Span of Control: A Critical Component of Athletic Management

by Dr. Elizabeth Alden
Originally printed in Athletics Administration, October 2000, Volume 35, Number 5



Have you ever taken a seriously look at the organizational structure of your athletics program? Was it a structure that you inherited and have maintained over the years? Many of us have inherited organizational structures that were extremely functional and easy to manage, while others have inherited structures that were difficult and burdensome to the supervisor.

Are you aware that organizational structure has a direct impact on the quality of your management skills and abilities? Making needed changes may directly benefit both you and your program. This article will attempt to enlighten the reader regarding the issue of personnel management as it pertains to direct supervision of employees. The term "span of control" will be introduced to the reader and is defined as the number of employees who directly report to the manager/supervisor. What span of control is best for your athletics program? How many employees should report directly to you before mismanagement and dysfunction begin to rear their ugly heads? If you find that you have too many coaches and support staff reporting to you how can you make positive changes to alter the "span of control" affecting your intercollegiate athletics program?

Personnel management is one of the most important responsibilities of an athletics administrator. Managing coaches and support staff, particularly in a larger athletics program, be it Divisions I, II, or III, can be a difficult task for any administrator. The variety of issues, personalities, and problems that can manifest themselves during the course of a season or academic year, may become the most important things an athletics administrator tackles. Understanding the nature of human resources and taking courses in human resources management can help, but managing people effectively is primarily based around experiences, both positive and negative, whereby the administrator can learn the nuances of working well with subordinates.

Span of control is an idea that has come late to higher education, and particularly to intercollegiate athletics. Many athletics programs have existed without radical changes in organizational structure and function over the years. The adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" may pertain here, but the athletics administrator is responsible for assessing if the staff are truly supervised properly and well, or if they are left on their own to succeed or fail without supervision. Good supervision requires that the supervisor actively observes and interacts with the subordinate on a regular basis. What is the subordinate responsible for based upon their job description? Whatever those criteria of work are, the supervisor should be involved at some level with those criteria. If the coach is responsible for running effective practices, then the supervisor should be observing those practices on a fairly regular basis.

The task of properly supervising an employee, particularly when the quantity of employees to be observed is large, can be an overwhelming task. Many athletic administrators do the best they can, however their internal expectations become diminished because they simply cannot keep up with the workload associated with personnel management. It is enough to supervise all other facets of the program, attend games and other events/functions, work cooperatively within the institutional setting, and in the end, perform an annual evaluation on the employee that perhaps may not truly reflect a clear understanding of the employees' work. Also, there are some intercollegiate athletics programs where the staff is located in other facilities, therefore, the day-to-day interaction may not occur. That leads to other difficulties when it comes to proper supervision and simply knowing the employees who work for you.

The size and type of intercollegiate athletics program one supervises will also play into this issue. Large Division I athletics programs tends to conform to a more traditional medium span of control--not too wide and not too narrow. Most directors at this level have a series of associate and assistant directors reporting to them, as well as possibly football and basketball coaches. Hugh Yoshida, Director of Athletics at the University of Hawaii believes the associate and assistant director reporting route is effective in his program. "With close to 100 fulltime employees, we depend a lot on our mid-level managers to implement policies and procedures for the department. Effective communication is essential to minimize 'direct reporting' through our weekly administrative staff meetings, monthly coaches meetings, and quarterly departmental meetings. Administrators also have their regular meetings with their respective staffs. As in any organization, 'mid-level' managers want access to the athletics director and through this meeting structure, I believe it helps me reduce my number of 'direct reports.'

At the Division III level you are apt to find primarily a wide span of control in place. The director, in most cases, may have almost every individual associated with the intercollegiate athletics program reporting directly to him or her. As a case in point, Franklin and Marshall College, a Division III institution with a large athletics program has a wide span of control organizational structure. Dr. Bob Bunnell, Director of Athletics at Franklin & Marshall, shares his thoughts on this type of organizational structure:

"While Division III programs tend to be broader in numbers of teams, and deeper in numbers of athletes than Division I programs, there is a tendency to keep the administration of those programs at a minimal number. With many coaches taking on dual tasks as administrators in some form or fashion, the line often becomes blurred between administrators, coaches, and staff. The effect on span of control seems to be a very heavy load of direct supervision for the person on top, and many direct reporting lines. Division III structures tend to be less compartmentalized, with the AD in some cases, such as my own, directly supervising and evaluating the work of over 20 individuals. I find that rather that spending a good deal of 'quality time' with a handful of staff, I spend many little segments of 'catch-up time' with a lot of people. Instead of deeply reviewing, and possibly impacting, the performance of a reasonable number of staff, I am left to sometimes do surface reviews and appraisals of work that I don't always see. With 20 employees to direct, mentor, and evaluate, I probably could spend all my time just working with and developing those people, rather than spending time on the other parts of the job which seem to take up the majority of the time now. Budgets, public relations, compliance, recruitment, alumni, fund-raising and attending contests are far more than enough to fill a schedule, without ever meeting with a staff member to develop goals and strategies, work through problems, or assess performance."

What can be done? Organizational structure analysis can be an effective tool, if utilized properly, for both understanding and changing the personnel situation in your athletics program. Ideally the athletic administrator has some idea regarding the situation he or she finds himself or herself in. Is the program operating well? Is there ever change, growth and improvement in the program and is there an atmosphere that is conducive to this change occurring? As the supervisor do you believe that your employees are properly and positively engaged in their work? Would a change in organizational structure, even though difficult for those who have problems with change, ultimately improve the internal atmosphere of the athletics program?

Let us review the span of control information to see what might work more effectively in your program. Span of control is defined as the number of subordinates who report directly to an executive or supervisor. Within span of control are two types: wide and narrow. A wide span of control would be an organizational structure where the supervisor has many people within the organization reporting to him or her. This creates a "flat" organizational structure with few reporting levels. Conversely, the narrow span of control is where the supervisor has only a few people directly reporting to him or her, which denotes a "tall" organizational structure with many reporting lines. Which type is best for your organization?

In order to answer that question, you must first ask yourself a few questions. The issue of span of control is actually more than actual reporting lines and structural analysis. It is about you finding what is comfortable for you in terms of your management style. Are you an administrator who macro- or micro-manages? Do you believe that your employees basically are hard workers, committed to the goals of the program and college or university, and who need little supervision? If so, you may decide that the wide span of control is working well for you. If not, and the opposite is the case, then the narrow span of control, whereby your immediate assistants or associates are assigned staff to work directly with them, may be the best answer. It essentially is an issue of control--thus span of control.

The general consensus on how many direct reporting lines that a supervisor should have is approximately 6 people. This allows the supervisor to properly work with the direct staff and to also believe he or she is performing well as a supervisor. This is a key point. Many supervisors ultimately, when faced with a wide span of control, believe they are poor managers of their staff. They become frustrated with the fact that this important part of their job is not being done well because it is too overwhelming. When this becomes the case it is time to assess the situation and make changes in the organizational structure.

The assessment of an organizational structure can be an interesting process for an athletics program. Many programs have been entrenched in the same structure for decades and the idea of change can be very frightening for some people. It is important that the message be one of consistency and also be positive in presentation. "We're going to take a look at the department's organizational structure and everything and everyone is going to be just fine as we move through the process and make some needed changes." Repeating that message over and over again will help some of the people.

The process need not be a difficult one. One recommendation is to bring objective voices to the process. Bringing in university personnel who specialize in human resources can be a very positive beginning. Also bringing in outside consultants can lend credibility and objectivity to both the process and the outcome. Both of these recommendations should be taken seriously. The old adage, "I can't see the forest for the trees" fits here. You may be too close to the situation to properly see what might ultimately be the best organizational structure for your program.

Also, it is important that you consider all possible scenarios for the program, including looking at the institutional organizational structure and the creation of new immediate subordinates for you, in the form of senior associate and associate directors. Sharing the power within your program can ultimately be the most empowering thing you do as an administrator. If you are an effective leader, you are already perceived as the senior administrator. Sharing this with those immediately beneath you on a traditional hierarchical chart can do two things: it can enrich your immediate subordinates professional lives by giving them a chance to learn how to effectively supervise people, and it can inject more balance into your work life, and ultimately into your life, by "sharing the wealth" of supervision with others.

A final point relates to the quality of the immediate staff reporting to you. Dr. Bud Block, a principal of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and a senior member of the firm's Global Human Resource Solutions believes that "when one has a capable, experienced staff, the span of control can expand. Situational leadership principles show that you need to manage staff more closely if they lack sufficient ability or motivation to function well independent of close supervision. More mature and talented staff need much less attention."

Span of control is an important human resources concept that athletic administrators should be both aware of and interested in regarding proper supervision of employees.

< Back | ^ Top