As a commander one should continually ask oneself if one is co-
ping with the decision domain and the situation and if the orga-
nisation is adapted to suit the need, demands and expectations
that are set. If a higher commander in a difficult situation adapts
the organisation to suit his or her needs for a manage able span
ofcontrol, there is a risk of subordinate commanders being left
with spansofcontrol that are too big. Adjustment to managea-
ble spansofcontrol must be applied to the whole organisation.
In order for leadership to be effective the command system must
match the situation. So, the greater the number of potential oc-
currences in the situation, the greater the degree of variation the
command system must be able to handle.
The capacity to manage the situation can never be better
than the perception of the situation. By continually gaining
information on events the ground is created for being able to
act and adapt the command capacity to match the problems to
be solved and the measures to be taken. In the types of chang-
ing situations that incidents and accidents imply, the organisa-
tion must continually adapt to suit the situation. It is important
that the adaptation is arranged from the bottom up, i.e. that
the structure is reconfigured from the ground upwards. A com-
mander should not reduce his or her spanofcontrol by passing
tasks downwards in the organisation. This is not the same as
delegating tasks. Delegation passes down through the orga-
nisation, but reduction in spansofcontrol must be done by
restructuring upwards.
Here we can refer to the need for interaction. By this we mean
the need to, for example, exchange information and divide tasks
between two levels. Generally a reduced need for interaction bet-
ween two levels of command improves conditions for increasing
spanofcontrol without harming the effectiveness of the orga-
nisation. The best ways of reducing the need for interaction are
(Swedish Rescue Services Agency, 1998a):
Span-of-control. From
Räddningsverket
(1998a).