<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - SPAN OF CONTROL</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>FlickSHIT <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>4:00 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 2) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>23957.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>I was wondering why MAS and even LIA allows those FA managers to have employed paid managers to increase it size of the SPAN OF CONTROL.
There is a control that each manager can have a max of 15 agents under him and that the span of control is to make sure that the manager concerned can have time and effort to supervise his agenebt under him, at the max of 15.
I have came across Dept Manager employed paid manager to supervise the agents for him, for a monthly allowances and of course, the agent's overriding commonsion goes thru the paid managers and pay direct back to the Dept manager.
In this way, the dept manager can have as many agents under him thru proxy managers, to overcome this SPAN of Control scheme.
The issue here is that the paid managers will not really give his/her full committment to train or supervise the agents as he/she doesn;t not really receive the commission, but a monthly allowance.
IF MAS and LIA is blinded to this "proxy scheme:, I think is it very unfair to other full time manager or agent to get the committment from company.
MAS is aware or pretends to be unaware.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap>
Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle>
Reply</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
There is a control that each manager can have a max of 15 agents under him and that the span of control is to make sure that the manager concerned can have time and effort to supervise his agenebt under him, at the max of 15.
I have came across Dept Manager employed paid manager to supervise the agents for him, for a monthly allowances and of course, the agent's overriding commonsion goes thru the paid managers and pay direct back to the Dept manager.
In this way, the dept manager can have as many agents under him thru proxy managers, to overcome this SPAN of Control scheme.
The issue here is that the paid managers will not really give his/her full committment to train or supervise the agents as he/she doesn;t not really receive the commission, but a monthly allowance.
IF MAS and LIA is blinded to this "proxy scheme:, I think is it very unfair to other full time manager or agent to get the committment from company.
MAS is aware or pretends to be unaware.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap>
