2. case of managing fewer and more specilised people and activities; and
3. availability of time to think and plan for the feature.
As against this criticisms levied against the span include
1. the additional costs of having more managers with their respective staff.
2. added complexity introduced inconnection with communications by having more levels; and
3. Prevention of democratic participation within the organisation.
Critics of the narrow span advocate a more flat set up or organisation structure which reduce the
levels and administrative distance, thus generating initiative and group cohesiveness.
It is interesting to note that a study conducted by the American Management Association indicated
that in case of over 50 per cent of the sample, the chief executives span was 9 or more subordinates.
One third of them had 11 or more subordinates.
What can be agreed is that as one travels higher up the hierarchical structure of management, there
will be a decrease in the span of management of the number of persons who can be effectively
supervised. The limitation inherent in the span of control makes delegation of authority necessary
and reveals the importance of adequate organisation to attain the objectives.
It is possible to reduce the burden of the manager and expand his psan on control by means of
adequate delegation coupled with clear planning. The span of control can be increased by the ability
to cummunicate plans and instructions concisely and clearly.
Dostları ilə paylaş: