Principle 6: Report to One Supervisor
Each employee should receive orders from and be responsible to only one supervisor.
One of the most basic rules of sound management is stated as Principle 6 and is frequently called the principle of unity of command. When employees receive orders from more than one supervisor, they often fail to work efficiently because they do not know from whom they should receive orders or which work should be done first. When two supervisors share the responsibility for one department, one supervisor may not know where his or her authority stops and the other's begins. The result may be confusion among workers and a breakdown in morale and discipline. By reporting to one supervisor only, which is the main theme of the principle of unity of command, workers should know exactly what work is expected of them and supervisors should know exactly who reports to them. An interpersonal exchange of such information is a useful technique for ensuring that necessary information is received. (See Figure 2-1). Each office employee should report directly to the one individual named as the primary supervisor on a specific job or project. In one firm the AOM may report to the controller because of the conditions existing in that company; in another firm where administrative services are mainly sales oriented, the OM may report to the vice-president of sales. Who reports to whom depends on the organization structure, the objectives, and existing conditions within each company. With today's emphasis on task forces and project teams, many middle managers and staff personnel often report to several superiors — one with primary authority and others with secondary authority.
Principle 7: Limit Span of Control
For effective supervision and leadership, the number of employees reporting to one supervisor should be limited to a manageable number.
Span of control, also known as the span of management, refers to the number of employees who are directly supervised by one person. There is no preset number that rigidly defines the span of control since each situation must be carefully evaluated by considering the following factors:
The capacity and skill of the manager or supervisor and the workers reporting to such supervisory personnel.
The type of direction and control exercised over the employees, together with the freedom extended to the employees in making decisions.
3.The stable or changing nature of the work processes.
The technical nature of the work.
The amount of time that the manager or supervisor spends on nonsupervisory work.
The size of the organization.
The number of interpersonal relationships existing in each work setting.
When the span of control is narrow, a great opportunity exists for close supervision and regimentation. The number of levels or layers in the organization is usually great, which creates a tall pyramid-shaped structure, as shown in Figure 2-3A.
Figure 2-3A
Narrow
Span of Control
(five levels)
As the span is broadened, the degree of freedom for the employee becomes greater since the organization has fewer levels. (See Figure 2-3B.)
Figure 2-3B
Broad
Span of Control
(two levels)
The heavy lines in each chart show the chain of command, which is the means of transmitting authority from the top level (the chief executive officer) through successive levels of management to the workers at the lowest operative level.
Early management theorists stated emphatically that the span of control at the top level should be no more than five or six persons whose work is closely related. Other management authorities consider 12 to 15 workers to be the maximum span at the lower levels in the organization. However, with company-wide computerized information systems, many workers at the same level often perform the same or very similar kinds of work. Thus, it becomes possible through internal control systems to increase the number of persons being supervised by one individual. A basic technique used to control the number of persons reporting to each supervisor is summarized in Figure 2-1.
By studying the organization chart, as discussed later in this chapter, it is possible to avoid an excessively tall pyramid-shaped structure, which usually means too many levels of command. To encourage independence and self-control among workers, the overly long chain of command can be shortened by decreasing the number of supervisory levels. Also, it is possible to avoid overtaxing the mental and physical capacities of supervisors if the span of control is not too broad.
LEADERSHIP STYLES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE MANAGER
The success with which the AOM applies the principles of management discussed in the previous section depends largely upon effective leadership. Leadership is a purely human process of influencing people to work willingly and enthusiastically in the attainment of organizational objectives. When a consistent pattern of behavior is found in a leader, a leadership style is said to exist. Leadership styles are styles of management that bring forth cooperation or resistance from subordinates. Research has shown that there is no one best leadership style, although for many decades it was believed that all great leaders possessed certain traits. A widely held view is that leaders have high intelligence, broad social interests and maturity, strong motivation to accomplish, and great respect for, and interest in, people.
The best style of leadership for an OM, which may be a mix of several styles, depends on the following factors: (1) the manager's personality; (2) the kind of workers reporting to the OM, especially their expectations and their willingness to assume responsibility; (3) the type of work performed; (4) the philosophies and leadership styles prevailing at the top level of the company; and (5) the particular situation or problem being explored.
The effective OM will carefully study the strengths and weaknesses of each of the leadership styles discussed in this section. In addition, the people with whom the OM works as well as the conditions under which the work is performed must be examined in order to choose the most effective leadership style.