary to consider the capacity and ability to control their subordinates, ability to make decisions, tactfulness, experience, quality of leadership, grasping power and power of command.

It has been generally experienced that larger the number of such subordinates reporting directly to an executive, the more difficult it is for him to supervise and co-ordinate their activities effectively. Mr. V.A. Graicunas, a management consultant, made an original study of organisation structure and published it in the form of a paper entitled Relationship in Organisation in 1933.

In his paper he analysed the nature of relationship, direct group relation­ships and other relationships.

Thus in his own words, “if Tom supervises two persons, Dick and Harry, he can speak to each one of them individually or he can speak to them as a pair. The behaviour of Dick in the presence of Harry and of Harry in the presence of Dick will vary from their behaviour when with Tom alone. Further, what Dick thinks of Harry and what Harry thinks of Dick constitute two cross relationships which Tom must collaborate in his absence.”

Thus even in this extremely simple unit of organisation, when Tom is supervising only two persons, he will have four to six relationships within his span of control: two direct single relationships, two direct group relationship and two cross-relationships.

Thus he found that when an executive supervises two persons, there are six relationships, with four subordinates it increases to 44; when fifth subordinate is added it rises to 100, to 222 for a sixth and to 900 for the seventh subordinate added.

By the time, tenth subordinate is reached the number of relationships jumps to 5,210 and with the addition of the twelfth, it reaches to 24,708. From this he concluded that as the number of subordinates increase, there is more than proportionate increase in the total number of relationships and this imposes a heavier load on the mental capacity of the superior executive.

This conclusion of Graicunas follows from the well-known psychological principle that for the average run of people, the span of attention is strictly limited and so the number of relationships with which an individual can be expected to control must be limited. According to Graicunas, 222 relationships arising out of six subordi­nate are about the maximum that an average individual can supervise effectively.

According to F.L. Brech, however, the mental factor of span of attention is not the only factor which limits the number of subordinates.

There are five other factors, namely:

(i) Emo­tional stability,

(ii) Time,

(iii) Moral,

(iv) Geographical distribution, and

(v) The nature and diver­sity of responsibilities which tend to further limit this number.

(i) Emotional stability:

The emotional aspect of attention refers to the ability of an indi­vidual to deal with interruptions that emerge when he has a variety of individuals coming to him for consultation, discussion and decision.

An individual who has an average spam of attention but less emotional stability will not be able to adjust so readily to the impact on his personal attitudes and behaviour of a variety of matters of persons coming to him. He will, therefore, be able to supervise a smaller number of subordinates than another executive who has a greater span of emotional stability.

(ii) Time:

As regards the time factor, it is obvious that an executive has to give time to his subordinates so that he can consider their problems and give them the necessary advice and direction.

If the number of subordinates becomes large, he would not physi­cally be able to find the necessary time to meet their needs. Moreover, it leads to a considerable waste of expensive time of the subordinates who have to wait on the doorsteps of a manager to get an audience with him.

(iii) Moral:

Contact with subordinates has also a morale aspect which no superior can afford to overlook. If a superior has such a large number of subordinates that he is unable to find time to consult and discuss with them in an atmosphere of reasonable calm and leisure, he is likely to find serious deterioration setting in the morale of his team.

(iv) Geographical Distribution:

The geographical distribution of subordinates allocated to an executive is another factor which affects the number supervised. If several sub­ordinates are in different localities, travelling time is involved and this imposes a further limitation of the number that an average executive can have reporting to him.

(v) Nature of diversity of responsibility:

If the responsibilities are widely varied, complex and heavy, a more serious limitation on the number will be imposed than when they are relatively simple straight forward and confined to one or a few areas.