-- I

1 -- IAD-771 530 SPAN OF CONTROL: AN ANALYSIS OF THEINFLUENCING FACTORSJohn E. RogersArmy War CollegeCarlisle Barracks, PennsylvaniaDISTRIBUTED BY:National Technical Information ServiceU. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 2215172 1 2I,Tae views exprebsed in thi. papvr dre Lnoseof t ne autnor and do not necesarily reflectthe views of the Department of Defense or anyof its agencies. iLis document may not bereleased for open publication until it il~sbeen cleared by Lhe Department. of &CH :72(ADVANCED DEGREE PROMM)t'.SPAN OF CONTML:ANNKYSIS OF THE, INFUJENCING FACTORSBY:LIEuTENANT COLONEL JOHN E, RoGERsINFANTRYUS ARMY WAR COLLEGE, ARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIAL I *Dv.

2 " 'MAY 1* 19 !fAR,'iY WAR UOLLL UE ,t Appr-v i. for p f,, S,U11 aj ; t di'd t r i t i1, S," RESEARCH REPORT[The views expressed in this paper are thoseof the author and do not necessarily refltctthe views of the Department of Defense or anyof its agencies. This document may not bereleased for open publication until it has7I m been cleared by the Department of OF CONTROL:AN ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCING FACTORS,A MONOGRAPHby1< Lieutenant Colonel John E. Rogers' InfantryUS Army War CollegeCarlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania9 March 1972I Approved for publicrelease; : John E. Rogers, LTC, Inf -FIOI1AT: Monograph)ATE: 25 February 1972 PAGES: CLASSIFICATION: UnclassifiedTITLE: Span of Control: An Analysis of the Influencing FactorsDetermination of the proper span of control is a meaLter to bc consIdered byevery organization.]

3 Management theorists from the classical school ofthought have traditionally advocated a prescribed limit to the span ofcontrol, usually ranging from three to eight st2bordinates. The currenttrend, however, is to identify and consider the variable factors whichinflfience a supervisor's span of control and determine the optimum span foreach specific management situation. Management experts are beginning toquestion the validity of a prescribed limit. While there is no all-inclusive listing of the factors which influence span of control, there arecertain major factors which have general applicability. Span of attention,knowledge, personality, and energy are the primary factors which impact ona supervisor's personal capacity to manage and control his major external factors which influence span of control include: (1) thelevel of the organization being considered; (2) the degree to which author-ity and responsibility have been delegated; (3) the number of personalcontacts with subordinates required of the executive; (4) the similarity ofthe functions being performed; (5) the training and competence of sub-ordinates.

4 And (6) the geographical dispersion of the :XFORMAT:DATE: PAGES: CLASSIFICATION:TITLE:III,- .. ; Monograph was prepared in fulfillment of tihe requirementsof the Shippensburg State College Graduate Program in business andthe Army War College Student Research Program. The subject was-elected from a list of acceptable topics provided by the Shippensburgprofessor, Dr. Richard T. Iliso. While the focus of this paper is Itoward business organizations, the subject was chosen because of thebelief that the factors which influence, span of control also applyto military organizations. The analysis presented herein is based ona stud- of selected published literature pertaining to span of controlfound in the Shippansburg State College Library and the Army WarCollege IIII ~iiTABIL, OF COI NTE'iTSPageABl5T1 BAGT.

5 &. 6 ageioLIST OF TAI3 ISS ..BACKGROUND ..LTO milton's Theory ..1 0 .v .0 * a ..a , ..1V. 'Theory.. , .2 Classical School of Thought .. 4 Span of Control and Organizational Structure ..5 FACTORS INFLUENCING SPAN OF CONTROL ..9 Span of Attention ..# # a 0 0 ..9 Knowledge of the Supervisor ..a ..a 10 Personality and Encrgy ..o * ..a 10 Level of the Organization ..12 Delegation of Authority .. * . 0 a * ..a & 14 Number of Superior-Subordinate Relationoahips ..15 Similarity of Functions ..aa. 16 Subordinate Training .., 17 Geographic Dispersion ..a ..a a 18 Lockheed's Approach a a ..a..a a a ., a ..19 SUMIARY.

6 , a .., ..23 CONCLUSION .a .. * * .* 24 FOOTNOTES ..a ..a a a a a , a a a .a a ..a * e a a a a .25 BIBLIOGRAPHY 29iiIIIILIST OF TIMLESPage1. Possible Relationships with Variable lhibcr ..2. Number of Executives Reporting to President in 100 Largo Companies .. 3. Span Factor Point ..214. Suggested Standard Span .oa.. 22La(I-''.1 INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this term paper is to examine the variable factorswhich influence the number of subordinates a supervisor can effectivelycontrol--the span of control. This analysie is based upon a study ofselected published literature dealing with span of control. It shouldbe noted that some writers in the field of management choose to refer tothis as the span of management since, in their view, the span is one of1management as opposed to a span simply of control.)

7 For the purpose ofthis paper span of control and span of management are considered to havethe same meaning. As a prelude to the examination of the severalinfluencing factors, a review of the development of the theoriesregarding span of control is deemed problem of span of control has long been recognized as beingcritical to the effectiveness of an 's TheorySir Ian Hamilton, a British general, is generally credited withbeing the first person to bring public attention to the principle of2span of control. Based on the history of military organizations andnis own personal experience, he thought that the span of control should bethree near the top of the organization and range up to niv near thabottom.

8 1k- based this on the belief that "the average human brain findsits effective score in handling from three to six other brains."2 Regarding the division of responsibility, Hamilton stated that if a mandivided his responsibilities among two subordinates, he would not haveenough to do; but that if he delegated responsibility to threesubordinates, he would be kept fairly busy. He also stated than "thesmaller thp responsibility of the group member, the larger may be thenumber of the group and vice versa."3V. A. Graicunas' TheoryV. A. Graicunas, a French management consultant, was one of theearlier writers to recognize the span of control problem.

9 Rather thanviewing it simply in terms of a superior dealing directly with a certainnumber of subordinates, in a study published in 1933, Graicunastheorized that the problem was compounded by the superior's directrelationship with the different groupings of his subordinates, and thecross relationships between all of his subordinates. He divided theserelationships into three categories: direct single relationships,direct group relationships, and cross relationships. The number ofthese relationships vary considerably with Lhe size of the subordinategroup. Each subordinate added will create one additional direct singlerelationship while the group and cross relationships increase much more4than proportionately.

10 Following is a simple illustration of A supervises two persons, B and C, he can deal with themindividually or as a pair. The behavior of B in the preence ofC and C in the presence of B will differ from their behaviorwhen each is with A alone. Furthermore, what B thinks oQ Cand what C thinks of B constitute two cross rolationships which3A must keep in mind when delegating work on which B and Cmust collaborate in A's absence. In other words, even inthis extremely simple unit of organization, with two subord-inates, a superior must keep up to six relationshipsconstantly in , when a third subordinate, D, is added A's directrelationships with individuals increase by only 1 (A-D), butthe various groupings he may have to deal with increase by7 (A-B-D, A-D-B, A-C-D, A-D-C, A-B, C-D, A-C-BD, and I-D-BC),and the various cross relationships he may have to deal withincrease by 4 (B-D, D-B, C-D, and D-C), making a total of fourth subcrdinate brings the total up to 44.