Factors influencing the Span of Supervision

1. The Capacity and Ability of the Executive:

The characteristics and abilities such as leadership, administrative capabilities, ability to communicate, to Judge, to listen, to guide and inspire, physical vigour etc. differ from person to person. A person having better abilities can manage effectively a large number of subordinates as compared to the one who has lesser capabilities.

2. Competence and Training of Subordinates:

Subordinates who are skilled, efficient, knowledgeable, trained and competent require less supervision, and therefore, the supervisor may have a wider span in such cases as compared to inexperienced and untrained subordinates who require greater supervision.

3. Nature of Work:

Nature and importance of work to be supervised is another factor that influences the span of supervision. The work involving routine, repetitive, unskilled and standardized operations will not call much attention and time on the part of the supervisor. As such, the supervisors at the lower levels of organization can supervise the work of a large number of subordinates. On the other hand, at higher levels of management, the work involves complex and a variety of Jobs and as such the number of subordinates that can be effectively managed should be limited to a lesser number.

4. Time Available for Supervision:

The capacity of a person to supervise and control a large number of persons is also limited on account of time available at his disposal to supervise them. The span of control would be generally narrow at the higher levels of management because top managers have to spend their major time on planning, organizing, directing and controlling and the time available at their disposal for supervision will be lesser. At lower levels of management, this span would obliviously be wide because they have to devote lesser time on such other activities.

5. Degree of Decentralization and Extent of Delegation:

If a manager clearly delegates authority to undertake a well- defined task, a well-trained subordinate can do it with a minimum of supervisor’s time and attention. As such, the span could be wide. On the contrary, “if the subordinate’s task is not one, he can do, or if it is not clearly defined, or if he does not have the authority to undertake it effectively, he will either fail to perform it or take a disproportionate amount of the manager’s time in supervising and guiding his efforts.”

6. Effectiveness of Communication System:

The span of supervision is also influenced by the effectiveness of the communication system in the organization. Faulty communication puts a heavy burden on manager’s time and reduces the span of control. On the other hand, if the system of communication is effective, larger number of managerial levels will be preferred as the information can be transmitted easily. Further, a wide span is possible if a manager can communicate effectively.

7. Quality of Planning:

If plans and policies are clear and easily understandable, the task of supervision becomes easier and the span of management can be wider. Effective planning helps to reduce frequent calls on the superior for explanation, instructions and guidance and thereby saves in time available at the disposal of the supervisor enabling him to have a wider span. Ineffective plans, on the other hand, impose limits on the span of management.

8. Degree of Physical Dispersion:

If all persons to be supervised are located at the same place and within the direct supervision of the manager, he can supervise relatively more people as compared to the one who has to supervise people located at different places.

9. Assistance of Experts:

The span of supervision may be wide where the services of experts are available to the subordinate on various aspects of work. In case such services are not provided in the organization, the supervisor has to spend a lot of time in providing assistance to the workers himself and as such the span of control would be narrow.

10. Control Mechanism:

The control procedures followed in an organization also influence the span of control. The use of objective standards enables a supervisor ‘management by exception’ by providing quick information of deviations or variances. Control through personal supervision favours narrow span while control through objective standards and reports favour wider span.

11. Dynamism or Rate of Change:

Certain enterprises change much more rapidly than others. This rate of change determines the stability of policies and practices of an organization. The span of control tends to be narrow where the policies and practices do not remain stable.

12. Need for Balance:

According to Koontz and O ‘Donnel, “There is a limit in each managerial position to the number of persons an individual can effectively manage, but the exact number in each case will vary in accordance with the effect of underlying variable and their impact on the time requirements of effective managing.”

Depending on the number of employees that can be supervised or controlled by managers, there can be two kinds of structures in the organisation:

1. Tall structures
2. Flat structures

Tall structures:

These structures are found in classical bureaucratic organisations. In this structure, a manager can supervise less number of subordinates. He can, therefore, exercise tight control over their activities. This creates large number of levels in the organisation. This is also known as narrow span of control. A tall structure or a narrow span of control appears like this.

Merits of a Tall Structure:

1. Managers can closely supervise activities of the subordinates.
2. There can be better communication amongst superiors and subordinates.
3. It promotes personal relationships amongst superiors and subordinates.
4. Control on subordinates can be tightened in a narrow span.

Limitations of a Tall Structure:

1. It creates many levels in the organisation structure which complicates co-ordination amongst levels.
2. More managers are needed to supervise the subordinates. This increases the overhead expenditure (salary etc.). It is, thus, a costly form of structure.
3. Increasing gap between top managers and workers slows the communication process.
4. Decision-making becomes difficult because of too many levels.
5. Superiors perform routine jobs of supervising the subordinates and have less time for strategic matters.
6. Employees work under strict control of superiors. Decision-making is primarily centralised. This restricts employees’ creative and innovative abilities.
7. Strict control leads to low morale and job satisfaction. This can affect productivity in the long-run.

To overcome the limitations of a tall structure, many organisations reduce the number of levels in the hierarchy by downsizing the organisation. Downsizing is “the process of significantly reducing the layers of middle management, expanding spans of control and shrinking the size of the work force.”

Many companies downsize their work force through the process of restructuring. Restructuring is “the process of making a major change in organisation structure that often involves reducing management levels and also possibly changing some major components of the organisations through divestiture and/or acquisition.”

“The most common and most serious symptom of mal-organisation is multiplication of the number of management levels. A basic rule of organisation is to build the least possible number of management levels and forge the shortest possible chains of command.” :Peter F. Drucker

Flat Structures:

These structures have a wide span of control. When superior supervises a larger number of subordinates, flat structure is created with lesser number of hierarchical levels. A departure was made from tall structures to flat structures by James C. Worthy who was a consultant in the L. Sears, Roebuck and company.

Merits of a Flat Structure:

1. There is low cost as less number of managers can supervise organisational activities.
2. The decision-making process is effective as superiors delegate authority to subordinates. They are relieved of routine matters and concentrate on strategic matters. The decision-making is decentralised.
3. Subordinates perform the work efficiently since they are considered worthy of doing so by the superiors.
4. There is effective communication as the number of levels is less.
5. It promotes innovative abilities of the top management.

Limitations of a Flat Structure:

1. Superiors cannot closely supervise the activities of employees.
2. Managers may find it difficult to co-ordinate the activities of subordinates.
3. Subordinates have to be trained so that dilution of control does not affect organisational productivity.

Both tall and flat structures have positive and negative features and it is difficult to find the exact number of subordinates that a manager can effectively manage. Some management theorists like David D. Van Fleet and Arthur G. Bedeian assert that span of control and organisational efficiency are not related and many empirical studies have proved that span of control is situational and depends on a variety of factors.

Some studies proved that flat structures produce better results as decentralised decision making has less control from the top, promotes initiative and satisfaction at work. Large number of members in a group can better solve the complex problems as group decision making is based on greater skill variety.

Other studies proved that people working in tall structures produce better results as less number of members in a group can come to consensus of opinion and evaluate their decisions more thoroughly. Group cohesiveness is high and, thus, commitment to decisions is also high. Members feel satisfied with their decisions and conflicts are reduced.