THE SPAN OF CONTROL
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.1957.tb00238.x |
| Date | 01 November 1957 |
| Published date | 01 November 1957 |
| Author | Robert R. Takahira |
238
CURRENT TOPICS
THE
SPAN
OF
CONTROL
Col. Urwick's article in the June issue deals with an interesting
problem which has long been a matter of controversy.
In
a large
organisation such as a railway undertaking, the construction of a
pyramid within which not more than five report to a superior may
lead to worse evils than are avoided. This applies even if the limita-
tions to the principle stated in the article are observed.
The difficulties arise because the fewer in any one layer, the more
the layers,
i.e.
the longer the chain of command. It would appear
from remarks on page
109
that a long chain of command is favoured,
but it can be most extravagant both in time and staff. A calls in
B
and tells him what is to be done,
B
explains it to
C,
who passes it
on to
D
and
so
on-in fact there may be two
B's,
four
C's,
etc.
Each individual spends double time on the one instruction-listening
and retailing. The alternative is correspondence which wastes still
more time since in addition to those mentioned there are secretaries,
typists. filing clerks, despatch boys.
It is inferred in the article that people want to shorten the chain
of command to have more subordinates and be nearer the top. On
the other hand, a sharp pyramid is favoured because if A has ten
under him at
f500
per annum each, he may get
€750
but if he has
two assistants, each with five under his control, each assistant may
get
€750
and the chief
€1,000.
The more the steps, the higher the
top salary is likely to be.
People do not want chairs in front of their colleagues
so
much
for
prestige as for higher salaries.
No
one can, be expected to super-
vise another unless he gets more money. Suppose there are ten tiers
organised in groups of tens.
If
the pyramid is re-shaped on the
principle of five to a group the increase in the total salary bill will
be substantial.
Owing to its multifarious activities, a railway undertaking has
numerous pyramids
;
each of the many departments has one
in
each
area. In most cases it is possible to settle interdepartmental issues
with one's opposite number but there are inevitably occasions when
the matter is referred to the top of one pyramid, across to the top of
another one, down to the corresponding level from which it originated
and then all the way back again-possibly more than once. The
more layers in each pyramid, the longer the time till the matter is
settled and the more costly the procedure in money and man-power.
The smaller the units in each pyramid, the more there are of them
and the greater the time spent in inter-unit correspondence and visiting,
telephoning and conferences.
To continue reading
Request your trial