© 2019 SHA – Society for Hospital Administrators. All rights reserved.
Menu
In an organisation, different people come together to work for a single organisational goal.
Needless to say, coming from varied backgrounds, the mind sets, values, ethics, skills, behavioral patterns, etc., of these people are bound to be different. Due to this, one of the biggest challenges and responsibilities for a manger becomes top handle such a group of varied people. Taking them all as just human resources also, the “human” concept is still there. Different people in the same teams have different thinking and working pattern. The difference increases more when it comes to different departments and their heads. The challenge increases manifold if the interaction has to be between the members of varied teams. Here comes the role of coordination.
Coordination is the act of coordinating, making different people or things work together for a goal or effect. Obviously, a manager has to be adept in the art of coordination.
Centralisation, or centralization (see spelling differences), is the process by which the activities of an organisation, particularly those regarding decision-making, become concentrated within a particular location and/or group.
Decentralisation is an extension of the concept of delegation and cannot exist unless authority is delegated. In decentralisation, a great deal of authority is delegated and more decisions are made at lower levels. It gives added responsibility to managers at all levels below the top. According to Fayol ‘everything which goes to increase the subordinate’s role is decentralisation, everything which goes to reduce it is centralisation’
The term decentralisation is understood differently by different individuals or groups. Louis A. Allen refers to it as one of the most confused and confusing of the administrative techniques that characterises the art and science of professional management. To quote Pfeiffer and Sherwood, ”In some respects decentralisation has come to be a ‘gospel’ of management.”
Firstly, it is regarded as a way of life to be adopted as least partially on faith;
Secondly, it is an idealistic concept, with ethical roots in democracy,
Thirdly, it is in the beginning a more difficult way of life because it involves a change in behaviour running counter to historically-rooted culture patterns of mankind.
That is why the new literature of decentralisation dwells on how to bring about change in organisation behaviour. Men find it difficult to delegate, to think in terms of the abstractions required by long-term planning, to listen rather than to give orders, to evaluate other men and their work in terms of overall results instead of irritations and tensions of the moment. Yet this is the very key to the behaviour required of leaders in a decentralised organisation”.
It is amply clear that decentralization is not only a device for the delegation or dispersal of administrative authority, but it is also a democratic method of devolution of political authority. Further, in a decentralised organisation it is also essential to adopt the democratic norms. Such norms help the various levels of the administrative organisation to develop a reasonable capability for the exercise of authority to reach the most desired decisions. Moreover, they help to assimilate in them the virtues of greater interactions not only among the various organisational levels but also between the organisation and the clientele among the general public. It has been opined that decentralisation refers to the physical location of facilities and the extent of dispersal of authority throughout an organisation. Hence, it is an arrangement by which the ultimate authority to command and the ultimate responsibility for results is localized in units located in different parts of the country. It is argued that assigning of functions and responsibility, for their efficient and effective performance, to the subordinates or sub-divisions is the essence of decentralisation.
Centralisation and Decentralisation of Organisations need to be viewed as complementary to each other as a fair combination of the two results in stability, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness. It has been said that in order to ensure its existence, an organisation has to perform certain functions which are basically centralising in nature and effect. Moreover, their performance has to be from a central point of authority. Two such major functions are initiation and decision-making in relation to basic management functions like planning, organising, motivating, coordinating and controlling the work of the subordinates as also of the field units. Thus, the higher levels by performing the functions of initiation and decision making tend to reserve the real authority at the central points of the organisation. On the other hand, Earnest Dale points out that the degree of decentralisation greater in the following situations:
1. The greater the number of decisions made at lower level of management hierarchy, the greater the degree of decentralisation.
2. The more important the decisions made at lower level of management, the greater the degree of decentralisation. Example: The head of the field unit enjoys the authority of sanctioning financial investments or expenditure without consulting anyone else.
3. In a decentralised authority structure, more decisions are taken at lower levels which affect most of the functions of the organisation as a whole. Thus, the organisations which permit only operational decisions to be made at separate branch units are less decentralised than those which also permit financial and personnel decisions at branch units.
4. When less checking is required on the decision. Decentralisation is greater when no check at all is made; it is less when superiors have to be informed of the decision after it has been made; still less if superiors have to be consulted before the decision is made. When fewer are consulted and if they are at a lower level in the organisation’s hierarchy, the degree of decentralisation is more.
It is, therefore, clear that the application of the two concepts is greatly influenced by factors more than one. In modern times when we have a multiplicity of administrative and political organisations, there is a need to use the centralised and decentralized patterns of authority for the maximum benefit of the people. Example: Functions such as accounting and purchasing may be centralised to save costs. Whilst tasks such as recruitment may be decentralised as units away from head office may have staffing needs specific only to them. That is a pre-requisite of a welfare or service state. There has been a growing public opinion in favour of decentralisation but at the same time some political forces and the bureaucracy do not favour a decentralised system for obvious reasons. Pfeiffer and Sherwood comment,
“Decentralisation will always experience a certain amount of epidemic conflict between those whose purpose is to coordinate and those who resist coordination. What is needed is to learn a way of life in which the coordinating process will be least restrictive, in which people can pursue their individual goals to the maximum and yet work in harmony toward group goals with others who look upon things differently.”
Certain organisations implement vertical decentralisation which means that they have handed the power to make certain decisions, down the hierarchy of their organisation. Vertical decentralisation increases the input, people at the bottom of the organisation chart have in decision making. Horizontal decentralisation spreads responsibility across the organisation. A good example of this is the implementation of new technology across the whole business. This implementation will be the sole responsibility of technology specialists.
The terms ‘delegation’ and ‘decentralization’ are often confused. While in delegation, authority is transferred on one-to-one basis from the superior to the subordinate, decentralization of authority is broader in scope and involves the transfer of authority in the organization context from top to the lower rungs of management in the hierarchy. Thus, the greater the amount of authority delegated throughout the organization, the more decentralized the organization is. Decentralization is much wider in scope reflecting management’s philosophy regarding which decisions to be taken at the top as well as down the line in the organization. It must also be understood that both absolute centralization and absolute decentralization are undesirable, for, the former refers an autocratic structure/approach while the latter results in a chaotic situation.
The fewer the people to be consulted, and the lower they are on the management hierarchy, the greater the degree of decentralization. Decentralization results in unburdening of top manager, better decisions because decisions are made closer to the scene of action, better training, morale and initiative at lower levels. More flexibility and faster decision making are some of the advantages of decentralization. These advantages are widely acclaimed so much so that decentralization is often regarded as ‘good’ and centralization as ‘bad’. But total decentralization, as mentioned earlier with no coordination from the top would be undesirable. That is why, the question before a manager is not whether an organization should be decentralized, but to what extent it should be decentralized. However, the degree of decentralization in an organization will vary with time and circumstances. It will also vary for the different units of the organization. For example, production and sales department, in general, have gained a high degree of decentralization in many organizations, whereas financial related functions have tended to remain relatively centralized.
1. Philosophy of Top Management: The leadership style, attitudes, values and beliefs of the top management team have a bearing on the degree of decentralization. Some firms are highly centralized, whereas others are highly decentralized because of the character and philosophy of the top management. For instance, if Tata Group Companies have registered a phenomenal growth over the years, it is partly because of the operational freedom and autonomy the various units in the group enjoy. TATAs provide only the direction and spell out the major policies.
2. Attitude of Subordinate Managers: The Attitude of subordinate managers is another important factor that influences decentralization because they can both encourage or discourage decentralization. If subordinates want decentralization, top management cannot hold everything in their hands for too long a period. The desire by subordinates for independence and the willingness to assume increased responsibilities may make them think of decentralization. As against this, shortage of lower level managers who are willing to assume responsibility may encourage top management to maintain a centralized structure. Now-a-days, in most large-scale organization, the trend is towards decentralization. This is in line with greater employee empowerment. Pushing authority down the line to lower levels in an organization results in an environment of freedom and experimentation. Employee empowerment helps in fostering an entrepreneurial spirit in the organization, by encouraging employees at lower levels to accept responsibility, to unleash their full potential, and most important, to think and innovate. The benefits of decentralization are clear. However, the extent of decentralization depends on the unique requirements of an organization. It normally varies from organization to organization.
3. The cost and Impact of the Decisions: Managers may not be willing for decentralization where the commitment involved in the decisions is very high. As a rule of thumb, the greater the cost involved, the more likely it is that the decision will be made at the upper levels. We often find situation in organizations where managers seek the approval of superiors when the expenditure involved exceeds a certain limit.
4. Company Size and Rate of Growth: It is very difficult to manage a large organization efficiently with decision-making authority concentrated in one or few people/levels at the top. Further, as an organization grows in size and complexity, the need for decentralization is obviously felt. Top management cannot continue to hold a tight grip over the several aspects of the growing organization. This is the principal reason why organizations often engage in reorganizing their units and operations as they grow in size. The necessary autonomy is given to the units or departments so that top management can concentrate itself with more important tasks such as strategic planning and policy formulation.
If I have authority over you, I can expect that when I make a decision you will go along with that decision, even if I don’t take the time to explain it to you and persuade you that it is indeed right. In turn, your acceptance of me as an authority implies that you have already agreed to be persuaded, implicitly, and won’t demand explicit explanations and reasons.
Once I begin to explain my reasoning process and get you to agree that my conclusion was the proper one, then you have reached your own decision. When you act, it won’t be because of me enforcing my will over you, nor will it have anything to do with the legitimacy of my power. Instead, it will simply be you exercising your will for your own reasons.
Example: Suppose a manager is the sole authority of an organisation. This manager has the legitimate power to see that his vision and plans are enforced in the matter desired by him.
His work will be done because his staff have implicitly accepted that the manager does not need to patiently reason with each one of them in turn in order to get them to independently agree to the decisions in question.
Why doesn’t the manager explain everything? There can be many reasons – perhaps members of the organisation lack the sophisticated training necessary in order to understand them, or maybe there just isn’t enough time. What’s important is that the manager could explain things, but doesn’t – authority means not having to explain everything but being able to wield legitimate power anyway.
Authority is the right to take action, utilise organisational resources and exact obedience from subordinates. It has some important features as:
1. Authority enables a position holder to regulate the behaviour of his subordinates in a legitimate manner.
2. Authority allows the position holder to make and enforce decisions. He can obtain information, use resources and put people on various tasks and get results through them.
3. Authority gives the right to order and the power to exact obedience.
4. Authority represents the relationship between the senior and the sub-ordinate.
Various analysts have given various theories to categorise authority. A few of the classifications are as under:
1. Traditional authority: Traditional authority is legitimated by the sanctity of tradition. The ability and right to rule is passed down, often through heredity. It does not change overtime, does not facilitate social change, tends to be irrational and inconsistent, and perpetuates the status quo. In fact, Weber states: “The creation of new law opposite traditional norms is deemed impossible in principle.” Traditional authority is typically embodied in feudalism or patrimonialism. In a purely patriarchal structure, “the servants are completely and personally dependent upon the lord”, while in an estate system (i.e. feudalism), “the servants are not personal servants of the lord but independent men”. But, in both cases the system of authority does not change or evolve.
2. Legal-rational authority: Legal-rational authority is empowered by a formalistic belief in the content of the law (legal) or natural law (rationality). Obedience is not given to a specific individual leader – whether traditional or charismatic – but a set of uniform principles. Weber thought the best example of legal-rational authority was a bureaucracy (political or economic). This form of authority is frequently found in the modern state, city governments, private and public corporations, and various voluntary associations. In fact, Weber stated that the development of the modern state is identical indeed with that of modern officialdom and bureaucratic organisations just as the development of modern capitalism is identical with the increasing bureaucratization of economic enterprise.
3. Technical Authority: Technical Authority is entrusted upon a person to establish, monitor and approve technical products and policy. Technical authority increases the responsibility and sets accountability. It results in timely and responsive decisions. Such an authority is entrusted and empowered to make technically sound engineering decisions. The authorized person must do so with integrity and discipline because it is he who would be held accountable for the technical decisions made.
4. Charismatic authority: Charismatic authority is found in a leader whose mission and vision inspire others. It is based upon the perceived extraordinary characteristics of an individual. Weber saw a charismatic leader as the head of a new social movement, and one instilled with divine or supernatural powers, such as a religious prophet. Weber seemed to favour charismatic authority, and spent a good deal of time discussing it. In a study of charisma and religion, Riesebrodt (1999) argues that Weber also thought charisma played a strong – if not integral – role in traditional authority systems. Thus, Weber’s favour for charismatic authority was particularly strong, especially in focusing on what happened to it with the death or decline of a charismatic leader. Charismatic authority is “routinized” in a number of ways according to Weber: orders are traditionalized, the staff or followers change into legal or “estate-like” (traditional) staff, or the meaning of charisma itself may undergo change.
5. External Authority: External authority authority comes from sources outside the organisation. An organisation operates legitimately because it is part of the government, operating in accordance with the laws passed by the Parliament, which, in turn, is elected by people, who are the ultimate source of all authority.
Like everything else, authority also has its advantages and disadvantages. Let us look at them one by one.
1. Authority fits with a superior’s needs.
2. Work is processed in an orderly and consistent manner, throughout the organisation.
3. Authority might bring out discipline among people working at various levels.
4. Authority might be used to get things done quickly, especially when work is not progressing as per expectations.
1. Authority implies resistance if not exercised properly.
2. Authority may not be used in a right way. It might be used to suit personal needs.
3. Authority alone may not get results. Much depends on the competence of the person exercising authority.
4. Indiscriminate use of authority might prove to be disastrous for the entire organisation.
5. When authority is used as a ‘whip’, people tend to ignore/discount/depreciate the person using the same.
” Power appears to involve one person changing the behaviour of one or more other individuals – particularly if that behaviour would not have taken place otherwise.
Power is the potential ability to influence the behaviour of others. It is, in other words, “the capacity that A has, to influence the behaviour of B, so B does something he would not otherwise do” (Robbins). It is the ability to make things happen or get things done the way you want. Power may involve use of one’s potential that need not be actualised to be effective. Example: A football coach has the power to bench a player who is not performing up to par. The coach seldom has to use this power because players recognise that the power exists and work hard to keep their starting positions. Power also represents one’s dependency. The greater B’s dependence on A, the greater is A’s power in the relationship. A person can have power over you only if he controls something you desire. Where an employee is not dependent on the supervisor for receiving rewards then, truly speaking, the supervisor has no power over such employee. Another feature of power is that it is specific in the sense that it can be exercised by some people, that too, in some circumstances. Power cannot be exercised by all people all times.
In conjunction with the authority, a manager uses power to influence others towards the accomplishment of goals. He can use power for personal gains or for the good of the organisation. However, if his subordinates believe that he uses power for personal gain, he will soon suffer an erosion of that power. On the other hand, if subordinates believe he uses power to accomplish the organisational goals, his power to influence them will become stronger. His power will also become stronger when you share it through delegation of authority. Of the six types of power— reward, coercive, legitimate, informational, referent, and expert—he may use one or more in various combinations. Each situation will determine the one or ones he uses.
1. Reward Power: Reward power stems from a manager’s use of positive and negative rewards to influence subordinates. Positive rewards range from a smile or kind word to recommendations for awards. Negative rewards range from corrective-type counselling to placing a person on report. A manager will find one of the best ways to influence his subordinates through the use of reward power. As a chief, a manager is responsible for starting the positive reward process. Frequent use of positive rewards will amplify the effect of a negative reward. One must give positive rewards freely, but should use restraint in giving negative rewards. If a manager uses negative rewards frequently, subordinates begin to expect a negative reward. Their expectation of a negative reward will lessen your power.
2. Referent Power: Referent power derives from your subordinates’ identification or association with you. You have this power by simply being “the chief.” People identify with the ideals you stand for. The chief has a pre-established image. You can enhance that image by exhibiting charisma, courage, and charm. An improved image increases your referent power. Always be aware of how others will perceive your actions. A negative image in the eyes of others will lessen your power and render you ineffective. Maintain a positive image.
3. Coercive Power: Coercive power results from the expectation of a negative reward if a manager’s wishes are not obeyed. Coercive power works, but is not the preferred method of leading subordinates. It works best if used when all else fails and you feel sure you can carry through with a threat.
4. Legitimate Power: Legitimate power comes from the authority of a manager’s rate and position in the chain of command. Although legitimate power increases with added responsibilities, one can decrease that power if one fails to meet all of your responsibilities. Also, when a subordinate wishes to assume some of your responsibilities, formally delegate those responsibilities to the subordinate. That makes the subordinate accountable to you. You then increase the subordinate’s power while retaining your power.
5. Expert Power: Expert power comes from your knowledge in a specific area through which you influence others. You have expert power because your subordinates regard you as an expert in your rating. Subordinates may also have this type of power. When you combine expert power with other types of power, you will find it an effective tool in influencing others. However, when you use it by itself, you will find it ineffective.
6. Informational Power: Informational power depends on your giving or withholding of information or having knowledge that others do not have. Use informational power when giving orders to subordinates. Give orders in such a manner that your subordinates presume the order originated at your level. When forced to comply with orders you do not agree with, don’t introduce the order by saying “The senior management said.” and present the order in a manner that leaves no doubt you initiated it. Rely on your own resources to stay fully informed instead of depending on others. Subordinates may present unreliable information in a manner that makes it appear to be true. Superiors may become so involved with projects they forget to keep you informed of tasks being assigned or upcoming inspections. Information is power. Stay informed.
According to Jackson and Carter, “power is about getting someone to do something irrespective of their desire to do it or the extent of their resistance to doing it, while authority rest on assumptions that the person is willing to obey, and accepts the right of the person doing the ordering to expect compliance.”
Thus power is the ability to affect change while authority is the right to make any given decision. It’s easy to see how these are different: the person actually doing the work has all the power while the person who signed off has the authority. Sometimes these things are embodied in the same person.
Power is the ability to get things done by others. The principle of power is to punish and reward. Power can exist with or without authority whereas authority is the power to enforce law and take command, and to expect obedience from those without authority.
Example: An armed robber has power but no authority. Authority can exist with or without power.
Example: A teacher has authority over the pupils but no real power. Task
Delegation is the process by which authority is granted to a subordinate by his superior. But for delegation of authority, organizations would remain for ever small. Delegation is the only solution to cope with the increasing work load of managers as the organization grows. Because of the constraints of time and ability, a manager cannot perform all the tasks himself. Therefore, he delegates certain of the tasks to the subordinate and gets them done. Before proceeding further to understand the process of delegation, it is appropriate to examine, in brief, the concepts of authority and responsibility.
Authority is the right to command. It is the discretion power vested with a manager to use the organizational resources. Managers acquire authority by virtue of the rank or title associated with their position. Authority is granted to the individuals in a formal way in the organization. It flows from the top to down in the organization structure.
Responsibility, on the other hand is the obligation to perform the tasks and accounts for their satisfactory completion. It is implied that an individual is expected to fulfill certain job requirements when he or she accepts a position in the organization. In other words, the individual is answerable for the results of the task to be performed. In contrast to authority, responsibility of an individual in the organization is always upwards, that is, the subordinate is responsible to his or her superior.
The principles of delegation are as follows:
1. Principle of absolute responsibility: This says that the authority can be delegated but responsibility cannot be delegated by managers to his subordinates which means responsibility is fixed. The manager at every level, no matter what is his authority, is always responsible to his superior for carrying out his task by delegating the powers. It does not means that he can escape from his responsibility. He will always remain responsible till the completion of task. Every superior is responsible for the acts of their subordinates and are accountable to their superior therefore the superiors cannot pass the blame to the subordinates even if he has delegated certain powers to subordinates example if the production manager has been given a work and the machine breaks down. If repairman is not able to get repair work done, production manager will be responsible to CEO if their production is not completed.
2. Principle of result expected: Suggests that every manager before delegating the powers to the subordinate should be able to clearly define the goals as well as results expected from them. The goals and targets should be completely and clearly defined and the standards of performance should also be notified clearly. For example, a marketing manager explains the salesmen regarding the units of sale to take place in a particular day, say ten units a day have to be the target sales. While a marketing manager provides these guidelines of sales, mentioning the target sales is very important so that the salesman can perform his duty efficiently with a clear set of mind.
3. Principle of authority level: This principle suggests that a manager should exercise his authority within the jurisdiction/framework given. The manager should be forced to consult their superiors with those matters of which the authority is not given that means before a manager takes any important decision, he should make sure that he has the authority to do that on the other hand, subordinate should also not frequently go with regards to their complaints as well as suggestions to their superior if they are not asked to do. This principle emphasizes on the degree of authority and the level up to which it has to be maintained.
4. Principle of parity of authority and responsibility: According to this principle, the manager should keep a balance between authority and responsibility. Both of them should go hand in hand. According to this principle, if a subordinate is given a responsibility to perform a task, then at the same time he should be given enough independence and power to carry out that task effectively. This principle also does not provide excessive authority to the subordinate which at times can be misused by him. The authority should be given in such a way which matches the task given to him. Therefore, there should be no degree of disparity between the two.
1. Entrustment of Duties or assignment of Responsibilities: This is a crucial step in that a few important questions like what to delegate? When to delegate? Whom to delegate? And how to delegate are answered. The effectiveness of delegation depends on how clearly these questions are answered. First of all, the manager has to decide the tasks to be delegated to the subordinates. For this, he must be able to distinguish between the routine and non-routine tasks. Routine and simple tasks can as well be performed by the subordinates while the non-routine and very important tasks must be performed by himself.
2. Granting of Authority: When the subordinates are assigned certain tasks or responsibilities, it goes without saying that they need authority also to perform the tasks. Authority is required by them to use the resources of the organization for the execution of the tasks. The superior, therefore, parts with his authority to enable the subordinates to perform. Responsibility and authority both go together. One of the important principles of organizing is parity of authority and responsibility which emphasizes the need for a proper balance between the two.
3. Creation of Accountability: Delegation does not end with just entrustment of duties and the granting of authority. The superior has to create an obligation on the part of the subordinate to perform. In other words, the subordinate is accountable to his superior for the tasks delegated. Thus, while authority flows downwards, responsibility flows upwards. Normally, accountability is created by asking the subordinates to submit performance reports/ status reports from time to time.
To make delegation effective, the spirit and willingness of both the parties are crucial. Though delegation is a powerful tool to motivate the subordinates and to develop managerial skills in them, if adequate care is not exercised the result may be considerable anxiety for both superiors and subordinates. Following are some of the reasons why delegation often fails in organizations to which both superiors and subordinates are responsible.
1. Lack of ability to direct: Some managers become so involved in day-to-day operations that they ignore to see the broader picture. Unable to understand the long term perspective of the work flow, they do not fully realize the importance of distributing work among subordinates. Some managers deliberately do this because of lack of confidence in their supervisory abilities.
2. Aversion to Risk: Since the superior cannot absolve himself of the final performance of the task, he may fear that delegating the job will cause problems. Further, those superiors who see a threat in the subordinates always try to avoid delegation. This is mostly due to the mindset where superior fears that he may be outsmarted by the subordinate and eventually the latter may become a potential threat to this position.
3. Lack of Confidence in Subordinates: Lack of trust and confidence on subordinates’ abilities and skills make the superiors reluctant to delegate. As a result, subordinates lose initiative and frequently seek the guidance of the bosses to know whether they are doing the things correctly.
4. The “I can do it better myself fallacy”: Some managers always suffer from a feeling that they only can do the job better. Consequently two things happen. First, spending time on a task a subordinate could perform and as a result the manager may not be able to perform other important tasks like policy formulation and supervision. Second, unless the manager allows subordinates to attempt new tasks, the subordinates will be unable to develop their skills. Thus by insisting on doing things themselves managers often fail in their responsibility for training and grooming subordinates higher levels responsibilities.
5. Inadequate Information and Resources: The subordinate lacks the information and resources needed to do the job successfully. Some managers with a view to let down their subordinates may deliberately make the delegation unclear. As a result the subordinate lands himself in confusion as to the exact nature of the duties and the authority that he can exercise. The motive of the superior in such cases may be to make the subordinate fail in the execution.
6. Absence of Selective Controls: When certain duties are delegated to subordinates, the superior has to ensure proper controls in the form of feedback about performance. It gives the superior the opportunity of knowing the problem before much damage takes place. If controls are not adequate and effective, manager has good reason to avoid authority delegation.
Several of the barriers to delegation discussed above mostly relate to the behavioral aspects of individuals. Insecurity, aversion to risk, lack of self-confidence, inability to trust another to perform a task are all different types of manifestations of human behaviour. Among the various barriers, psychological barriers are the most difficult ones to overcome. In order to overcome many of these barriers, both superiors and subordinates must take a hard look at themselves, recognize their own fears and try to come out of the inhibitions. The following measures may help delegation to be effective:
1. Parity of Authority and Responsibility: For delegation to be effective, it is necessary for authority and responsibility to be commiserating, that is, superior must delegate sufficient authority for the subordinate in order to enable him to accomplish the task for which he has assumed responsibility. For example, a marketing manager who got the task of increasing sales can accomplish the task, only when he is given authority to conduct an advertising campaign and provide motivational incentives to sales people. Absence of such an authority to use the organizational resources lands him in frustration. Imagine yourself for a while in the situation of having responsibility for the tasks without sufficient authority. In such a case you would let the superior know as soon as possible the actual situation and get the situation corrected.
2. Incentives for additional responsibility: Additional responsibility usually means additional work. An individual in any system expects to be rewarded for the additional responsibilities. But unfortunately, many organizations fail to offer positive rewards. Current research strongly indicates that employees will not be fully motivated if they feel they are giving the organization more than what they are getting. The rewards may be in many forms. Additional pay, promotional opportunity, a better job title, praise, added status, more pleasant working conditions, etc. Though delegation broadly involves assignment of duties and granting of necessary authority to subordinates the actual practices vary. Having understood the concept of delegation of authority, the Dos and Don’ts, it is appropriate to take a look at the different degrees of delegation. Harvey Sherman categorized the following six degrees of delegation:
a. Take action – no further contact with me is needed.
b. Take action – let me know that you did
i. Look into this problem – Let me know what you intend to do; do it unless tell you not to.
ii. Look into this problem – Let me know what you intend to do; delay action until I give approval.
iii. Look into this problem – Let me know alternative actions available with pros and cons and recommend one for my approval.
iv. Look into this problem – give me all facts; I will decide what to do.
3. Effective Communication: When a subordinate does not perform the tasks as expected by management, the problem can be faulty communication. In the hurry to get the things done, managers may skip through what they exactly expect from the subordinate. The subordinate may also hesitate to ask questions for looking stupid. At times, subordinate too, may be in a hurry to get on with the job. Consequently, both the parties may think they understand what was assigned and expected. Later, often too late, the work is not done right and both are disappointed. Thus, effective communication to subordinates of their responsibilities, tasks, and authority reduces the chances of misunderstandings between the two and thus paves the way for fruitful accomplishment of the tasks.
Management by Objectives (MBO) was first outlined by Peter Drucker in 1954 in his book ‘The Practice of Management’. It is a systematic and organised approach that allows management to focus on achievable goals and to attain the best possible results from available resources. MBO aims to increase organisational performance by aligning goals and subordinate objectives throughout the organisation. It managers focus on the result, not the activity. They delegate tasks by “negotiating a contract of goals” with their subordinates without dictating a detailed roadmap for implementation. Management by Objectives (MBO) is about setting yourself objectives and then breaking these down into more specific goals or key results. Ideally, employees get strong input to identify their objectives, time lines for completion, etc. MBO includes ongoing tracking and feedback in the process to reach objectives.
According to Drucker managers should “avoid the activity trap”, getting so involved in their day to day activities that they forget their main purpose or objective. Instead of just a few top managers, all managers should:
1. Participate in the strategic planning process, in order to improve the implementability of the plan, and
2. Implement a range of performance systems, designed to help the organisation stay on the right track.
In Management by Objectives (MBO) systems, objectives are written down for each level of the organisation, and individuals are given specific aims and targets. “The principle behind this is to ensure that people know what the organisation is trying to achieve, what their part of the organisation must do to meet those aims, and how, as individuals, they are expected to help. This presupposes that organisation’s programs and methods have been fully considered. If they have not, start by constructing team objectives and ask team members to share in the process.” “The one thing an MBO system should provide is focus”, says Andy Grove who ardently practiced MBO at Intel. So, have your objectives precise and keep their number small. Most people disobey this rule, try to focus on everything, and end up with no focus at all. For Management by Objectives (MBO) to be effective, individual managers must understand the specific objectives of their job and how those objectives fit in with the overall company objectives set by the board of directors. “A manager’s job should be based on a task to be performed in order to attain the company’s objectives… the manager should be directed and controlled by the objectives of performance rather than by his boss.”
The managers of the various units or sub-units, or sections of an organisation should know not only the objectives of their unit but should also actively participate in setting these objectives and make responsibility for them.
The review mechanism enables leaders to measure the performance of their managers, especially in the key result areas: marketing; innovation; human organisation; financial resources; physical resources; productivity; social responsibility; and profit requirements.
However, in recent years opinion has moved away from the idea of placing managers into a formal, rigid system of objectives. Today, when maximum flexibility is essential, achieving the objective rightly is more important.
Management by Objectives has following characteristics.
1. MBO emphasises participation in setting goals that are tangible, verifiable and measurable.
2. MBO focuses attention on what must be accomplished (goals) rather than how it is to be accomplished (methods).
3. MBO, by concentrating on key result areas translates the abstract philosophy of management into concrete phraseology. The technique can be put to general use (non-specialist technique). Further, it is ‘a dynamic system which seeks to integrate the company’s need to achieve its profit and sales growth with the manager’s need to clarify and achieve its profit and sales growth with the manager’s need to contribute and develop himself.
4. MBO is a systematic and rational technique that allows management to attain maximum results from available resources by focusing on achievable goals. It allows the subordinate with plenty of room to make creative decisions on his own.
1. MBO is not merely a goal-setting tool. It is a philosophy and has to be understood thoroughly by the managers concerned with achievement of objectives.
2. Top management must be willing to implement the system wholeheartedly. Its support and encouragement are crucial for the success of MBO. The necessary democratic climate has to be created in the organisation for setting the goals in a realistic way.
3. Goals have to be spelt out in specific and clear terms. To the extent possible, they must be made realistic because goals motivate employees towards better performance.
4. The key result areas (KRAs) of the business have to be identified and appropriate goals have to be specified for these areas. All the important areas of the business must be covered with meaningful goals.
5. It has to be realized that goal-setting in the MBO process is not an end by itself. It is only a means to achieve organizational effectiveness. Otherwise, goal-setting becomes the primary task rather than their achievement.
6. Appropriate organisation structure has to be designed with well understood relationships among people such that every goal becomes some individual’s responsibility.
7. Besides clarifying the organizational roles by adopting a suitable organisation structure, attention has to be paid on the resources required by the people to achieve the goals. Otherwise, goals by themselves, however effective they are, do no assure performance.
8. Performance depends on the timely availability of resources. Non availability or inadequate access to the resources frustrates the individuals concerned with the achievement of goals.
‘Objectives’ are the end points of management action. They provide meaning to the existence of an organisation. Objectives are the specific targets to be achieved by an organisation. They are the end-points towards which all management activities like organising, staffing, directing and controlling are directed. In other words, only after defining the basic objectives for which an organisation exists, can the manager determine the kind of organisation, the type of personnel and their skills, the kind of motivation and direction and the nature of control techniques which may be employed to achieve the ends.
1. Objectives have hierarchy- in that objectives which have wider scope and are relevant for the whole organisation are known as enterprise objectives. These objectives are split into unit level or departmental objectives. Thus, objectives at all levels in the organisation are inter related and form a network.
2. Objectives may be in quantitative or qualitative terms-For example, in the areas of market standing, productivity and physical and financial resources quantification is possible. On the other hand, worker’s morale, social responsibility, etc. cannot exactly quantified. However, objectives in the latter category may be expressed in qualitative terms. Thus, quantitative objectives are gauged by ‘how much’ while qualitative objectives by ‘how well’.
3. Objectives sometimes may be in conflict with each other as the goals of the various departments at times may clash. Each department considers that its goals are more important. For example, the production goal of low unit cost achievable through mass production may be in conflict with the sales goal of offering high quality goods. Such conflicts have to be resolved amicably.
4. Short-term and Long-term Objectives: Short-term objectives are those which are sought to be achieved by the organisation in the immediate future, while long-term objectives are those which are aimed to be achieved over a longer period, say five to ten years or even more. However, both are not mutually exclusive and are interrelated.
1. Defining the Goal: Any MBO programme must start with an absolute enthusiastic support of top management. It must be consistent with the philosophy of the management. The long-term goals of the organisation must be outlined initially, like: What is the basic purpose of the organisation? What business are we in and why? What are the long-term prospects in other areas? After these long-term goals are established, management must be concerned with determining specific objectives to be achieved within a given time capsule.
Setting specific performance objectives is a multi-step process, MBO is based on two concepts:
1. Let people know what is expected of them and
2. Allow employee in participation setting goals.
It is believed that participation in the goal-setting process is needed to strike a happy balance between individual and organisational goals. MBO gives the subordinates, a voice in what goes on in the organisation. It emphasises the ‘jointness’ of the objectives and indicates that both superiors and subordinates can play a dynamic role. Accordingly, MBO starts with the establishment of clear and concise goals of performance, which are understood and accepted by both superior and subordinate. In order to improve the quality of objectives, in the joint goal-setting sessions, Tosi and Carroll have suggested the following steps:
1. The superior must participate in the discussion. He must be a good listener and also a good contributor to help the subordinate.
2. Irrelevant discussions should be avoided.
3. Identify the obstacles that may stand in the way of achieving the goal. Once obstacles are identified, it is easy to find out the solution.
4. Alternatives should be looked into only after clearly identifying the obstacles. Setting goals is a tough exercise. The goals planned ultimately should satisfy several conditions. They must be
a. clear, concise and unambiguous;
b. accurate, in terms of the true end state or condition sought;
c. consistent with policies, procedures and plans, as they apply to the unit;
d. within the competence of the man; and
e. interesting, motivating or challenging wherever possible. “Setting goals is too important an activity to hurry through. There should be adequate time given to allow for discussion and evaluation.”.
The most important factor in determining the success of the mutual goal-setting process lies in the ability and willingness of the superior to allow true participation by the subordinate. ‘It requires intelligent coaching by the superior and extensive practice by the subordinate.’ It requires a genuine commitment to an interactive relationship between managers and their subordinates.
2. Action plan: The action plan is the means by which an objective is achieved. The action plan gives direction and ensures unity of purpose to organisational activities. It will state in detail, exactly what is to be done, how the subordinate will proceed, what steps will be taken, and what activities will be engaged in as the subordinate progresses. It provides a specific answer to the question: ‘What is to be done?’ Questions like who is responsible for each activity, what resources are needed, what the time requirements are would also be answered.
Example: Nitin Albert and his sales manager might agree upon the following standards of performance for Nitin:
1. Increase sales of mobile phones in the Southern region by 10 percent by the end of the current year; and
2. Reduce travelling expenses during the above period.
There are two ways of developing specific action plans: They may be developed by both manager and subordinate or by the subordinate alone. To ensure success, the superior must be willing to sit with each subordinate and review the action plan (such as the above one), once it has been developed. The periodic review process helps the superior to monitor progress towards goal achievement. It helps in finding out better and more efficient methods of accomplishing goals, in finding out the feasibility of implementing the earlier goals uncovering barriers to accomplishment etc. If the subordinate does not appear to be on the right course, the performance objective can be modified or the subordinate can be
Re-directed into more productive behaviours. The emphasis in periodic review sessions should be on checking the progress toward goal achievement. If the performance is not satisfactory, the superior must try to isolate the causes of lack of progress without criticising the subordinate and indicate specific steps, as to how to proceed in future so as to achieve the goals. The emphasis should be on improving performance rather than degrading subordinates.
3. Final Review: This is the last phase of the MBO programme. In this step, the actual results are measured against predetermined standards. Mutually agreed-on objectives provide basis for reviewing the progress. While appraising the performance of subordinates, the manager should sit with his subordinates and find out the problems encountered while accomplishing the goals. The subordinate, as in the periodic sessions, should not be criticised for failure to make sufficient progress; the atmosphere should not be hostile or threatening. A give-and-take atmosphere should prevail and the appraisal should be based on mutual trust and confidence between managers and subordinates. In actual practice, this type of give-and-take session is extremely difficult to achieve and rarely reaches its potential value, unless managers are gifted with necessary interpersonal skills. Often, appraisal takes place for the purpose of determining rewards and punishments; judging the personal worth of subordinates and not the job performance. As a result, appraisal sessions become awkward and uncomfortable to the participants and intensify the pressure on subordinates while giving them a limited choice of objectives. Insecure subordinates may come to ‘dread’ the sessions and they may not feel free to communicate honestly and openly, without fear of retaliation. Appraisals can be really useful, if the person being evaluated knows and accepts in advance the grounds upon which he is being appraised.
MBO is hailed as the greatest innovation in years. Advocates argue that “it is the successor to
Taylor’s ‘mental revolution’-a new way of thinking about, and engaging in, collective effort”. It is claimed that when an organisation is managed by objectives, it becomes performance-oriented, it grows, develops and becomes socially useful in many ways:
1. Clear goals: MBO produces clear and measurable performance goals. Goals are set in an atmosphere of participation, mutual trust and confidence. There is a meeting of minds between the superior and the subordinates, where the latter will be shooting for right goals. Participation increases commitment, additionally it also results in setting better goals. Research experience also indicates that individuals are more likely to be highly committed to objectives when they share a hand in setting. Joint goal-setting sessions enhance team spirit and intergroup communication.
2. Better planning: MBO programmes sharpen the planning process. Specific goals are products of concrete thinking. They tend to force specific planning into setting highly specific, challenging and attainable goals; developing action programmes tied to a definite schedule; providing resources for goal accomplishment; discussing and removing obstacles to performance-all these activities demand careful advance planning. Passivity gives way to activity.
3. Facilitates control: MBO helps in developing controls. A clear set of verifiable goals provides an outstanding guarantee for exercising better control.
4. Objective appraisal: MBO provides a basis for evaluating a person’s performance since goals are jointly set by superior and subordinates. By setting specific goals, MBO allows persons to better control their own performance. The individual is given the freedom to police his own activities. A pleasant and stimulating organisational climate prevails where individuals are not subjected to domination and control from ‘upstairs’, and where they are trained to exercise discipline and self-control. Management by self-control replaces management by domination. Appraisals would be more objective and impartial since employee performance is evaluated against, verifiable objectives.
5. Motivational force: Both appraiser and appraisee are committed to the same objective. It forces managers to think of result oriented planning rather than planning for activities or work. It compels forward planning and living life in an anticipatory mode rather than responding to events. Clarified roles reduce ambiguity and employee anxiety. It allows managers increased opportunities to provide subordinates with a better fix on the job and clarify the path to personal rewards.
6. Better morale: MBO encourages commitment rather than rote compliance. It is at functional in terms of what top management demands and developmental in terms of people at work. The two techniques, participative decision-making and two-way communication, encourage the subordinates to communicate freely and honestly. It minimises the possible misunderstanding about what is expected of each individual and organisational subunit. Participation, clarified goals, improved communication – all together have a tonic effect on the psychology of subordinates.
7. Result-oriented philosophy: MBO is a result-oriented, practical and rational management philosophy. Managers are forced to develop specific individual and group goals, develop appropriate action plans, Marshall the resources properly and establish needed control standards. It helps manager to avoid management by crisis and ‘fire-fighting’.
MBO is not a panacea, a cure for all organisational problems. Quite often, many organisations look at MBO as an instant solution to their problems. They fail to recognise that MBO demands careful planning and implementation to be successful.
This technique, like all others, can be no better than the people who try to apply it. Some of the problems preventing MBO from achieving its best results may be catalogued thus:
1. Pressure-oriented: MBO may prove to be self-defeating in the long run since it is tied with a reward-punishment psychology. It is a clear violation of the integrity of subordinate’s personality. MBO programmes sometimes, discriminate against superior performers. It tries to indiscriminately force improvement on all employees and at times, may penalise the very people who are most productive in the organisation.
2. Time consuming: MBO demands a great deal of time to carefully set objectives, at all levels of the organisation. Initially to instil confidence in subordinates in the ‘new system’, superiors may have to hold many meetings. The formal, periodic progress and final review sessions also consume time.
3. Increases paperwork: MBO programmes introduce a tidal wave of newsletters, instruction booklets, training manuals, questionnaires, performance data, reports into the organisation. To stay abreast of what is going on in the organisation, managers may demand regular reports and data in writing, resulting in ‘gruelling exercise in filling out forms’. It has created one more ‘paper mill’. According to Howell, MBO’s effectiveness is inversely related to the number of MBO forms.
4. Goal-setting problems: MBO works effectively when important measurable objectives are jointly agreed upon. It works less, when:
a. Verifiable goals are difficult to set.
b. Goals tend to take precedence over the people who use it. MBO focuses on end results and it may foster an attitude, that any action is acceptable as long as it helps to achieve the goals. Consequently, unwise decisions are made that would ultimately harm the organisation.
c. Goals are inflexible and rigid.
d. There is overemphasis on quantifiable and easily measurable results instead of important results. Many important qualitative goals like job satisfaction, employee attitudes are lost sight of (attempts to set measurable goals force managers to search for a magic figure for each area).
e. Overemphasis on short-term goals at the expense of long-term goals. Attempts to show results force managers to curtail costs, in areas where a long-term perspective would be more fruitful to the organisation.
5. Organisational problems: MBO is not a palliative for all organisational ills. It is not for everybody. MBO creates more problems than it solves when:
a. There might be a failure to teach the philosophy to all participants. Too often MBO is introduced across the organisation with little explanation, training or help.
b. There might be failure to limit objectives. Too many objectives obscure priorities and create a sense of fear and panic among subordinates.
c. It is inconsistent with management philosophies. Under MBO programmes, managers are forced to take a 180° turn from their present ways of thinking and acting. Instead of planning and deciding things for others, they are advised to invite subordinates and plan for work in an atmosphere of participation, much to their dislike.
d. The programme is used as a ‘whip’ to control employee performance.
e. It leads to a tug-of-war in which the subordinate tries to set the lowest possible target and superior the highest.
f. The seniors might turn MBO into a sham and start ‘playing games’.
In spite of many advantages, MBO may not be considered as a panacea for all the evils of the organisation. The success of the program depends on several factors. If the program fails, it is largely due to the following reasons:
1. Lack of top management involvement and support. For an MBO program to succeed, it must have the complete support of top management.
2. Lack of understanding of the philosophy behind MBO. MBO program in some organizations meet the resistance of employees because it is imposed on them as ‘control device’ to curb their freedom.
3. Difficultly in setting realistic and meaningful objectives. Some jobs and areas of performance cannot be quantified and hence are not amenable for objective evaluation.
4. Increased time pressure. To use MBO program, managers must learn to establish priorities and use the time effectively.
5. Lack of relevant skills. Managers may not have the requisite skills for identifying objectives, communication and interpersonal interaction such as counselling and receiving feedback.
6. Lack of individual motivation. The rewards and incentives for superior performance have to be specified clearly. Ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the outcome of the efforts is one of the reasons for the non-performance.
7. Poor integration with other systems. Objective setting and review phases must be performed in conjunction with other activities such as budgeting, forecasting and the like. Often managers are neither taught how to set the objectives nor familiarized with the various plans and policies of the organisation. In such cases, each department ends up going its own way, and the results are counterproductive to the overall organisation.
The type of arrangement of various positions in an orderly way is termed scalar chain or chain of command. The chain of command exists wherever an individual is made subordinate to another. Since ancient times, it has been recognized that the only way to structure unified systems involving large number of people is through a chain of command. The resulting hierarchy is found in every company or in any human system including a family. Following chart depicts the chain of command in a typical manufacturing company. In addition to defining different degrees of authority of people, Chain of Command also suggests the routes through which information flows within an organization.
The Chain of Command principle implies another feature of organizing: one subordinate-one boss. If the efforts of subordinates are to be effectively coordinated, it is necessary that they must have a reporting relationship with only one superior. Unity of command principle avoids the confusion as to who should report to whom and who should issue orders to whom.
It is anybody’s knowledge that a manager cannot effectively supervise the activities of an infinite number of subordinates. This is because of the limitations of time, energy and skills. These limitations place natural limit on the number of subordinates that a manager can effectively supervise. But for this limit, organizations would have not taken the pyramid shape. Span of management refers to the number of subordinates that report directly to a manager. The traditional thinking was that an effective span involved some definite number of subordinates. For example, Lyndall Urwick found “the ideal number of subordinates for all superior positions to be four and at the lower level of the organization, the number may be eight or twelve”. Often, one of the first things done by an organizational analyst or consultant was to count the number of subordinates reporting to each manager. In each instance, when the number exceeded a definite figure, say – six or eight, there would be a recommendation to narrow the span. Thus, the thinking of the classical theorists about the span revolved around a definite number.
As explained above, the traditional theory of management was much concerned with the specific number of subordinates that could be supervised by a manager. For instance, Lyndall Urwick suggests that no executive should attempt to supervise directly more than five. Different thinkers suggested different spans both at the top and lower levels of organization.
The contribution of V.A. Graicunas was however, significant to the span of management theory. According to him, in selecting a span managers should consider not only the direct one-to-one relationship with their subordinates, but also two other kinds of relationships, namely, direct group relationships and cross-relationships. As such, if A has two subordinate B and C, the following relationships would emerge.
1. Direct one-to-one relationships: These relationships relate the superior directly with his subordinates, A in this case will have two direct relationships with B and C, viz., A to B and A to C.
2. Direct Group relationships: This refers to the relationships of superior with the various possible combinations of subordinates. In the above example, A may interact with B in the presence of C or with C in the presence of B. Graicunas argues that though the individuals are same, the two situations have different implications.
3. Cross – relationships: This type of relationships is created when subordinates consult one another. In our example, the two cross relationships are B with C and C with B. Graicunas gave a formula to ascertain the number of all the three kinds of relationships
number of relationship- 2n + 2 -1
2 n stands for the number of subordinates. One can easily ascertain how the number of relationships increases as the number of subordinates rises by applying this formula. With four subordinates, the total relationships go up to 44, with five subordinates to 100, with six subordinates to 222, and with 10 subordinates to 5,210. Though Graicunas formula explains the complexities involved as the number of subordinates increase, it suffers from the following inadequacies.
1. The formula ignores the frequency and importance of relationships, and
2. Several other factors which have a bearing on the superior subordinate relationships have not been taken into consideration.
The limitation on the part of a manager to manage an infinite number of subordinate obviously results in the levels in the organization. Thus, an inverse relationship generally exists between the span of management and number of management levels. That is, if an organization has wide span, the resulting structure will be flat, with few levels of management. Conversely, is an organization has narrow span; the structure will be tall with many management levels. Both the situations of wide as well as narrow spans and the resulting flat and tall structures are shown in Figure. Company B: Flat structure caused by wide spans of control for 64 operative employees.
Company A: tall structure caused by narrow spans of control for 64 operative employees
(Spans of control: 4; management layers:3)
As presented in the above figures, in Company A, each supervisor’s span covers four subordinates, and four department heads report to the chairman. There are a total of 21 managers, arranged in four management levels. In contrast, in company B, each of the eight supervisors exercise controls over eight subordinates. As a result, there exists only three layers. In this case, by increasing the span from four to eight, one layer of management is eliminated.
Creation of too many levels has certain problems related to the costs associated with communication and managerial control.
1. Costs: Levels are costly. Too many levels involve lot of expenditure. Additional facilities in terms of secretarial staff have to be provided besides the pay differentials in the compensation package. In many organizations substantial expenditure has been saved by increasing the span.
2. Managerial control: The distance between the top and bottom levels of an organization also affects control. For example, even the best of the plans which are definite and complete at the top level lose clarity as the plans are sub-divided and elaborated at lower levels. Consequently, at the implementation stage of the plan, control becomes difficult.
3. Communication: Successive layers of management act as communication filters distorting the transmission of information. Experience shows that the greater the number of management levels a message must pass through, the longer it will take to reach its destination. More often, the information also looses clarity. Thus, communication or organizational objectives, plans and policies become difficult. Omissions and misinterpretations usually occur as information passes through too many levels in the scalar chain.
1. Manager’s personality: If managers share a strong need for power, they may prefer a wider span of control. On the other hand, some managers feel threatened because they cannot oversee the activities of too many people. Such managers would naturally prefer a narrow span.
2. Subordinates capabilities: Experienced and well-trained subordinates will be able to resolve the difficulties themselves. They do not take much of the time of the superior. The need for frequent contacts is also obviously less.
3. Fatigue tolerance: Physical and mental fatigue may limit a manager’s capacity for control. There are only so many hours in a day, and only so many things can be done at a time. Consequently, the greater the physical or mental demands of a job, the narrower the span of control.
4. Non-supervisory activities: If a manager spends more time on non-supervisory activities like long-range planning and outside assignments, he tends to have less time to supervise the subordinates. This obviously limits the span.
5. Manager’s capability: An experienced, well trained and knowledgeable manger is normally able to handle a relatively wider span than a less capable manager.
6. Activity level: The pace and pattern or work in an engineering firm, an investment firm, and a university differ in many respects. Moreover, there also exist differences between the various units of an organization. For example, production activity compared to public relations. Thus, the more active the pace and pattern of a manager’s work, the narrower the appropriate span of control.
7. Similarity of activities supervised: If the nature of activities performed by the subordinates is routine, the superior can manage many subordinates. On the other hand, if unique and non-routine problems are more frequent, the span is limited.
8. Location: If subordinates are physically dispersed, a manager will need to spend more time in travelling and communicating. The span of control in such a case will be narrow. To conclude, it has to be remembered that despite the desirability of flat structures, the span of management may be limited by certain factors. As an enterprise grows, the increase in organization levels cannot be completely avoided. What is required is a precise balancing of all the factors in a given situation. Widening spans and reducing levels may be the answer in some cases, while the opposite may be true in others.
9. Complexity of work: Simple job assignments are usually easier to supervise than complex ones. The problems that arise are generally less demanding and take less of the superior’s time. Thus, less supervision will be necessary, contributing for a wider span.
10. Availability of sophisticated facilities: Availability of more advanced and sophisticated facilities like high speed telecommunication devices, modern office equipment, etc., will help the manager in managing a relatively wider span.
Please fill your information and we will contact you within 24hrs.
34, Rest Camp, West,
Tyagi Road, Dehradun
Phone : +91-941-111-4532 / +91-914-935-2988
Email : info@shahealthcare.org
MON-SAT 09:00 – 18:00