Introduction
The notion of the span of control remains one of the central concepts within the contemporary business environment. In its general understanding, the term refers to the optimal ratio between supervisory manpower and workers under professional control. This question remains topical for organizations as they seek to maintain the balance between efficiency and supervision. Managers are charged with a mission to organize and coordinate their teams, which often comprise of a large number of people. In a way, the expertise of a leader is frequently measured by the maximum number of subordinates under their command at a given point in time (Ouchi and Dowling, 1974). As such, the extended span of control may be seen as a positive sign of a manager’s development. From this perspective, the increase in the number of subordinates and areas of responsibility should be seen as a natural phase of the managerial revolution. Nevertheless, it appears possible to theorize that such an extension is likely to have an upper threshold, beyond which a leader is no longer able to sustain the required level of concentration.
Accordingly, the idea of the optimal span of control for a manager has become an area of intense for researchers across eras and industries. Evidently, its primary application lies in the corporate area, in which new effective leadership techniques emerge. The conceptual understanding of the span of control has developed along with the evolution of entrepreneurial thought and philosophy (Davison, 2003). Similar to other critical notions, this concept’s perception and implementation are to take into account the contextual factors of an organization’s operational environment. This principle acquires an additional degree of importance in the 21st century, as globalization and intense technological development render the landscape changeable and sometimes even unpredictable (Zoller & Muldoon, 2020). Accordingly, leading theorists are prompted to examine the applicability of even of the best-established concepts in the contemporary environment. More specifically, technological advancements widely available to the organizations of the 21st century have modified the operational environment to a sufficient degree, which forces leaders to redefine their practices and implement new ones in light of the vast emerging opportunities of innovation.
On the other hand, despite the entrepreneurial origin of the concept, it can be extended to other spheres in which strong managerial strategies are required. Emergency management is one of such vital areas, which benefit immensely from effective leadership while remaining inherently different from regular business activities (Bean, 2002). These differences stem from the very core of emergency management as a profession. Unlike many industries, its purpose does not lie in the area of maximizing profits while maintaining customer value and ensuring the positive development of human capital.
On the contrary, emergency management organizations operate outside the financial dimension, as their primary purpose is to enable qualified and efficient response to an array of natural and human-made disasters. The ultimate value of emergency management is formed through saving human lives and mitigating damage inflicted by a crisis (Bean, 2002). Therefore, while the concept of the span of control can be extended to this area, it is to be readjusted to meet the requirements of emergency response. The purpose of this paper is to examine the literary evolution of the span of control across decades, outlining the primary principles of its implementation in emergency management.
Review of the Literature
The Origins of Span of Control: Ouchi and Dowling
While the idea of the span of control has attracted particular attention of scholars in recent decades, the origins of the concept stem from 20th-century research. Ouchi and Dowling (1974) made a substantial contribution to the understanding of the term, concentrating on the varying definitions of the term, attempting to synthesize a common perspective of the respective period. It is important to note that these authors did not coin the notion per se. As mentioned by Ouchi and Dowling (1974), the concept had been actively circulating in the corporate environment by the 1970s, but its interpretation varied across industries and settings. However, this seminal piece of research became a major step toward the systematization of knowledge in regard to the span of managerial control. Ouchi and Dowling (1974) confirm the topical nature of the questions related to the supervisory ratio. The authors discuss various approaches to the matter, stating that, in order to evaluate the span of control, it is also required to measure the closeness of contact, as the two notions are interrelated.
The view of the span of control as a mere indicator of efficiency and supervision quality is inaccurate, as it does not consider the complex environmental factors. Indeed, managers’ schedule comprises varying activities, the range of which is not limited to follower supervision. In fact, the empirical phase of the research conducted by Ouchi and Dowling (1974) indicates that an average leader allocates slightly over a half of their work time to actual supervision. However, as observed by the authors, the dominant paradigms of corporate thought of the time did not take into account the efforts made by managers to establish a certain level of autonomy, which would reduce the necessity of hands-on supervision.
Therefore, judging the effectiveness of an organization solely by this parameter would not be representative of the actual quality of management. Such an idea holds special significance in the field of emergency management, as disasters often unfold at a rapid pace. In such a stressful environment, a leader lacks the physical ability to supervise each unit of a large interprofessional response team. Consequently, meaningful efforts put into creating an effective impersonal control mechanism become particularly important.
Emerging Challenges
Over the following decades, the philosophy of management saw a strong evolution, which resulted in the further development of the conceptual framework. This evolution served to reflect the profound changes that redefined the understanding of effective leadership across various contexts. According to Davison (2003), the new millennium was associated with an array of emerging challenges. Amid the pursuit of optimization and financial performance, researchers shifted the focus of attention toward the limits of an effective span of control. Davison (2003) states that the continuous expansion of this parameter is enabled by basic psychological processes, such as the employees’ subconscious tendency to report to someone, and managers’ inner desire for control and influence. The span of control limits are individual for each industry and organization, but they are conditioned by similar factors, such as size, financing, innovation, and legal compliance. Overall, striking and maintaining the balance is an ongoing process, which requires constant observation, as well as managerial flexibility.
Following the surge in interest in the idea of the span of control, experts across the globe engaged in rigorous research in order to respond to the aforementioned challenges. Doran et al. (2004) reviewed the notion in relation to another critical component of managerial success, which is the leadership style. The two concepts were viewed as two indispensable elements of a complex system. In fact, the effect of positive leadership was partially negated by the excessive number of subordinates reporting to a single supervisor. In other words, extending the span of control beyond allowable limits is bound to have negative repercussions. In emergency management, coordination and a clear strategy are crucial, and they are enabled by the correct choice of leadership style (Bean, 2002). Nevertheless, a leader’s concentration is equally important, and dispersing the attention across an excessive number of units can become a major impediment for this purpose. In fact, Doran et al. (2004) state that a leadership style capable of overcoming this barrier does not exist. Therefore, the selection of emergency management strategy is to be balanced with the optimum unit distribution policy.
Span of Control in Law Enforcement and Emergency Management
As discussed above, the span of control lies in the array of fundamental concepts, which are universal for all managerial settings. Once the notion began to attract the attention of researchers, its applicability in specific contexts outside of traditional entrepreneurial activities became a point of immense interest. Bean (2002) relied on the pivotal status of effective communication in emergency management procedures as the foundation for her empirical study. The review of existing policies and procedures within the Australian system of emergency management revealed a lack of conceptual understanding of the span of control idea. As such, responsible officers acknowledged serious disruptions within the chain of reports, which prevented the effective distribution of information in the field. Despite the acceptable variations outlined by other researchers, Bean (2002) emphasizes the importance of a standardized framework for the system of emergency response. Such a uniform approach promotes the autonomy of units, optimizing the pressure on decision-makers in critical situations. However, it requires strong leadership exercised under a fitting strategy, which would transmit the vision to subordinates.
The objectives and area of expertise of law enforcement often intersect with those of the emergency response services. Lane (2006) reviewed the span of control concept within the context of law enforcement agencies in order to determine the prevalent tendencies within the sphere. As such, this area of expertise demonstrated an opposite approach as compared to the corporate community. The structure of such agencies tends to be multi-tiered due to the policy-makers’ desire to reduce the span of control. In other words, the practice of law enforcement follows a vertical organization of communication, in which supervisors have a reduced number of reporting officers. Lane (2006) argues that such a system appears ineffective due to the many impediments to communication and increased pressure on subordinates. The philosophy of this study reflects the distinct characteristics of the 2000s research, which consists of a growing emphasis on the autonomy and comfort of employees. However, in the context of emergency management, the nature and magnitude of the tasks call for a different approach, which is unlikely to correspond to regular business strategies.
The Current Perspective on the Span of Control
The span of control, among other critical concepts of management, has seen decades of rigorous research and evolution conditioned by the changeable external context. Zoller and Muldoon (2020) observe a serious decline in the research significance of the concept in question, despite its evident practical value. The increasing complexity of the managerial landscape, combined with the rapidly expanding selection of leadership strategies, has contributed to the indeterminacy, which once again rendered the notion confusing.
Vertical and flattened organizations have been at the center of heated debates. The second format now prevails, leading to the general increase of the span of control implemented in modern organizations by default. Accordingly, the contemporary perspective contradicts the ideas presented earlier. According, to Zoller and Muldoon (2020), most leadership contexts move away from the vertical organization in an attempt to promote agency and independency of subordinates. Consequently, as the total number of leaders decreases, each remaining manager finds more people under their command. As far back as the 20th century, Ouchi and Dowling (1974) established that the span of control is an unreliable instrument for evaluating a manager’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, the current leadership practices suggest otherwise, and this parameter continues to correlate with the manager’s status. In addition, the use of modern technology in communication and professional activities is expected to broaden the average span of control in the upcoming years (Zoller & Muldoon, 2020). Overall, the perspective on the matter has shifted significantly under the influence of external factors that prompted an increase in the manager-subordinate ratio.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the span of control has been the subject of topical discussions within the corporate community for several decades, but its research significance has evidently decreased recently. The contemporary philosophy of corporate thought favors flattened organizations with optimized staffing policies, leaving little or no room for the span of control alternatives. As such, this parameter has been continuously growing in most modern companies, and the tendency, being supported by technological development, is projected to persist in the 2020s. However, emergency management should not succumb to common trends, as its mission and specificities dictate a different approach. The vertical structure is not inherently inappropriate in this highly stressful and unpredictable environment. However, its execution must rely on a considerate choice of leadership strategy, enabling the balance between the two elements of the managerial framework.
References
Bean, J. (2002). The implementation of the incident control system in NSW: Span of control and management by objectives. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 17(3), 8–16.
Davison, B. (2003). Management span of control: How wide is too wide? Journal of Business Strategy, 24(4), 22–29.
Doran, D., McCutcheon, A. S., Evans, M. G., MacMillan, K., Hall, L. M., Pringle, D., Smith, S., & Valente, A. (2004). Impact of the manager’s span of control on leadership and performance. Web.
Lane, T. (2006). Span of control for law enforcement agencies. Police Chief, 73(10), 74–83.
Ouchie, W. G., & Dowling, J. B. (1974). Defining the span of control.Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(3), 357–365. Web.
Zoller, Y. J., & Muldoon, J. (2020). Journey of a concept: span of control – The rise, the decline, and what is next? Journal of Management History, 26(4), 515–533.