Advantages and disadvantages of having narrow span of management.

The
advantages and disadvantages of a narrow span of management are clearly set forth in the
previous responses.  What has not been discussed thus far is the importance of context.  In some
industries and in some settings, the advantages and/or disadvantages are magnified
significantly, and when structuring an organization, those advantages and disadvantages must be
weighed carefully within that industry and context.  For example, if one is setting up a
manufacturing assembly line, are the advantages of closer relationships between supervisor and
employees worth the cost of a small span of control, when there is little justification for a
small span of control in an assembly line?  On the other hand, in a research and development
department, where a supervisor is expected to foster creativity and promote employee growth, the
cost of having a small span of control might pay off in the form of new and lucrative
ideas. 

It should also be noted that while a small span of control does tend
to make for a "tall" organizational structure, it is possible to design a flatter
structure, whereby some of the higher levels have a somewhat greater span of control. In some
industries, the most important span of control is at the bottom, and one can rely on good middle
and upper-management to competently handle greater spans of control.  An example of this would
be customer service organizations, such as call centers.  The availability of the first-line
supervisor tends to have more importance than in other settings, while mid-level managers are
mostly number crunchers.  If there is a problem of any sort with an employee, it is that
first-level supervisor who will be implementing a solution.  This requires a smaller span of
control.