Span Of Control / Span Of Supervision 1o5c6k

Span of control / span of supervision Literally, the word 'span' means distance between the tip of a person's thumb and the little finger when stretched out, while the world 'control' means power or authority to .direct, order or restrain. In Public istration, span of control refers to the number of subordinates whom an officer can effectively control. It also means the number of subordinates an officer can direct. It may be also said, that the spa? of control means, personally direct. In the works of Dimock, "'1'Ple: span of coaltrolis the number of rshgk of direct, habitual corv~nmunicaaiorac ontacts between the chicf executive of an enterprise and his principal fellow-officers". This concept is related to the principle of 'Span of Attention', described by V.A. Graicunas, in psychology. Span of control is dependent upon .span of attention. None'of pas can attend $0 more than a certain number of thiilngs at i,tjrne. c onducted manye : , ~ y e r i ~in~ th,e~ fnie ld of 'Attention' and have conaae to else esnclonsispn that nolmmall8y a person can att.eiad to only ;!'certain number of things at a time and not beyond a particular limit. Since span sf colatacsl in Public ,4&iministsationi s related to span1 of attention in psychology, it foliows rlaae there is a limit to the number of persons which a srlperior officer can conatlrcrl effectiveiy. Tt is harmfall Y"3r the organisiatiotl if the n~urnbeor f subordinates to be sul~eavisedb y a siiperior officer is increased heyonmd that limit. These are limits to klunnan capacity both physical anld mental. So, it is vaniversally believed that no supervisor, however competent he'may beA can supervise the work of urllimited number of persons. There is 11o agreement annsng the wlitkrs of Public istratiorn about the exact limit of tlac span ofcorltrol.~i]iL a? IBaariitrori put Fh6 limit at 3 to 4. Haldane and Grahart~W. allace felt that a supervisor could supervise 10 to 22 subordinates. Urwia:!: drew a difference in regard to span of confrlol between higher and lower levels. According to him. a sa.~picrvisocra rknot aapervise directly more' than5 to6 subordirlates at the higher level, whereas at rYne Iswer levels, where the work is simple and routine in'nature, the span ca$eontrol varies from 8 to 12. According to a survey conducted by Wallace in 1957, the sppa of control of a chief executive differed' from country to country. A chief executive in Japan llad 13 departments under him, in Casada, Gern~anya nd Italy 14, in 117, in Russia I!) or 20, in EGland 25 and in U.S.A. about 60. Though the number was not uniform, nowhere did the adnlinistration breakdown. According to some writers, the span of.dontro~in gove~.nmerrtai'or~~qnisaotfi k America is large becir~sseo f the followink reasons (1) there: is n tendency towards a. large nantnber of departtrrer~tsb ecause the 'empire builder' type of depart~nenht e& wants to be answerable only to the chief executive or governing body, (2) each pressure grolip desires its own pet istrative activity to be set up irs an indegenderat depsrtrnerirI a17d (3) every Euracticsnal chief desires access to the seat uf authority without , going thrmlgh inter-vening Izierarc8rical steps. ?be Hoover Comrr~issic~inna 11649 critieised the hugel span of co~~treoxle rcised by the President of the United States. Thc ~ori~municatiolins ted 65 departme~~otrs a gencies (exclzrcfing the independent regraiatory commissions) falling within the span of control exercised by the President. However, ihere has beer1 general agreenment among all the writers that the sliortcr tile span, the greater will be the and cont;eqnently, morG effective control. On the oiher hand, as Seckler. +Hudsons ays "There are dangers inherent in excessively 1irnitt:d span of control, such as, rhc risk of detailed supervision of the few reporting, the

, resultant failure to stirnulate subordinrater; or to fully use the capacities

,

of them. It is possible also that stmi-t spans of control mean I s ~cgh ains of cominands". Hence, various i writers have, by and large, felt that the span ofcontrol can] be between 3 l 0 IS. Though attempts have been made by the w;itcrs tu search for the 'ideal number' of persons a supervisor can supervise, they !lave not succeeded itm doing so because of many factors which are discussed later.

2--3 .3 IMPORTANCE OF SPAN The problern of span of control

a natural extension of the principle of hierarchy or scalar system. As we know eal-lier, li~icrarehicaol rg~nisaticdriin volurcs a ralsrnberol tiers or steps one atsove the other in an organisation, each step being headed by a single person. How rnarny such levels an organisatibn have depends upon the total number of employees at tile boeeon~t o be napervised iind t l . r~~ uartbeor f subordinates each superior officer can effectively supervise. This shows that there is a close relationship betwen hi't..rarchYa rid span of. co~ltrolH. ence, the levels or tiers in hierarchy i:j

should be established after taking into accorrnt the span of controkof a superior officer. If a superior officer is expected to cslitrol a large number of\~ersons? Illan lne car1 actual!y corstsol, the result is delay and inefficiency. The quality o'f the tvorlr .of an organisation depends r~pone ffective control and supervisiort. Hcnce, there is a __________________________________________________________________________________________ . THE SOCIAL AUDIT What is it? The social audit is a business statement published every year to present a set of information about the social projects, benefits and actions addressed to employees, investors, market analysts, shareholders and the community at large. It also functions as a strategic instrument to evaluate the practice of corporate social responsibility. Through its social audit the company shows what it does on behalf of its professional staff, their families, collaborators and the community at large. Transparency is given to the activities developed to improve quality of life. Its main function is to make public the company's social responsibility, thereby strengthening the links between company, society and environment. When put together by multiple professionals, the social audit shows and measures the company's concern about people and about life in our planet. Background In the United States and Europe during the 60s, public repudiation of the war in Vietnam triggered a movement to boycott the goods and shares of some companies that were associated with the conflict. Society demanded a new ethical attitude and some companies began to provide s for their social actions and objectives. Drawing up and publishing annual reports containing information of a social nature led to what we now know as "the social audit". n Brazil the idea began to be discussed in the 70s, but only in the 80s the first social audits were published. From the 90s onward, corporations of various sectors began to publish their results annually. The issue only gained national attention in June 1997 when sociologist Herbert de Souza - Betinho - launched a campaign for companies to publish their social audit on a volunteer basis. With the and participation of prominent business personalities, the campaign took off and led to a series of debates in the media and in seminars and forums. We can now see the success of this initiative and assert that what is now underway is a process of shaping another mentality and innovative practices amid the business sector. Why publishing it? • Because it's ethical. Being fair, good and responsible is a reason in itself. • Because it adds value. The social audit gives the company a reference that is being more and more appreciated by investors and consumers in Brazil and throughout the world. • Because it reduces the risks. In a globalized world where information takes only some minutes to be spread all over international markets, ethical and transparent conduct has to be an integral part of any organization's strategy. • Because it's an instrument of modern management. The social audit is a valuable tool for the company to istrate, measure and publicize the practice of social responsibility in its undertakings. • Because it's an instrument of evaluation. Market analysts, investors and financing agencies such as BNDES, BID and IFC now include the social audit in the list of documents required to assess a company's risks and projections. • Because it's innovative and transforming. Publishing an annual social audit means changing the old approach - indifferent to the satisfaction and welfare of employees and clients - to a modern view where the company's objectives include the concern of social and environmental responsibility. Who benefits? The social audit benefits all groups involved with the company’s activities. It provides useful information for directors to make decisions regarding the social programs the company sponsors. Preparing the social audit stimulates the employees to take part in choosing social actions and projects, thus improving internal communication and integration between managers and staff. Suppliers and investors learn how the company faces its responsibilities with regard to human resources and the environment, which is a good indicator of how the company is run. The social audit shows consumers

its philosophy and the quality of the product or service that is provided, pointing to the way the company chooses to make itself known. The State also benefits through the identification and formulation of social policies. As Betinho would say: "the social audit has no owners, just beneficiaries." The stamp In 1998, in order to encourage more corporations to participate, Ibase launched the Ibase/Betinho Social Audit Stamp, awarded each year to companies that publish their social audit according to the model suggested by Ibase. The stamp allows companies to show – on their packaging and in reports, sites and publicity campaigns – that they invest in education, health, culture, sports and the environment. The Ibase/Betinho Social Audit Stamp shows the company has already taken the first step towards becoming a citizen-company committed to increasing quality of life of its employees, the community and the environment. Its annual publication presents to the public its internal and external investments. The model Since 1997, Ibase has been calling the attention of the business community to the importance and need for a single and simple model for the social audit. Ibase believes that simplicity guarantees a greater number of companies involved. So, after meeting and debating with different sectors of society and various representatives of public and private companies Ibase developed a model that is simple and objective, which stimulates companies to publish their social audit regardless size and sector. If information is not presented according to a minimum standard, it becomes difficult to make a proper evaluation of a company's social function over the years. The predominance of objective data is fundamental to enrich this type of statement. Although it is no easy task to correlate financial factors with social data, the indicators presented in the model suggested by Ibase help the comparative analyses of the company over time or among other companies of the same sector. Society and the market are the chief auditors of the process and the results achieved. Who does it? The number of companies that publish annual social audit has grown fast. Below are listed some of those that publish their social audit according to the model suggested by Ibase. The complete list of companies and other information can be found at:

business ethics, the study and evaluation of decision making by businesses according to moral concepts and judgments. Ethical questions range from practical, narrowly defined issues, such as a company's obligation to be honest with its customers, to broader social and philosophical questions, such as a company's responsibility to preserve the environment and protect employee rights. Many ethical conflicts develop from conflicts between the differing interests of company owners and their workers, customers, and surrounding community. Managers must balance the ideal against the practical—the need to produce a reasonable profit for the company's shareholders with honesty in business practices, safety in the workplace, and larger environmental and social issues. Ethical issues in business have become more complicated because of the global and diversified nature of many large corporations and because of the complexity of government regulations that define the limits of criminal behavior. For example, multinational corporations operate in countries where bribery, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and lack of concern for the environment are neither illegal nor unethical or unusual. The company must decide whether to adhere to constant ethical principles or to adjust to the local rules to maximize profits. As the costs of corporate and white-collar crime can be high, both for society and individual businesses, many business and trade associations have established ethical codes for companies, managers, and employees. Government efforts to encourage companies to adhere to ethical standards include President Clinton

Corporate social responsibility (CSR), also known as corporate responsibility, corporate citizenship, responsible business, sustainable responsible business (SRB), or corporate social performance,[1] is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. Ideally, CSR policy would function as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business would monitor and ensure its adherence to law, ethical standards, and international norms. Business

would embrace responsibility for the impact of their activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other of the public sphere. Furthermore, business would proactively promote the public interest by encouraging community growth and development, and voluntarily eliminating practices that harm the public sphere, regardless of legality. Essentially, CSR is the deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decisionmaking, and the honoring of a triple bottom line: People, Planet, Profit. The practice of CSR is subject to much debate and criticism. Proponents argue that there is a strong business case for CSR, in that corporations benefit in multiple ways by operating with a perspective broader and longer than their own immediate, short-term profits. Critics argue that CSR distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing more than superficial window-dressing; others yet argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility has been redefined throughout the years. However, it essentially is titled to aid to an organization's mission as well as a guide to what the company stands for and will uphold to its consumers.

Development Business ethics is one of the forms of applied ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that can arise in a business environment. In the increasingly conscience-focused marketplaces of the 21st century, the demand for more ethical business processes and actions (known as ethicism) is increasing. Simultaneously, pressure is applied on industry to improve business ethics through new public initiatives and laws (e.g. higher UK road tax for higher-emission vehicles). Business ethics can be both a normative and a descriptive discipline. As a corporate practice and a career specialization, the field is primarily normative. In academia, descriptive approaches are also taken. The range and quantity of business ethical issues reflects the degree to which business is perceived to be at odds with non-economic social values. Historically, interest in business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within major corporations and within academia. For example, today most major corporate websites lay emphasis on commitment to promoting non-economic social values under a variety of headings (e.g. ethics codes, social responsibility charters). In some cases, corporations have re-branded their core values in the light of business ethical considerations (e.g. BP's "beyond petroleum" environmental tilt). The term CSR came in to common use in the early 1970s, after many multinational corporations formed, although it was seldom abbreviated. The term stakeholder, meaning those on whom an organization's activities have an impact, was used to describe corporate owners beyond shareholders as a result of an influential book by R Freeman in 1984. [2] Whilst there is no recognized standard for CSR, public sector organizations (the United Nations for example) adhere to the Triple Bottom Line (TBL). It is widely accepted that CSR adheres to similar principles but with no formal act of legislation. The UN has developed the Principles for Responsible Investment as guidelines for investing entities.

Social ing, auditing, and reporting Main article: Social ing Taking responsibility for its impact on society means in the first instance that a company s for its actions. Social ing, a concept describing the communication of social and environmental effects of a company's economic actions to particular interest groups within society and to society at large, is thus an important element of CSR.[6] A number of reporting guidelines or standards have been developed to serve as frameworks for social ing, auditing and reporting: • • • • • • • •

•

•

Ability's AA1000 standard, based on John Elkington's triple bottom line (3BL) reporting ing for Sustainability's Connected Reporting Framework. Global Reporting Initiative's Sustainability Reporting Guidelines GoodCorporation's Standard developed in association with the Institute of Business Ethics Green Globe Certification / Standard Social ability International's SA8000 standard The ISO 14000 environmental management standard The United Nations Global Compact promotes companies reporting in the format of a Communication on Progress (COP). A COP report describes the company's implementation of the Compact's ten universal principles. The United Nations Intergovernmental Working Group of Experts on International Standards of ing and Reporting (ISAR) provides voluntary technical guidance on eco-efficiency indicators, corporate responsibility reporting, and corporate governance disclosure. Verite's Monitoring Guidelines

Potential business benefits The scale and nature of the benefits of CSR for an organization can vary depending on the nature of the enterprise, and are difficult to quantify, though there is a large body of literature exhorting business to adopt measures beyond financial ones (e.g., Deming's Fourteen Points, balanced scorecards). Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes[7] found a correlation between social/environmental performance and financial performance. However, businesses may not be looking at short-run financial returns when developing their CSR strategy. The definition of CSR used within an organization can vary from the strict "stakeholder impacts" definition used by many CSR advocates and will often include charitable efforts and volunteering. CSR may be based within the human resources, business development or public relations departments of an organisation,[8] or may be given a separate unit reporting to the CEO or in some cases directly to the board. Some companies may implement CSR-type values without a clearly defined team or programme.

The business case for CSR within a company will likely rest on one or more of these arguments:

Human resources A CSR programme can be an aid to recruitment and retention,[9] particularly within the competitive graduate student market. Potential recruits often ask about a firm's CSR policy during an interview, and having a comprehensive policy can give an advantage. CSR can also help improve the perception of a company among its staff, particularly when staff can become involved through payroll giving, fundraising activities or community volunteering.

Risk management Managing risk is a central part of many corporate strategies. Reputations that take decades to build up can be ruined in hours through incidents such as corruption scandals or environmental accidents. These can also draw unwanted attention from regulators, courts, governments and media. Building a genuine culture of 'doing the right thing' within a corporation can offset these risks.[10]

Brand differentiation In crowded marketplaces, companies strive for a unique selling proposition that can separate them from the competition in the minds of consumers. CSR can play a role in building customer loyalty based on distinctive ethical values.[11] Several major brands, such as The Co-operative Group, The Body Shop and American Apparel[12] are built on ethical values. Business service organizations can benefit too from building a reputation for integrity and best practice.

License to operate Corporations are keen to avoid interference in their business through taxation or regulations. By taking substantive voluntary steps, they can persuade governments and the wider public that they are taking issues such as health and safety, diversity, or the environment seriously as good corporate citizens with respect to labour standards and impacts on the environment.

Criticisms and concerns Critics of CSR as well as proponents debate a number of concerns related to it. These include CSR's relationship to the fundamental purpose and nature of business and questionable motives for engaging in CSR, including concerns about insincerity and hypocrisy.

CSR and the nature of business Milton Friedman and others have argued that a corporation's purpose is to maximize returns to its shareholders, and that since (in their view), only people can have social responsibilities, corporations are only responsible to their shareholders and not to society as a whole. Although they accept that corporations should obey the laws of the countries within which they work, they

assert that corporations have no other obligation to society. Some people perceive CSR as incongruent with the very nature and purpose of business, and indeed a hindrance to free trade. Those who assert that CSR is incongruent with capitalism and are in favor of neoliberalism argue that improvements in health, longevity and/or infant mortality have been created by economic growth attributed to free enterprise.[13] Critics of this argument perceive neoliberalism as opposed to the well-being of society and a hindrance to human freedom. They claim that the type of capitalism practiced in many developing countries is a form of economic and cultural imperialism, noting that these countries usually have fewer labor protections, and thus their citizens are at a higher risk of exploitation by multinational corporations.[14] A wide variety of individuals and organizations operate in between these poles. For example, the REALeadership Alliance asserts that the business of leadership (be it corporate or otherwise) is to change the world for the better.[15] Many religious and cultural traditions hold that the economy exists to serve human beings, so all economic entities have an obligation to society (e.g., cf. Economic Justice for All). Moreover, as discussed above, many CSR proponents point out that CSR can significantly improve long-term corporate profitability because it reduces risks and inefficiencies while offering a host of potential benefits such as enhanced brand reputation and employee engagement.

[edit] CSR and questionable motives Some critics believe that CSR programs are undertaken by companies such as British American Tobacco (BAT),[16] the petroleum giant BP (well-known for its high-profile advertising campaigns on environmental aspects of its operations), and McDonald's (see below) to distract the public from ethical questions posed by their core operations. They argue that some corporations start CSR programs for the commercial benefit they enjoy through raising their reputation with the public or with government. They suggest that corporations which exist solely to maximize profits are unable to advance the interests of society as a whole.[17] Another concern is when companies claim to promote CSR and be committed to Sustainable Development whilst simultaneously engaging in harmful business practices. For example, since the 1970s, the McDonald's Corporation's association with Ronald McDonald House has been viewed as CSR and relationship marketing. More recently, as CSR has become mainstream, the company has beefed up its CSR programs related to its labor, environmental and other practices[18] All the same, in McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, Lord Justices Pill, May and Keane ruled that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do badly in of pay and conditions'[19] and true that 'if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.'[20] Shell has a much-publicised CSR policy and was a pioneer in triple bottom line reporting, but this did not prevent the 2004 scandal concerning its misreporting of oil reserves, which seriously damaged its reputation and led to charges of hypocrisy. Since then, the Shell Foundation has become involved in many projects across the world, including a partnership with Marks and Spencer (UK) in three flower and fruit growing communities across Africa.

Critics concerned with corporate hypocrisy and insincerity generally suggest that better governmental and international regulation and enforcement, rather than voluntary measures, are necessary to ensure that companies behave in a socially responsible manner. Others, such as Patricia Werhane argue that CSR should be looked more upon as a Corporate Moral Responsibility, and limit the reach of CSR by focusing more on direct impacts of the organization as viewed through a systems perspective to identify stakeholders.