How many subordinates and
functions can an individual be responsible for managing and supervising? Our
military are keenly aware of 'span of control' issues; they frequently modify
their organizations, 'chains of command', to optimize performance in their
ultimate purpose--combat. This works well for them except in situations where
low level personnel are given assignments for which neither they, nor their
immediate commanders are trained.
To be successful, all
organizations should carefully consider 'span of control' and its concomitant
issues. Failure to do so will result in a continuum of unpleasant
surprises.
According to Wikipedia, President Obama has
twenty-two people reporting to him. His successor will have the
same.
Large corporations with a single
product can operate with a simple management structure (span of control). Those
operating in multiple markets typically divide themselves into divisions or
subsidiaries, each with its own set of responsibilities. Policies on accounting
and liability issues (safety, sexual harassment) are imposed from the top. And
all corporations and small to medium businesses are controlled by their
customers (who vote with their feet) on issues of concern to them (price,
delivery, quality).
You've probably noticed how some
companies suck their customers into helping supervise their operations.
(surveys, opinion polling, 'contact us').
The point of all this is that
while companies and private organizations strive to simplify their chains of
command to satisfy 'span of control' issues the federal government keeps taking
on more responsibilities at the expense of same. Some of this can't be
avoided--we can't go back to state militias. But health care?
Logically, the administration
should be reorganized, including a reduction in functions where possible.
Several should go to the states along with mandatory standards of performance.
This will not happen; realistically, politicians will see to that. We should,
therefore, recognize that there will be surprises and scandals, and that no
president can prevent them. Holding him, or her, responsible, as the media and
opposing party love to do, is a fool's mission. All the president can do is hire
the best people available and then fire them as the surprises occur.
It's scary to think of our
president being up to his, or her, eye balls, coping with a mountain of
activities, while making critical decisions--every one loaded with political and
special interest implications. (Or are decisions actually made for him/her,
pre-packaged, so to speak?) I can't help but compare this to the manner in
which Lincoln governed--taking time to think, then discuss, using a small group
of advisors, then think again.
Joe Bakewell
No comments:
Post a Comment