Sunday, June 2, 2013

Span of Control

     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