What is Span of Control?

Span of control is a term originating in military organization theory, but now used more
commonly in business management. Span of control refers to the number of subordinates a
supervisor has.

The span of control is a simple managerial construct which identifies or regulates the amount of
direct supervision (and hence interaction or contact) that exists between a superior (That is; a
manger or supervisor) and his direct subordinates within an organization. The span of control
principle postulates that limiting the number of subordinates (i.e. reporting to a single manager or
supervisor) between four and six improves organizational performance.

Invention of Span of Control:

The concept of span of control was developed in the United Kingdom in 1922 by Sir Ian
Hamilton. It arose from the assumption that managers have finite amounts of time, energy, and
attention to devote to their jobs. In studies of British military leaders, Hamilton found that they
could not effectively control more than three to six people directly. These figures have been
generally accepted as the "rule of thumb" for span of control ever since. More than a decade
later, A.V. Graicumas illustrated the concept of span of control mathematically. His research
showed that the number of interactions between managers and their subordinates—and thus the
amount of time managers spent on supervision—increased geometrically as the managers' span
of control became larger. For example, as George P. Hattrup and Brian H. Kleiner noted in
Industrial Management, the addition of a fifth subordinate under one manager raises the
manager's potential interactions from 44 to 100, while the addition of an eighth subordinate
increases the potential interactions from 490 to 1,080. At some point, the demands of these
interactions with subordinates create serious problems for the manager.
Establishing Span of Control:

Hattrup and Kleiner noted that establishing the optimal span of control for managers is one of the
most important tasks in structuring organizations. Finding the optimal span involves balancing
the relative advantages and disadvantages of retaining responsibility for decisions and delegating
those decisions. In general, studies have shown that the larger the organization, the fewer people
should report to the top person. Managers should also have fewer direct reports if those
subordinates interact with each other frequently. In this situation, the supervisor ends up
managing both his or her relationship with the subordinates and the subordinates' relationships
with one another.

These are the factors affecting span of control:

1. Geographical Location: If the branches of a business are widely dispersed, then the
manager will find it difficult to supervise each of them, as such the span on control will
be smaller.
2. Capability of workers: If workers are highly capable, and do not require much
supervision and can be left on their own, for example; Theory Y type of people, need not
be supervised much as they are motivated and take initiative to work, as such the span of
control will be smaller.
3. Similarity of task: If the task that the subordinates are performing is similar, then the span
of control can be wider, as the manager can supervise them all at the same time.
However, of course the capability of the supervisor has to also be taken into
consideration.

For small business owners who feel that they have too many direct reports and need to reduce
their span of control, the solution may involve either hiring middle managers to take on a portion
of the owner's responsibilities, or reorganizing the reporting structure of the company. In either
case, small business owners must balance their own capabilities and workload against the need to
control costs. After all, reducing the entrepreneur's span of control may involve the costs of
paying additional salaries for new hires or training existing employees to take on supervisory
responsibilities. Despite the potential costs involved, Hendricks argued that adjusting span of
control toward the optimal level can lead to vast improvements for small businesses. "There's the
real possibility that paying attention to span of control could usher business into a new era of
rapid, sustained, profitable growth.

Luther Gulick (social scientist) and Lyndall Urwick distinguished three types of interactions –
direct single relationships, cross-relationships, and direct group relationships – each of them
contributing to the total amount of interactions within the organization. According to Graicunas,
the number of possible interactions can be computed in the following way. Let n be the number
of subordinates reporting to a supervisor.

Then, the number of relationships of direct single type the supervisor could possibly engage into

is n.

The number of interactions between subordinates (cross relationships) he has to monitor is n (n

−1)

And the number of direct group relationships is n (2n / 2 − 1)

The sum of these three types of interactions is the number of potential relationships of a
supervisor. Graicunas showed with these formulas, that each additional subordinate increases the
number of potential interactions significantly. It appears natural, that no organization can afford
to maintain a control structure of a dimension being required for implementing a scalar chain
under the unity of command condition. Therefore, other mechanisms had to be found for dealing
with the dilemma of maintaining managerial control, while keeping cost and time at a reasonable
level, thus making the span of control a critical figure for the organization. Consequently, for a
long time, finding the optimum span of control has been a major challenge to organization
design.

After considering the different factors that affect a manager's span of control, predicting the
structure of future organizations becomes somewhat easier. As pointed out by Peter Drucker
focused on large businesses 20 years from now will typically have fewer than half the levels of
management of their counterparts today and no more than a third of the managers. The
characteristic business will be knowledge-based and therefore composed largely of people who
direct and control their own performance through information obtained from peers, customers
and on occasion higher management. Organizations will shift from manual and clerical workers
to knowledgeable specialists who will resist the traditional command-and-control model.
The old-style rigid and rule-determined organization should be replaced by the more flexible and
adaptive organization of the future. Spans of control reaching 50 to 70 will not be uncommon.
The need to avoid disaster, make adjustments quickly and keep the leader close to the action will
require a flat organization. An information-based company, which requires clear, simple and
common objectives that translate into specific actions, will organize people into large
cooperative teams.
The flat organizational will enable managers to reduce costs and become more aware of existing
opportunities.

In most instances, three or four management layers will serve most companies and four or five
layers will be adequate for all but the largest and most complex organizations. This was
illustrated by Eastman Kodak Company a few years ago when 13 levels of management were
reduced to four levels with no loss in production.

The manager's span of control has a substantial effect on the organization. Traditional views that
recommend that the span of a manager be limited to five or six subordinates generally fall to
recognize all the different factors that influence the span of control. The optimal span of control
is determined by a large number of things that include:

 Nature of work;
 Management methods;
 Subordinate training;
 Personality of members;
 Congruence;
 Organizational size;
 Self control.
Thus, the specific conditions of the individual situation will influence the optimal span. In order
to implement and maintain a wide span of control, a Theory Y, rather than Theory X, type
management attitude should exist within the company. Improved communications, greater
flexibility, reduced costs and improved subordinate morale should result from increasing the
span of control. Excellent organizations of the future will have much larger spans of control (50
to 70 will not be uncommon). This should ultimately result in more efficient organizations that
are more innovative and responsive to customers needs.