Span of control

The defining span of control

The span of control refers to the number of subordinates that can be managed effectively and efficiently by supervisors or managers in an organization. Typically, it is either narrow or wide resulting in a flatter or more hierarchical organizational structure. Each type has its inherent advantages and disadvantages.

Narrow Span

Advantages

• Have more levels of reporting in the organization, resulting in a more hierarchical organization
• Supervisors can spend time with employees and supervise them more closely
• Creates more development, growth, and advancement opportunities

Disadvantages

• More expensive (high cost of management staff, office, etc.)
• More supervisory involvement in work could lead to less empowerment and delegation and more micromanagement
• Tends to result in communication difficulties and excessive distance between the top and bottom levels of the organization

Wide Span

• Advantages
• Have fewer levels of reporting in the organization, resulting in a more flexible, flatter organization
• Ideal for supervisors mainly responsible for answering questions and helping to solve employees problems
• Encourages empowerment of employees by giving more responsibility, delegation, and decision-making power to them
• Disadvantages
• Tends to result in greater communication efficiencies and frequent exposure to the top level of the organization
• May lead to overloaded supervisors if employees require much task direction, support, and supervision
• May not provide adequate support to employees leading to decreased morale or job satisfaction

The optimal span of control

Three or four reporting levels are typically sufficient for most organizations, while four to five are generally sufficient for all organizations but the largest organizations (Hattrup, 1993). This is consistent with ERC’s survey findings as well. According to modern organizational experts, ideally in an organization is approximately 15 to 20 subordinates per supervisor or manager. However, some experts with a more traditional focus believe that 5-6 subordinates per supervisor or manager are ideal. In general, however, an optimum span of control depends on various factors including:

• Organization size: The size of an organization is a great influencer. Larger organizations tend to have wider spans of control than smaller organizations.
• Nature of an organization: The culture of an organization can influence; a more relaxed, flexible culture is consistent with wider; while a hierarchical culture is consistent with narrow. It is important to consider the current and desired culture of the organization when determining.
• Nature of job: Routine and low complexity jobs/tasks require less supervision than inherently complicated jobs, are loosely defined and require frequent decision making. Consider wider for jobs requiring less supervision and narrower for more complex and vague jobs.
• Skills and competencies of manager: More experienced supervisors or managers can generally be wider than less experienced supervisors. It’s best to also consider to what degree supervisors and managers are responsible for technical aspects of the job (non-managerial duties).
• Employees' skills and abilities: Less experienced employees require more training, direction, and delegation (closer supervision, narrow); whereas more experienced employees require less training, direction, and delegation (less supervision, wider).
• Type of interaction between supervisors and employees: More frequent interaction/supervision is characteristic of a narrower. Less interaction, such as supervisors primarily just answering questions and helping solve employee problems, is characteristic of a wider. The type of interaction you want your supervisors and managers to engage in with their employees should be consistent with their control.

In addition, special consideration should be given to the direct reports of executive and senior management levels. Typically, the number of direct reports for these individuals is lower than supervisors and managers as too many direct reports at these levels can complicate communication and lengthen response time for crucial decisions.