Introduction
1. Choosing an organizational structure
2. Design of organizational structures
3. Types of organizational structures
3.1 Linear-functional and divisional structures
3.2 Project and matrix management
3.3 Bureaucratic systems
Conclusion
List of used literature
INTRODUCTION
Organizations create structures to ensure coordination and control of the activities of their departments and employees. Organizational structures differ from each other in complexity (i.e. the degree to which activities are divided into various functions), formalization (i.e. the degree to which pre-established rules and procedures are used), the ratio of centralization and decentralization (i.e. the levels at which management solutions).
Structural relationships in organizations are the focus of attention of many researchers and managers. In order to effectively achieve goals, it is necessary to understand the structure of work, departments and functional units. The organization of work and people greatly influences the behavior of workers. Structural and behavioral relationships, in turn, help establish organizational goals and influence employee attitudes and behavior. Structural approach used in organizations to ensure the basic elements of activity and the relationships between them. It involves the use of division of labor, span of control, decentralization and departmentalization.
The structure of an organization is the fixed relationships that exist between the departments and employees of the organization. It can be understood as an established pattern of interaction and coordination of technological elements and personnel. The diagram of any organization shows the composition of departments, sectors and other linear and functional units. However, it does not take into account such a factor as human behavior, which affects the order of interaction and its coordination.
1. CHOICE OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The most important problem of an organization is the choice of a rational organizational structure (system) of management. The successful functioning and development of any management system largely depends on the scientific validity of its organizational structure . Managment structure- this is the composition of the divisions of the management apparatus, the forms of their specialization and relationships that determine the relationships of their subordination both vertically and horizontally. The main elements of the organizational structure are the management unit (link), the management level and, finally, the connection between management bodies and employees vested with certain functions. Communication ensures the interaction of elements of the organizational structure, focused on achieving specified goals.
Thus, the organizational structure reflects an ordered set of subordinated and tightly interconnected elements that ensure the functioning and development of the organization as a whole. In other words, organizational management structure can be defined as a form of separation and cooperation management activities, within which management is carried out by performing relevant functions aimed at achieving the intended goals.
When developing a management structure, it is necessary to:
determine the objectives of the organization (in accordance with the mission and goals);
link these tasks with the system of functions, powers and responsibilities along the vertical management hierarchy;
organizationally formulate connections along the management horizontal, which will ensure coordination of the activities of departments that solve common problems to ensure a rational balance between centralization and decentralization;
adapt the content of information flows and channels to the information support models of the relevant departments of the organization;
adapt the content of information flows and channels of their movement to the needs associated with decision-making.
Special attention needs to be paid to solving the problem of the rational relationship between centralization and decentralization in the management hierarchy. The essence of the solution is as follows:
centralization should be carried out in matters of general policy with decentralization in solving operational issues. Strategic decisions are made at the highest level, and the authority to make all other decisions, as well as responsibility for their quality, is delegated to the lower levels of the management hierarchy;
decisions that determine the planned development of the subsystem are made by the body that is responsible for its effective functioning;
2. DESIGN OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
The structure of any organization should be developed with maximum regard for the requirements dictated by the mandatory general principles discussed above, but not only. When developing the structure of an organization (in this case, production), it is recommended to take into account:
industry affiliation, features of this industry and sub-industry;
the complexity of the processed products, since it largely determines the number of required units and their connections:
volume of production (mostly associations (enterprises) large sizes have a more extensive network of divisions);
the nature and characteristics of the production process, the level of its mechanization and automation;
the specifics of the relationship of this enterprise with others involved, in particular, in logistics, provision of loans, design development, etc.;
area and place of concentration of production, state of the external environment;
changes in the organizational forms in which enterprises operate, for example, when an enterprise becomes part of a certain association (concern, holding, etc.), reorientation of functions (planning, cooperation, control, etc.).
In addition to the peculiarities of the territorial location of production, the volume and nature of its external relations, one should not forget that any organizational structure is, ultimately, a form of association of people. Therefore, close attention should be paid to the level of training and qualifications of personnel, their abilities and capabilities. Sometimes, precisely because of the imperfection of personnel, the organizational structure turns out to be inert and conservative in relation to progressive innovations. Usually people (with few exceptions) get used to existing structures and disapprove of changes in the latter, one way or another affecting their personal plans and relationships. Therefore, it is important to interest them in a timely manner and prepare them for a favorable perception of changes in organizational management structures.
Management bodies are called upon to organize, regulate and coordinate the progress of production, as well as the processes of ensuring the social, communal and cultural needs of the team. All mentioned processes are closely interconnected and cannot occur independently of each other.
The need for carefully designed structures is clearly needed - in detailed analysis and definition of goals, in the identification of organizational units and the establishment of forms of their coordination. This can be greatly assisted by using systematic approach, which in this case is to:
determine or clarify the socio-economic role of this organization in the development of society, do not lose sight of any important management task, without which the achievement of the main goals will be incomplete;
identify and link in relation to these tasks the entire system of functions, rights and responsibilities along the management vertical;
explore and institutionalize all connections and relationships along the management horizontal, i.e., coordination of the activities of different units involved in the implementation of common current tasks;
ensure the optimal ratio of centralization and decentralization for given conditions.
The development of organizational management structures can be carried out using various methods. These methods include: analogy, structuring of management goals and objectives, expert-analytical modeling and, finally, based on materials from the analysis of information flows circulating in management systems. However, for the most part, it is not possible to achieve flexibility in the organizational structure using any one method. The simultaneous use of several methods for this purpose makes it possible to create structures that are most adapted to self-adaptation.
The analogy method, widely used in the recent past, is based on extending the experience of enterprises with a rational organizational structure to groups of enterprises in an industry with similar characteristics. Enterprises are grouped mainly based on the composition and volume of products, the type of production and the specifics of the production structure, supply and sales conditions, and the number of employees. In each group, the enterprise that is the best in terms of management organization and final performance results is selected, and it is recognized as a standard in determining the desired parameters of the organizational management structure. This makes it possible to save time and money on creating organizational structures.
In all cases, organizational management structures should be linked to the stages life cycle organizations. On inception stages Mostly managed by the entrepreneur himself, growth stages there is a functional division of labor among managers, into maturity stages the prevailing trend towards decentralization is decline stages measures are being developed to improve the management structure in accordance with the needs and trends in changes in production, on termination stages activities, the management structure of the organization is either completely destroyed (in a situation where the enterprise is liquidated) or reorganized.
The effectiveness of the functioning of already created management structures depends primarily on the timely and complete implementation of management functions. At the same time, doing them does not mean only cyclical repetition of the same work. Function is a dynamic category, it is in constant development. Therefore, the organizational management structures through which its inherent functions are performed must also be dynamic. The designed structure as a whole must correspond to the strategy chosen by the enterprise. With a change in strategy, the enterprise “serving” it faces new challenges, the solution of which will require new structures.
Currently, long-term planning of organizational structure and design of changing relationships between centralization and decentralization in management are common. As part of this activity, short-term and long-term organizational plans are developed, which are detailed and explained through diagrams and job descriptions. In addition, a periodic review of organizational plans is provided in order to bring the management structure in line with changing functions, information on the functioning of the structure is monitored, and an organizational mechanism is developed that facilitates the regular improvement of the management structure.
Based on the design materials, the adequacy of the organizational structure to the goals and objectives of the organization must be ensured, and this presupposes:
establishing the composition, content and scope of functions that must be implemented in the process of managing a given system (ministry, association, enterprise, etc.);
development, based on management functions, of relations of subordination (subordination) ensuring unity of power. Each employee should receive instructions from only one supervisor;
preparation of provisions for each structural unit with a clear indication of its place in the overall structure, indicating the defining means and methods of solving the tasks facing it;
creation of a unified information model (serving as the basis for information saturation of all divisions of the management apparatus), providing for rational schemes of information flows and document flow;
drawing up job descriptions for heads of structural divisions and other employees of the management apparatus, recording the nature of the activities and official position of each of them;
calculating the number and determining the qualifications of management staff, distributing them among structural units, management functions and jobs.
A prerequisite for the effective implementation of this work is the presence of criteria for a rational organizational structure, as well as alternative solutions specific design issues that arise in this case: determining the number of units, distribution of powers, etc.
3. TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES
There are many types of management structures and their modifications, adapted to the specific operating conditions of organizations - complex, multifunctional and extremely flexible. They bear little resemblance to the structures of the early 20th century, when management was born, but they quite clearly show the “ancestral” features of their “ancestors”: they all grew out of the linear-functional structures of that period. In principle, modern organizational structures function successfully as long as they remain true to the fundamental ideas and rules of linear-functional management.
3.1 LINEAR-FUNCTIONAL AND DIVISIONAL STRUCTURES
The organizational structure, which represents a certain ordering of tasks, roles, powers and responsibilities, creates the conditions for the enterprise to carry out its activities and achieve established goals. It develops and changes under the influence of the characteristics of the enterprise's strategy, its internal complexity and changes in the external environment. The range of structures is wide and extends from stable monolithic formations to dynamic multifaceted structures of modern organizations.
The diversity of organizational structures is associated with differences in the field of activity, the nature and complexity of the products produced, the size, degree of differentiation and territorial location of enterprises. Thus, the structure of a small trade organization or repair shop cannot have anything in common with the structure of a large machine-building enterprise that produces a wide range of machines and equipment. In turn, the organizational structure of a transnational corporation and a financial-industrial group is incomparable. Small enterprises do not have any complex problems with the organizational structure. If the functions at such an enterprise are carried out properly (without an excessive number of services and not necessitated hierarchical structures), then their implementation requires such a limited number of workers that the problems of the structure fade into the background before the problems associated with the personal characteristics of managers (their knowledge, experience , work style, organizational abilities, responsible performance of official duty).
However, problems of organizational structure arise not only in large enterprises. The organization of vertical and horizontal communications and project management is also necessary in medium-sized enterprises. This is directly related to all cases where there is an intermediate management team between the top management of the organization and the personnel performing direct work, as well as when it is generally possible to implement a certain division of labor. Under all conditions, the problem arises of choosing one or another type of organizational structure that is adequate to the real requirements of the external and internal environment, the tasks of meeting consumer demand, technological and social development, achieving cost-effective results. Below we consider the main types of organizational structures that have developed to date,
Linear-functional structures.Functional structuring is the most widespread form of organizing activities and occurs in almost all enterprises at one level or another of the organizational structure. This is the process of dividing an organization into individual elements, each of which has a clearly defined, specific task and responsibilities. Creation functional structure(Fig. 1) comes down to grouping personnel according to the broad tasks they perform (production, marketing, finance, etc.). Specific characteristics and the features of the activities of a particular unit correspond to the most important areas of activity of the entire organization. In cases where the functional structure is used partially, one of the functions (for example, financing) is carried out either at a higher level of management, or at the same level as divisions structured by product, customer or territorial basis.
The importance of the sales, production and financial functions of an enterprise is widely recognized, and they are often taken as the basis for the structure of the organization. The coordination of these functions is determined at a level above which only the head of the enterprise is located. This provision is true regardless of the basis on which the activities within the enterprise are grouped and how important the functions of a particular unit are. The chain of command comes from the president (chief executive) and permeates the structure from top to bottom. Management of sales organization, financial issues, data processing and other functions that are specific to a particular enterprise is carried out by vice presidents. Managers report to those in front. And so on down the hierarchical ladder, tasks are subject to further functional division in accordance with processes.
Functional organization is aimed at stimulating the quality of work and the creative potential of workers, as well as economies of scale due to the increase in the scale of production of goods or services. However, maintaining interaction between different functions is a complex task. The implementation of various functions involves different terms, goals and principles, making it difficult to coordinate and schedule activities. In addition, a functional orientation is associated with a preference for standardized tasks, encouragement of narrowly limited perspectives, and reporting on performance.
The functional structure is not suitable for organizations with a wide range of products, operating in an environment with rapidly changing consumer and technological needs, or for organizations operating internationally, simultaneously in several markets in countries with different regulations. The logic of this form is centrally coordinated specialization. It is difficult to trace the contribution of each element of resources to the final result and the overall profitability of the organization. In fact modern trend to disintegration (i.e., purchasing rather than producing components, etc.) reflects the understanding by many firms that the necessary coordination of costs and resources used affects performance. A functional organization may fail due to improper modification because the logic of the organization is centralized control, which does not easily adapt to product diversification.
IN pure form the functional structure is practically not used. It is used in organic combination with linear structure(Fig. 2), built on the basis of a vertical management hierarchy and based on the strict subordination of the lower management level to the higher one. With this structure, the performance of highly specialized functions is intertwined with a system of subordination and responsibility for the direct implementation of tasks for the design, production of products and their delivery to consumers (Fig. 3).
Decentralization of management within linear-functional structure leads to the fact that the division of rights and responsibilities is fragmented between different bodies that manage technical developments, purchase of raw materials, production, sales, etc. This process is most typical for enterprises where a huge number of homogeneous products are consistently produced and economies of scale of production significant. One of the conditions for decentralization of the structure can be a situation when the market is a single whole and is characterized by a high degree of concentration of consumption.
At the same time, the development of diversification of production, the sharp complication of internal and external relations, the dynamism of the introduction of technical innovations, and the fierce struggle for markets for products lead to serious difficulties and in many cases completely exclude the use of functional forms of management. With the growth of the size of corporations, the expansion of the range of products and their sales markets, functional management structures, due to the disunity of rights and responsibilities for individual functions, lose the ability to respond to changes. In the management process, conflicts arise when choosing priorities, decision-making is delayed, communication lines are lengthened, and the implementation of control functions becomes difficult.
The structure of the organization according to the linear-functional principle (with grouping by types of management) is shown in Fig. 9.4. This type includes structures that are formed either on a product or territorial basis. Such structures are more often used by large diversified corporations that produce a wide range of products for various markets. The most typical for them is product management structure, in which departments specialized in types of products with independent economic activities are subordinate to the central headquarters of the organization.
At divisional structure branches can also be specialized in sales markets.
Departure from use strictly functional diagrams management of corporations in favor of a divisional structure of organizing activities by departments is quite clearly visible with the development of diversification of production. However, in practice, a certain restraint is shown regarding decentralization and its acceptable limits are established. This is due to the fact that the negative aspects of excessive freedom of departments and enterprises in choosing areas of production activity and accepting responsibility have become clearly visible. management decisions. In many cases, corporate management loses the ability to control the production and economic activities of departments, and complex information problems arise. Therefore, the top managers of many corporations, without abolishing departments that have gained sufficient independence, make significant amendments to their organizational structure, subordinating them to their authority to a much greater extent.
The divisional form can be considered as a combination of organizational units serving a specific market and managed centrally. Its logic lies in the combination of departmental autonomy with a centrally controlled process of resource allocation and evaluation of results. Although divisional firms can easily expand into related industries, there is a danger of overexpansion. Thus, many similar firms that expanded their activities in new markets were unable to properly evaluate their results and make investment decisions. Divisional firms are also exposed to the danger of modifications that violate the chosen logic of the organization's functioning.
It is known that enterprises switching to a product type of structural structure were initially functionally organized. As organizations expanded, managers of production, sales and other departments, as well as technical specialists, were faced with problems of increasing scale of activity. The manager's functions became increasingly complex, and his range of control limited his ability to increase the number of subordinates. Product-based structural reorganization began to be seen as a way out of this situation. This approach allows delegation to higher management level broad authority to direct production, distribution, support and engineering activities associated with the manufacture of a particular product or range of products ( rice. 4 ).
A product or product range is an important sign of structural division, since in this case conditions are created for the use specialized means production, coordination is facilitated, and the widest possible use of individual abilities and special knowledge of personnel is allowed. Structuring by product becomes objectively justified if it is important for the enterprise to coordinate different kinds activities related to the production of any product. Due to this structuring, greater consistency of actions is achieved and customer service is improved. If the primary basis of sales activities and technical support stands industrial production, then the cooperation of these two functions with production activities becomes of key importance.
When structuring by product, responsibility for generating profits rests primarily with department heads. Where managers have control over production, sales, engineering and support activities, and also control the associated costs, the real possibility of achieving predetermined goals increases dramatically. Divisional managers share responsibility for generating profits with other similarly organized groups, which provides senior management with the opportunity to evaluate each individual's contribution to the overall profit of the enterprise.
Division on a territorial basis is a fairly common method of structuring enterprises dispersed over a vast territory. All types of activities of the enterprise in a given territory are grouped and subordinate to its top manager (Fig. 5). Territorial structuring particularly attractive to large, diversified firms. They resort to this form when similar business transactions are carried out in different geographical regions. Territorial structuring is appropriate in cases where its goal is not only to encourage the participation of local units in the decision-making process, but also to save money achieved by localizing the business operations of the enterprise. Her choice is associated with lower costs. The choice of area for locating enterprises can be made based on the desire to reduce transportation costs. Correct location warehouse space will reduce the time spent on delivery, which is an important factor that can affect the receipt of orders. Regional offices are seen as the best place for aspiring managers to gain experience. Moreover, at that level of the organizational structure it will be most useful for them with minimal risk for the company.
From the point of view of local factors, the use of a territorial organizational structure acquires some additional advantages. This causes the creation of new jobs for the local population, not to mention the economic benefits, namely the reduction of transport costs, rent, and labor costs. The advantages of territorial organization of sales activities lie mainly in cost savings and high operational efficiency. Sales staff can spend more time selling products and reduce travel costs. In addition, being closer to customers gives him the opportunity to study their needs, market preferences and figure out which market strategy will have the greatest chance of success. In large diversified companies, divisional structures of a mixed type appear, combining both product and territorial principles of construction (Fig. 6 ).
One of the noticeable trends in the organizational restructuring of enterprises in a transition economy is a significant increase in the independence of individual parts of management structures and the creation of subsidiaries on this basis. A network of small mobile firms is being formed around large enterprises, capable of quickly adapting to changing demand. Thanks to this, enterprises producing products are brought closer to the consumer sector, and the process of selling products is accelerated. From the production and organizational structure of many large enterprises, divisions with a full production cycle are distinguished. On the one hand, independent economic entities are created, focused on specific consumers, and on the other hand, the integrity of the production and technological complex, the general focus and profile of its activities are preserved.
An equally significant trend is the formation of independent commercial organizations that use the property of the base enterprise on the basis of rental relations. By periodically adjusting lease agreements, a certain coordination of the activities of newly created organizations is ensured. Retention of ownership rights for the base enterprise makes it possible to maintain and develop production system generally. Below is comparative assessment advantages and disadvantages of linear-functional and divisional organizational structures, which allows, taking into account the characteristics of specific conditions, to determine the possibilities of using one or another form organizational building ( table 1 ).
Table 1 Comparative characteristics of organizational management structures
| Linear-functional | Divisional |
| Ensure specialized tasks are completed and controlled through plans and budgets | Decentralized departmental operations with centralized assessment of results and investments |
| Most effective in a stable environment | Most effective in a changing environment |
| Promotes the efficient production of standardized goods and services | Suitable for conditions of interconnected diversification by product or region |
| Provide savings on management costs | Focused on prompt decision making |
| Provides for specialization of functions and competence | Create organizational conditions for an interdisciplinary approach |
| Focused on price competition | Operate successfully under non-price competition |
| Designed to use existing technologies and established markets | Focused on developing new markets and new technologies |
| Production specialization beyond the capabilities of central planning | Intervention from the top level of the organization to strengthen the coordination of departments and improve the efficiency of their activities |
| Quick resolution of problems within the competence of one functional service | Quickly resolve complex cross-functional problems |
| Vertical integration, often exceeding the full capacity of specialized units | Diversification within the corporation or acquisition of external organizational units |
3.2 PROJECT AND MATRIX MANAGEMENT
Project management - This is the management of important activities in an organization that require constant management in conditions of strict restrictions on costs, timing and quality of work. At the same time, it is necessary to provide mechanisms for resolving interpersonal, intergroup and interorganizational conflicts associated with organizing the interaction of vertical and horizontal systems management. If there is a need in an organization to develop and implement a project of a complex nature, covering, on the one hand, the solution of a wide range of special technical, economic, social and other issues, and, on the other hand, the activities of various functional and linear departments, then the most suitable one should be found, effective organizational form for performing this task. Three options for organizing work can be considered.
First option- form a task force, coordinating unit or special committee, since the current organizational structure, admittedly, will not be able to cope with the new complex task. However, experience shows that a single new body cannot solve the problem of making organization-wide decisions in the absence of its interaction with all functional and linear structures. This type of management structure, with distribution of power and lack of individual responsibility, is not suitable for making decisions on complex problems.
Second option- grant authority and responsibility for decisions various parts complex task of the head of one of the functional departments, without removing other responsibilities from him. It's about on the allocation of the so-called head department. However, a problem arises here: to resolve conflicts and ensure coordination of work, constant participation in the management of the project by senior management is required. This approach, which requires constant intervention and at the same time leads to a diffusion of responsibility, can be destructive.
Third option-appoint a project manager, giving him full power to solve problems related to the development and implementation of the project. The main idea is to transfer to one person - the project manager - the authority and responsibility for planning, operational management, and financing of all work on the project. His job is to ensure that a task (project) is completed within a specified time frame with specified technical requirements and costs. This organizational mechanism is increasingly used in the aerospace, electronics, aviation industries, in the production of computer equipment, etc.
Project structures. Under project structure is understood as a temporary organization created to solve a specific complex task (project development and its implementation). Qualified workers of different professions, specialists, researchers are brought together into one team to implement a specific project with a given level of quality and within the framework of the material, financial and labor allocated for this purpose resources. After completing the project and solving all related tasks, the employees involved in the team return to their departments to work permanently or move on to work on another project. All team members and all resources allocated for this purpose are completely subordinate to the project manager.
Project structures differ in the scale of activity, the breadth of coverage of scientific, technical and production problems, the nature of connections with linear and functional units of the organization, and the terms of reference for interaction with the external environment. One of the most common types of such organization is matrix structure(Fig. 7), in which members of the project team report not only to the project manager, but also to the heads of the functional departments in which they constantly work. The organization develops simultaneously in two dimensions. These are, for example, organizations based on a combination of functions performed with a territorial structure or orientation towards a certain type of consumer or type of product. In this form of organization, the authority of the project manager can vary from almost all-encompassing line authority to almost purely staff authority.
In a matrix organization, project managers are responsible for coordinating all activities and utilizing resources related to a given project. For this purpose, all material and financial resources for this project are transferred to their disposal. Project managers are also responsible for project planning and progress in terms of all quantitative, qualitative and time-related indicators. As for the heads of functional departments, they delegate some of their responsibilities to the project manager and decide where and how this or that work should be performed. Functional testing of products is carried out in all divisions of the company.
The matrix structure promotes the collective expenditure of resources, which is essential when production involves the need to use rare or expensive types of resources. At the same time, a certain flexibility is achieved, which, in essence, is absent in functional structures, since in them all employees are permanently assigned to certain functional units. Because in a matrix organization, employees are recruited from various functional departments to work on a specific project, labor resources can be flexibly reallocated depending on the needs of each project. Along with flexibility, the matrix organization opens up great opportunities for effective coordination of work.
The introduction of project management is due to the fact that a linear-functional structure cannot ensure the implementation of many projects. When organizing departments into specialized functions, much effort is expended on establishing and clarifying the relationships between differentiated roles. Since the linear-functional structure continues to exist along with project management, the latter should rather be characterized as a mechanism for overcoming shortcomings and complementing the specified structure, and not as its replacement.
3.3 BUREAUCRATIC SYSTEMS
The discussion in the early 1990s about the essence and fate of the administrative-command system that dominated former USSR over a number of decades and covering all levels of management from national to individual enterprises, stimulated comprehensive research and critical analysis of the bureaucratic organization of management. This is urgently required by the need for effective management of business entities in the post-privatization period, when, on the basis of the elimination of the centralized system, organizations are reformed, restructured and the transition to market forms of economic management is carried out.
Decentralization, distribution of rights and responsibilities, effective and efficient organizational communications, coordination and implementation of decisions, adaptation of structures to the market almost everywhere remain disordered and unresolved problems. Moreover, inattention to them and the lack of progressive and market-appropriate forms of organization lead to a sharp decrease in operational efficiency and a deepening of the economic crisis.
For many decades in large companies and large organizations various types Bureaucratic management systems became widespread. At first, their use was an organizational innovation, as rational work organization was introduced, management and decision-making became a profession. It created order, was based on use; a set of rules that allowed various specialists at all levels of the organization to coordinate their work. The bureaucratic system used the entire intellectual potential of the organization.
Max Weber, who initiated the systematic study of bureaucracy, found that it is both the most effective system and a threat to the basic elements of freedom. Drawing attention to the orderliness and potential efficiency of bureaucratic systems, Weber noted that the bureaucratic “form of organization from the point of view of accuracy, constancy, rigor and reliability of its work is superior to all other forms of administrative organization.
During the 20th century, large bureaucratic organizations created systems capable of efficiently managing the flow of investment, the division of labor, and large-scale industrial production. The use of their organizational potential is associated with the development of industry, communications and communications, interactions of all types, and consumer orientation. Organizations have been created sufficient to provide leadership in a variety of areas.
However, over time, the role and effectiveness of the bureaucratic organization declined. In the context of modern revolutionary changes in technology and production technology, expansion of the volume, diversity and instability of the consumer market, growing uncertainty with increasing scale of investment, the possibilities of using bureaucratic systems are significantly reduced, and new difficulties arise in ensuring effective management.
It is no coincidence that in many cases the negative consequences of the activities of large organizations were associated with bureaucracy (excessive “bureaucracy”, useless activities, procedural delays, red tape, ineffective organizational relations, swelling of staff, etc.). Particularly a lot of criticism was caused by the absurd centralization in decision-making on minor issues, the suppression of initiative and freedom of creativity of workers, multi-stage and thoughtless subordination, unjustified command of incompetent managers, and their appropriation of the absolute “right to be right.”
The famous English management scientist Cyril N. Parkinson, the author of the famous “Parkinson's Laws,” wrote sarcastically about such bureaucracy. “Since any work, and especially paper work,” he noted, “is stretchable in time, it becomes obvious that the number of people involved in its implementation in no way (or almost in no way) depends on its volume.” Or this postulate about the two main forces of bureaucracy: 1) the official is interested in multiplying subordinates, but not rivals; 2) officials provide work for each other. And here is the recommended formula for determining the staff of any administrative institution:
where X is the number of new employees recruited each year;
K is the number of officials who recruit subordinates for the sake of promotion;
l is the interval between entry into service and retirement;
m is the number of man-hours spent on settling matters in the institution;
n is the number of capable units.
There is agreement among scholars on the six characteristics of bureaucracy originally described by Weber: 1) hierarchical chain of command; 2) specialization of job responsibilities; 3) a unified policy in the field of rights and obligations; 4) standardized operations at each work site; 5) career based professional competence; 6) impersonal relationships. To these characteristics we can add that coordination of activities is carried out at the highest levels of the organization. Let's take a closer look at each of these characteristics.
Hierarchical chain of command. A bureaucratic organization has a pyramid structure with a senior leader at the top who distributes the entire body of work of the organization and delegates responsibility for each part common task to their deputies. The latter, in turn, delegate responsibility to lower levels of management along a chain of command that reaches every employee. In a number of large companies in the past, there were ten or more levels of management between the manager highest rank and workers.
The introduction of a chain of command was a powerful factor in bringing order to large departments in enterprises. The chain of command resolved potential conflicts by clearly assigning responsibilities, authority, and responsibility for the eventual resolution. Each manager and his deputies in the chain of command were given full authority to solve problems or perform a separate function, as well as responsibility for its execution. This greatly simplified the manager’s task and gave confidence in the team’s performance.
Specialization of job responsibilities. Bureaucracy became efficient through specialization of labor. In fact, the organizational structure of a bureaucracy is created by dividing all tasks into a series of clearly defined job responsibilities or functions. Each function is assigned responsibility for performing a specific task and is provided with the necessary management tools. The manager issues and distributes tasks in such a way that all their components are parts of the overall task of the organization: specialized engineering personnel studies the reasons for the decline in efficiency at all stages of the production process, designs equipment and models processes that would ensure an increase in labor productivity; the responsibilities of those involved in the sale of products, finalists, labor specialists, etc. are determined. Specialization leads to more effective ways of accomplishing each part of the overall task of the organization.
Before the introduction of specialization into bureaucratic organizations, each artisan learned everything that concerned his activity and performed the entire volume of work from beginning to end. Craft production can often be fruitful and have artistic merit, but during the Industrial Revolution it became a brake on mechanization and the development of large-scale economies. As organizations moved from craftsmanship to division of labor, the rigid hierarchy of the bureaucracy provided everything needed to overcome craft traditions, each innovation becoming part of the existing norms and processes of the organization.
Unified norms and rules. Bureaucracy is governed by uniform fixed norms and rules that are established by the management of the organization, regardless of whether it is commercial or non-profit. These standards provide for the rights and obligations of employees and managers. The most basic standards relate to the issue of defining rights, powers and responsibilities. In a bureaucratic organization, the leader is responsible for the activities of all subordinates and has the right to give them orders, which they must obey unquestioningly. The employee's primary responsibility is not to do what is right or necessary, but to strictly follow the instructions of the immediate supervisor. The established standards of the bureaucracy guarantee that workers are paid as long as they are employed at work, and often receive a pension for long service. Fixed rights and responsibilities establish a certain framework for management processes and, to a certain extent, limit the possible willfulness of the manager.
Standardization of procedures defining each type of work. Unified norms and processes are the basis for the standardization of actions, their sequence and stages. They are previously studied by the performers, are mandatory and predetermine strict order and accountability in the organization.
Professional career. A bureaucratic organization creates conditions for the professional growth of workers and their promotion to higher levels of the command chain. Promotion gives both power, authority, and higher status in the organization. Promotion is achieved by improving skills in a certain area of activity and the ability to perform the required amount of work. A professional career is based on a kind of contract between the employee and the organization; an employee dedicates his or her activities to the organization in exchange for guaranteed employment, often for life, stable or increased pay, a pension, and the opportunity for promotion through the ranks.
Before bureaucracy, favoritism and nepotism destroyed the effectiveness of the organization. The bureaucracy has a policy of promoting employees based on their qualifications. This allows the organization to recruit, train and retain highly qualified people. The employee’s desire for promotion and the security of a professional career were important element success of the bureaucratic system, provided there is a strong motivation for long-term loyalty to the organization. However, the capabilities of the majority of workers cannot be realized in a bureaucratic system, since the main indicator of success is advancement up the hierarchical ladder; As you move up, the power pyramid narrows, and only some employees can occupy higher positions.
Impersonal relationships. In a bureaucratic system, there is a relationship not between person and person, but between roles and roles. Organizational structure and job descriptions prescribe what is expected of each individual. An employee performing any specific duties must carry them out only rationally. This, in essence, gave rise to a certain automatism and impersonal relationships that are opposed to personal sympathy, favoritism, and the manifestation of feelings and emotions.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we note that the success of modern organizational structures increasingly depends on external, extremely rapidly changing conditions of their functioning. These conditions include intense competition, which is becoming global in nature, rapid technological development, stricter requirements for the intelligence and potential of management personnel, and an increase in their autonomy and responsibility.
Currently, the country is under transitional management, which emerged following the change in ownership patterns. In this regard, the fundamental paradigms of traditional management, inherent in the conditions of a market economy, have changed, the most important distinctive feature which is a permanent and uncompromising competitive struggle.
Transition management is associated with strategic management, strategic planning, flexible organizational structures (capable of adapting to rapidly changing market conditions), marketing services, etc.
In general, the management of the transition period does not fully correspond to the changes, the large-scale change in forms of ownership. Previous forms of planning are no longer possible, and new ones have not yet been established. Organizational structures are mostly transformed without proper consideration of requirements competitive market. The broken cooperation ties must be restored. More management personnel with a creative way of thinking are required; managers are needed who are able to prevent and eliminate conflicts between managers and owners, to combine successful business with skillful solution of social problems of the organization.
Let us note here that economic reforms have not yet been completed in the country, acceptable competition mechanisms and a favorable investment climate have not been formed.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
1. Ukolov V.F. Control theory: Textbook. M.: economics, 2003. – 576 p.
2. Mylnik V.V. Control theory: Textbook. Publishing house M.: Academic prospect, 2005. t-372 p.
3. Milner B.Z. Organization Theory: Textbook. – 2nd ed. – M.:INFRA-M, 1999. – 480 p.
4. Organization theory: Textbook for universities. – M.: UNITY-DANA, 2002. – 495 p.
5. Control theory: Textbook/general. ed. A.I. Turchinova. – M.: Publishing house RAGS, 2002. -488 p.
6. Efremov O.Yu. Organization theory. Series "University Textbook". St. Petersburg, 2000. – 399 p.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
The most important problem is staffing the project development team and establishing organizational forms of work for its members (designers). It is necessary to select an organizational management structure (OMS) and develop a system of labor motivation. These two areas are closely related.
The most preferable type of operating system for project work is a matrix structure, which best corresponds to the program-targeted nature of project activities. The matrix OSU is based on a functional structure, the relationships in which are built on vertical links- "manager - subordinate." To solve specific project problems, temporary creative teams (TCTs) or temporary project groups (TPGs) are created in this structure, headed by project managers. These groups are staffed by specialists from the relevant functional departments. The interaction of project managers (PMs) with functional departments is carried out horizontally, and it also overlaps with traditional vertical communications.
The contractor in a matrix structure reports to two managers: his immediate manager of the structural unit and the project manager. In this case, the RP does not need to control the developers. He concentrates his efforts on the coordination and methodological part of the project, i.e. what should be done and when. The functional head of the department, on the contrary, does not need to coordinate individual parts of the project.
His main task is to determine who and how will carry out the part of the project assigned to his department.Due to these features, the matrix OSU provides high quality work, short development time, low costs and high efficiency of work.
Temporary scientific(creative) teams can also be created outside the formal structure of the organization. In this case, they represent a group of scientists and (or) specialists who voluntarily united for joint scientific and innovative activities for the period necessary to solve the problem and obtain the desired result, without forming a legal entity.
The initiators of the VNC can be legal entities financing research, development or utilization of their results, as well as employees who received financial resources. The composition of the VNK is formed at the organizational meeting, and its numerical and personal composition is determined depending on the nature, volume and timing of the project.
Such temporary teams are created on the basis of a contract agreement, which is concluded between the head of the enterprise (organization) at which the VNK is created, and the head of the temporary research team.
The contract and the documents attached to it (technical specifications, calendar plan, cost calculations) stipulate:
Requirements for the project, its parts and final results, as well as the form of their presentation;
Conditions for performing the work (terms for completing the work and its individual stages, the procedure for the customer to provide the information, equipment, materials, production and other areas necessary to complete the work);
Obligations of the parties and the extent of responsibility for compliance with the obligations assumed by each party, as well as the conditions for termination of the contract at the initiative of one of the parties;
Ownership rights to the results of work, conditions of confidentiality and protection of the rights of authors to objects of industrial property created by them, the procedure for transfer to third parties, etc.;
The amount of remuneration for work performed and the procedure for its payment.
It should be borne in mind that work under a contract is carried out by members of the VNK in their free time from their main work and is not a part-time job. This is their fundamental difference from creative teams created in functional departments when working on a project within a matrix structure. The experience of VNK is very useful when organizing work on projects within the formal structure of the organization, since VNK allows you to make full use of the creative potential of employees and maneuver resources in the process of creating an innovation project.
Thus, in a matrix OSU, the project manager is the main character. He is responsible for the result of the work, including production costs, development time and quality of the project (product).
The functions of the project manager include the following:
consulting assistance to the customer in the development and implementation of the project;
Selection of designers and contractors;
Drawing up work plans for the project;
Execution of acts confirming the completion of work (stages, substages, commissioning of objects for testing and industrial operation);
Drawing up materials for concluding contracts with customers and contractors (counterparties) for carrying out work on the project;
Coordinating the work of all project participants;
Constant monitoring of compliance with project deadlines; scientific and technical level and quality of developments; spending funds on the topic;
Acceptance of work performed by contractors and contractors to create the project;
Preparation of reporting documentation for work performed.
The project manager is obliged to:
Encourage departments involved in the project to complete their project tasks;
Ensure that the work of departments is carried out taking into account the schedule, cost estimates and specifications;
Timely identify difficulties, errors, lack of resources, low quality of work;
Make timely adjustments to the project if necessary;
Inform all interested parties about the progress of the project.
One of the problems of matrix organizational structures is the overload of functional units. If there is an imbalance between the amount of work required for various projects and the capabilities in the respective functional units, conflicts arise between the project manager and department heads. In some cases, this problem can be solved with better planning of work and resources. However, this is usually possible when carrying out small and medium-sized projects. When creating large projects, these measures often turn out to be ineffective, since in these cases the complexity of communication networks increases sharply, which, in turn, leads to a slowdown in the decision-making and approval processes.
When creating large projects, the most effective form is the so-called project management. In this organizational form of management, the requirements of a systemic and program-targeted approach to management are implemented to a greater extent, according to which all project activities are considered not from the standpoint of the existing hierarchy of subordination, but taking into account the achievement of the final goal of the project.
The fundamental difference between project management and matrix management is that it creates complex bodies endowed with all the necessary powers. In the project structure, a special working group is created to solve a specific problem, which is dissolved after completion of work on the project. At the same time, the relevant personnel and resources previously involved in the work are returned to their units.
To solve problems of long-term development, a special division is created within the design organization or enterprise, which deals exclusively with strategic issues.A feature of project management is the subordination of each group member to only one leader, that is, unity of command. In this type of management, as a rule, controllability standards are observed, expressed in the number of subordinates per manager. It is difficult to maintain this principle in a matrix structure. Equally important is the rational distribution of powers and responsibilities between the levels of the management hierarchy, which helps to establish order, prevent duplication and parallelism in work, and open discussion of new ideas and proposals.
The main link in project management becomes the project group (workshop, bureau, laboratory, etc.). Its number depends on the complexity of the project. In small projects, the project team can consist of only 6-8 people, which allows its leader to interact directly with each performer. To carry out large projects, numerous groups are created with a two- and three-level management structure, in which the heads of the group’s structural divisions can specialize according to the following characteristics:
Functional basis, for example, by design functions;
Subject matter (individual sections of the project, products or special types works);
Territorial basis (parts of the project located in different regions of the country during the construction of facilities).
The composition of performers in project groups may change. Some of them, upon completion of work, may return to their functional units and be replaced by new employees. Experience shows that the optimal period for the functioning of project teams is a period of 1.5-2 years, after which a decline in efficiency is observed.
Project management has the following advantages:
responsibility for the final results of work increases;
Ensures prompt implementation of several complex projects;
The priority of the general, global goals of the organization over private, local goals of a functional nature is ensured;
The solution of operational tasks is decentralized, which allows for a flexible and prompt response to changes in external and internal conditions;
Project development timeframes are reduced;
The efficiency of resolving current issues increases;
The degree of balance between the work program and the resource provision of the project increases;
The objectivity of assessing the activities of project participants, etc., increases.
Schematic diagram The structure of project management is shown in Fig. 10.3.
Selecting a specific type of organizational management structure for design organizations- it’s not an easy matter. Special studies show that the use of project and matrix structures is effective under the following conditions:
The project being developed must be unique in nature;
There is a frequent change in design tools and methods;
The group's work on the project should be temporary;
The presence of a synergistic effect (the solution to the problem depends on the common efforts and abilities of the project team members).
An organization specializing in the development of numerous but small projects with a standard structure may choose a functional structure in which specific functional units are allocated to perform individual functions. On the other hand, a company engaged in large, complex projects with long development periods will give preference to a project structure. For firms operating in multiple, complex technologies, such as the chemical industry, a matrix organizational management structure is preferable.
The skillful execution of strategy largely depends on competent personnel, on their skill and competitive capabilities, as well as on effective operating systems. Creating a viable OSU is always the highest priority when implementing a strategy. There are three types of priority actions:
selection talented people to key positions;
checking the compliance of experience, main advantages, managerial talent, technical know-how, competitive capabilities with existing needs;
organizing the business and decision-making process in a manner that facilitates the successful implementation of strategy.
Key positions should be filled by talented, knowledgeable people.
When it is difficult or impossible to surpass competitors in strategy, then the path to leadership lies through excellence in its implementation, i.e. in creating the main advantages and organizational capabilities that a competitor will not be able to counter: greater experience in the development of the organization; best production know-how; better customer service; ability to quickly respond to changes in customer requirements; high achievements in cost minimization; ability to switch to new products faster than competitors; the most advanced inventory management systems; experience in marketing activities and mastery of the art of sales; possession unique technologies; more effective cooperation within the enterprise.
Training and retraining of personnel is especially important when an enterprise moves to a strategy that requires other skills and management approaches.
Each strategy is based on specific key success factors and activities and meets the challenges the company is currently addressing. Therefore, the OSU should be brought into line with the new strategy:
Analysis of the organizational structure from the perspective of the strategy execution process is aimed at answering two questions. First, to what extent can the existing organizational structure facilitate or hinder the implementation of the chosen strategy? Second, at what levels in the organizational structure should certain tasks be resolved in the process of implementing the strategy?
The choice of one or another organizational structure depends on a number of factors. The most significant are the following:
1) The size of the organization and the degree of diversity of its activities. The organizational structure should be appropriate to the size of the organization and not be more complex than necessary. Typically, the influence of the size of an organization on its organizational structure manifests itself in the form of an increase in the number of levels of the organization's management hierarchy.
2) Geographical location of the organization. The geographic location of an organization, if the regions are sufficiently isolated, leads to the delegation of certain rights in decision-making to regional units and, accordingly, to the appearance of regional units in the organizational structure. If the rights are not very large, then the number of cells in the functional structure increases. If a territorial unit is given the status of relative independence, then a transition to a divisional structure occurs.
3) Technology. The influence of technology on organizational structure is manifested in the following. Firstly, the organizational structure is tied to the technology that is used in the organization. The number of structural units and their relative position strongly depend on what technology is used in the organization. Secondly, the organizational structure must be designed in such a way that it allows for technological upgrading. In particular, the organizational structure should facilitate the emergence and dissemination of ideas for technological development and the implementation of technological renewal processes.
4) Attitude of managers and employees towards the organization. The organizational structure largely depends on how managers feel about its choice, what type of structure they prefer, and how willing they are to introduce non-traditional forms of organizational structure. Managers are often inclined to choose a traditional, functional form of organizational structure, since it is clearer and more familiar to them.
5) Dynamism of the external environment. If the external environment is stable and there are minor changes in it, then the organization can successfully use mechanistic organizational structures that have little flexibility and require great effort to change them. In the same case, if the external environment is very dynamic, the structure must be organic, flexible and able to quickly respond to external changes. In particular, such a structure should imply a high level of decentralization and the presence of structural divisions with greater rights in decision-making.
6) Strategy implemented by the organization. It is not necessary to change the structure every time the organization moves to implement a new strategy. However, it is absolutely necessary to establish how the existing organizational structure corresponds to the strategy, and only then, if necessary, make appropriate changes.
Organizational structures that facilitate the implementation of the principles of strategic management in practice have developed evolutionarily, as the concept itself has developed strategic management. To strengthen the functions of strategic management, innovation groups and matrix structures are used.
5.1 Conditions for choosing the type of organizational management structure
5.2 Main indicators taken into account when choosing an organizational management structure
An important issue in the development and functioning of an organization, taking into account the impact of internal and external factors on it, is the choice of the optimal organizational management structure.
Decisions regarding the choice of organizational structure depend on the operating conditions of the organization and can be revised as they change. The following factors are taken into account:
– goals, strategy and objectives of the organization;
– technological aspects of the organization’s activities;
– size of the organization, including the size of divisions and divisions;
– geographical distribution of the organization;
– the possibility of obtaining economies of scale;
– degree of product diversification;
– speed of product renewal;
– the ability of senior management to create and implement a new management structure;
– the need for a flexible response to changes in the environment;
– interdependence of the work of specialists from different functional areas;
– the experience and mood of employees, their commitment to the organization;
– external conditions, such as legislation or requirements of central or local government.
According to the consulting firm ROEL Consulting, the main typical disadvantages of existing organizational structures, inherent in more than 70% of domestic enterprises, are the following:
– excessive isolation of structural divisions on top managers (at least the general director) and, as a consequence, their overload (inability to fulfill their functional responsibilities);
– presence of many substituents general director and directors with blurred and overlapping responsibilities;
– lack of information support for the enterprise’s activities (the automation department of the enterprise management system does not work for the needs of a specific user; the maximum that is served is accounting), in particular commercial and financial activities;
– different aspects of a unified HR service are either absent altogether or are distributed across functional departments with different levels of subordination (HR department, HR department and labor organization department and wages);
– there are no or only formally vital financial and economic units present, and a real man bears full responsibility for the results of the financial activities of the enterprise (financial director);
– there is no change management service, which determines at a specific point in time the organization’s orientation to the requirements of the external environment.
All of the above factors lead to the following unsatisfactory situation - most of the tasks, including development tasks, are not solved due to the fact that either responsible person not at all, or there are too many such persons.
At some enterprises (even those with more than 500 employees), the structure is not formalized or formalized at all. It may exist in the head of the manager, but for most employees (and not only lower management) the procedures and decision-making processes remain unclear.
In a broad sense, the manager's task is to choose a structure that best meets the goals and objectives of the organization, as well as the internal and external factors affecting it. The “best” structure is one that allows you to effectively interact with the external environment, efficiently and effectively distribute and direct the efforts of employees and satisfy customer needs and achieve organizational goals.
An organizational structure is a holistic system specifically designed so that people working within it can most effectively achieve their goals. The organizational structure determines the relationship between the functions performed by the employees of the organization. It manifests itself in such forms as the creation of specialized units, division of labor, hierarchy of positions, intra-organizational procedures and is necessary element effective organization, because it gives it internal stability and allows it to achieve of a certain order in the use of resources.
The organizational structure of management is one of the key concepts of management, closely related to the goals, functions, management process, the work of managers and the distribution of powers between them. Within the framework of this structure, the entire management process, in which managers of all levels, categories and professional specialization participate. The structure can be compared to the frame of a management system building, built to ensure that all processes occurring in it are carried out in a timely and high-quality manner.
Deciding on the type of management structure, its construction or modification is a process of adapting the structure to external conditions (requirements of the consumer and market, society, government agencies, etc.) and internal factors of the development of the organization (its resources, technology, organization of production and labor , management decision-making processes, etc.). Therefore, the choice of management structure is carried out taking into account many factors that have a decisive influence on approaches to its design or restructuring. A number of theoretical works note the need to link the management structure with the so-called situational factors, which include: the development strategy of the organization, its size, the technologies used, and environmental characteristics.
The strategy predetermines the choice of the type and type of management structure that must correspond to the changes it introduces. If an organization has adopted a plan for an innovative development path, it will need to introduce a flexible management structure. If the strategy is aimed at maximizing cost reduction, a hierarchical structure is more suitable for it. Research shows that strategy determines the nature of the structure, primarily for the organization as a whole. At the level of divisions and services, the influence of strategy on the structure is felt on a smaller scale.
The size of the organization has a major influence on the choice of management structure. As a rule, the more people employed in an enterprise, the more likely it is to use a hierarchical structure, in which coordination and control of their activities are ensured with the help of appropriate mechanisms.
Technology is an important factor influencing management structure. Given the routine nature of technology, hierarchical structures are most often used; technologies associated with uncertainty require the organic construction of management structures. Technology has the greatest impact on the structure of those divisions of the organization that are directly related to the production of products and services.
Environment has a different impact on the choice of management structure of different organizations, which is determined by the nature and closeness of the connection between them. The more dynamic the environment, the more adaptability it requires from the organization. Most often, this connection is expressed in the use of various combinations of hierarchical and organic types of management structures.
Situational factors determine the type of management structure that should be targeted in the specific conditions of the organization. It was already noted above that the parameters of an organization’s management structure depend on: the forms of division of management work, the level of centralization and decentralization, and coordination mechanisms.
Division of management work. When deciding what departments and services should be in the management structure, organizations most often take into account the division of work adopted in the organization’s structure:
– through functional subsystems (for example, marketing, production, finance, etc.);
– by type of product (for example, leather shoes, clothing, leather goods);
– geographically (for example, regions, republics, regions, territories, countries);
– by market or consumer (for example, the industrial sector market and the consumer market).
Functional division of work provides a qualified approach to problems and increases the efficiency of solving them. However, this reduces efficiency and creates difficulties with cross-functional coordination. Other approaches provide shorter decision times and greater focus on customer needs. At the same time, in some cases they increase the cost of the control system and lead to a slight decrease in the quality of the process and the solution of functional problems.
The choice of one or another form of division of work depends on the size and stage of the life cycle of the organization, as well as on the nature and variety of its activities. An increase in the range of products and activities necessitates a revision of the division of work among management personnel. So, if an organization produces one type of product or service, it can effectively use the functional division of management work and a centralized approach to decision making. Increasing diversity of activities may require moving away from this structure and considering product, geographic or market approaches to division of work, while increasing the level of decentralization of decision making and changing coordination mechanisms.
The relationship between centralization and decentralization determines the distribution of decision-making rights along the management vertical. A high level of centralization implies the concentration of rights in a manager who is fully responsible for the organization. Centralized decision making in complex organizations does not provide the opportunity to quickly adapt to changes in the external environment and to the changing needs of clients. A high level of decentralization ensures a faster response to events and the adoption of appropriate measures. More managers are involved in the implementation of these measures, which develops their professional skills and at the same time increases their confidence in solving problems. At the same time, too much decentralization can lead to uncontrollability of the entire system and loss of its integrity.
Methods of combining the efforts of individual structural components into an integral system represent coordination mechanisms that ensure cooperation. Currently, coordination is most often achieved by describing tasks and work, drawing up plans, forming groups or teams, appointing coordinators, and creating project teams. As the need for cooperation increases, the coordination mechanisms built into the management structure change. This means more frequent use of dedicated teams or project teams to solve specific problems. The types of management structures most commonly used by organizations are discussed below. Getting to know them structural diagrams, advantages and disadvantages allows us to trace the dynamics of the transition from one type to another and determine the most favorable conditions for their use in organizations. In this case, one should proceed from the fact that graphic diagrams of management structures reflect the relationships and connections between the elements of the structure, also characterizing the vertical distribution of powers. In reality, the management structure is much richer in content, since it represents a set of ways, using which the organization carries out the division of labor and then coordinates the implementation of tasks and goals.
The most common type of hierarchical type structure is linear-functional. Its construction is based on: a linear management vertical and the specialization of managerial work according to the functional subsystems of the organization (marketing, production, research and development, finance, personnel, etc.). The head of the organization is directly subordinate to his deputies for functions, whose qualifications and professionalism are valued higher than their knowledge of types of products, markets or consumer groups. Therefore, the results of their work are assessed by indicators characterizing the implementation of the functional goals and objectives assigned to them.
For example, the work of production management services is assessed by indicators of compliance with the production schedule, resource costs, labor productivity, equipment use, production volume, etc. The work of the innovation (research and development) service requires a different assessment system. Among them are indicators of product renewal, introduction of innovations, research costs, use of standards, etc. There may be contradictions between the indicators of these and other services (what is good for one service, bad for another), which are centrally resolved by the head of the organization. At the same time, the system of material incentives for employees of functional services is focused primarily on their own indicators, which ensures their interest in results and economical work.
The line manager (the head of the organization) is generally responsible for the final result, whose task is to ensure that all functional services contribute to its achievement. Therefore, it spends a lot of effort on coordinating and making decisions on products and markets. The high costs of this structure can be offset by improved economic results.
Many years of experience in using linear-functional management structures have shown that they are most effective where the management apparatus performs routine, frequently repeated and rarely changing tasks and functions. Their advantages are manifested in the management of small enterprises, as well as organizations with mass or large-scale production. If a company operates not only in the domestic but also in the international market, this structure can be useful only if the requirements for the product and the technology for its manufacture are uniform in all types of markets. If demand in different markets is different, the structure is ineffective.
A significant obstacle to the effective use of this management structure is that it does not allow a quick response to changes in the field of science and technology, which most often lead to an “imbalance” of relations between functional subsystems. The situation is aggravated by the loss of flexibility in the relationships between employees of the management apparatus due to the high level of formalization organically inherent in this structure. The result is slowness and difficulty in transmitting information, which leads to slower decision-making.
As production becomes more complex, the line-functional structure changes to reduce the level of centralization. For this purpose, the most important divisions are identified in its composition, which are directly managed by top management with the help of its management apparatus. In turn, department heads have their own management apparatus, the tasks of which are related to this level of management. Such a decentralized linear-functional management structure is known in the domestic literature as a linear-staff structure.
The production management function is performed by two divisions, separated by type technological process. The heads of these departments are responsible for their work within the limits of responsibility and authority that are granted to them by senior management. Top management retains the functions of strategic planning and control, maintaining the overall efficiency of the organization and the capacity of divisions at the required level. Most often, the central management apparatus includes services such as: financial, corporate strategy, legal, research and development, and personnel management.
In turn, the heads of departments have at their disposal headquarters, that is, management apparatus created at their level and consisting of functional specialists. Between links different levels a system of functional connections is formed, ensuring the unity and specificity of the implementation of specialized work. As the number of levels at which functional services are formed increases, the number of such functional connections grows and at the same time the role and importance of performing individual functions increases. The task of maintaining interaction between functional units is becoming increasingly difficult. These are signals for a review of the management structure.
It was said above that the need to change the type of management structure is most often associated with the growth of the organization, the diversification of its activities and the complication of interactions with the external environment. Competition forces managers to increasingly focus their attention and efforts on the bottom line, that is, on products, services and customers. Approaches to building management structures are changing accordingly. One of them was discussed above (decentralized line-staff structure). In Western literature, the approach to the restructuring and formation of structures, the basis of which is the separation of production departments (divisions) as independent objects of management within the organization, is called divisional (from the English division - department).
The first developments of a divisional management structure date back to the 1920s. They were based on the principles and management technology created by the head of the large General Motors concern A. Sloan, as opposed to what his main competitor, the Ford company, used in his practice. Ford's strategy is to produce one or two car models and take advantage of the economic advantages of mass production.
Sloan's strategy is to produce cars "for every pocket and purpose - from the aristocratic Cadillac to the proletarian Chevrolet" and to take advantage of large associations of enterprises that produce heterogeneous products and use different technology. The General Motors Corporation was divided into departments that received operational and economic independence while maintaining such important functions as planning, financing, supply, etc. at the center. This ensured a combination of central control with the necessary conditions for the development of initiative from below.
Its widespread use began later, when the largest corporations in the world (and not only in the automotive industry) began to actively create production departments within their giant organizations focused on the final product. They used the same principle of constructing management structures: providing departments with production and economic independence in carrying out operational activities and earning profits, on the one hand, and strict centralized control over general corporate issues of strategy, scientific research, investment and personnel policy, on the other. Therefore, the divisional structure is often characterized as decentralized while maintaining coordination and control.
The key figures in the management of organizations with a divisional structure are the heads of production departments. The structuring of organizations into departments is carried out, as a rule, according to one of three criteria:
– for manufactured products (services) – product specialization;
– by market, consumer-oriented – consumer or market specialization;
– according to serviced geographical regions– regional or geographic specialization.
In departments, as well as at the upper level, linear-functional structures are formed (with almost the same composition of functional units), which inevitably leads to an increase in the cost of maintaining the management apparatus. In addition, as experience shows, excessive freedom of departments in choosing areas of production activity and making responsible decisions can threaten the integrity of the organization.
This approach ensures a closer connection between production and consumers, significantly accelerating the response of organizations to changes in the external environment. As a result of expanding the boundaries of operational and economic independence, departments become “profit centers” and actively use the freedom given to them to increase operational efficiency. The use of such structures in our country intensified in the 1960s and 1970s in connection with the implementation of a policy to increase the concentration of production and the formation of production associations. The management of associations was structured in different ways: along with completely centralized structures, where management was carried out by the apparatus of the head enterprise or a specially created body, decentralized structures were also used, especially where enterprises retained their economic and legal independence.
In modern economic conditions, many domestic organizations (primarily corporations, joint stock companies, holdings, etc.) are successfully switching to a divisional management structure, using the inherent opportunities for decentralization and increased efficiency.
At the same time, as the experience of many domestic enterprises shows, dividing complex complexes into relatively independent business units (profit centers) does not always ensure success. In organizations where all departments are connected in a single technological chain, such an approach to building a management structure can lead to serious problems due to the severing of connections between them.
Project management structure. The acceleration of processes associated with research, development and innovation has inevitably led to increased design development in organizations. It became increasingly clear to the management of large organizations that modern technical progress is impossible without the organic inclusion of R&D into the structure of production and management. The result was the establishment of semi-autonomous groups within the organization, each of which concentrated on the implementation of a specific project. A project is any process of targeted changes in an organization (for example, modernization of production, development of new types of products or technologies, automation of financial management, design of a new management structure, etc.), which has the following characteristic features :
– holistic nature of the activity;
– participation in the work of various specialists, between whom cooperative relations are established;
– clearly formulated final result of the activity;
– limitations in time and resources allocated to achieve design goals.
Project management includes defining its goals, forming a structure, planning and organizing work, and coordination mechanisms. One of the forms of project management is the formation of a special unit - a project team (or group) working on a temporary basis. It includes the necessary specialists, including management.
The project manager is vested with so-called project powers. These include: responsibility for planning and progress of work, control over the expenditure of allocated resources and the timing of work, financial incentives for employees. Due to this great importance is given to the manager’s ability, first of all, to form a team and clearly define the concept of project management. On this basis, tasks and resources should be distributed among team members, priorities and ways to constructively solve emerging problems should be determined. The typical project structure presented is used in the development of large projects in which the manager has full responsibility for completing tasks and using resources.
If the project team is small, it may consist of temporarily seconded workers from base departments, whose managers retain all the most important personnel management functions. In this case, members of the project team can work on the project part-time and at the same time be accountable to the head of the base service and the project manager. The duality of subordination often leads to problems of distribution of functions and responsibilities between two managers. Upon completion of the project, the structure disintegrates, and employees (members of the project team) move to a new team or return to their permanent position (in the case of contract work, they quit).
The project structure has great flexibility, but when carrying out several projects it leads to the need to allocate resources between them in accordance with importance, priority and other criteria. Research shows that two-thirds of the problems associated with project structure arise from poor cooperation between project teams, lack of necessary alignment with the external environment (especially customers and suppliers) and the underlying management structure; As a result, projects are not completed on time, require additional resources and often do not meet quality targets. Often, multiple project structures complicate the problem of coordinating work both between them and with the rest of the organization. In such organizations, management must be built on the basis of a combination of the basic structure (it is seen as a source of resources) and project teams, which are working units with assigned goals. In some organizations, a chief project manager is appointed for these purposes, who carries out the coordination function.
Matrix management structures help solve coordination problems and link together the activities of the units of the basic structure and temporary groups. The matrix structure is a lattice organization built on the principle of double subordination of performers: on the one hand, to the immediate head of the base unit (service), which allocates resources (including personnel) and other assistance to the manager of the project or target program; on the other hand, to the head of the temporary task force, who is vested with the necessary powers to organize work on a specific program. His team includes two groups of performers:
– permanent members;
– other employees and specialists.
The latter are allocated by the heads of departments of the basic management structure; in this case, the head of the temporary group determines the content of their work, and the head of the basic unit (for example, a functional service) can establish methods for their implementation.
The transition to matrix structures usually does not cover the entire organization, but only a part; Moreover, its success largely depends on the extent to which the leaders of permanent units and groups have the ability to coordinate, as well as the desire and incentives to cooperate. This makes it possible to realize such advantages of matrix structures as combining the experience of specialists with coordination of work, using consultations on projects and stimulating group organization of work.
At the same time, experts note the complexity of matrix structures, for the effective use of which it is necessary to have well-organized management and highly qualified personnel at all levels. From an analysis of practice, we can conclude that they are used where it is necessary to combine the efforts of different professionals to qualitatively solve complex problems. A prerequisite is the presence of bilateral connections and interactions. The brigade structure is one of the varieties of the organic type of structures. It is known that brigades have existed for a long time, but only in last years there was an objective need for the fullest use of their potential. Among the most important factors, we note three:
– acceleration of product and technology renewal processes;
– orientation of enterprises to small markets;
– increasing requirements for the quality of customer service and order fulfillment time.
This situation forced us to radically reconsider existing approaches to the organization of labor and production and begin forming teams using new principles.
Firstly, this autonomous operation teams, which may include workers, specialists and managers who are fully responsible for the work and receive remuneration for the results of their activities.
Secondly, it is independent decision-making and coordination of work within teams and with other groups.
The third principle proclaims the replacement of rigid connections with flexible ones, up to the right to attract teams of workers from other departments to solve problems (this destroys the traditional division of production, technical, economic and management services into isolated subsystems with their own goals and interests).
The fourth principle, formulated on the basis of experience, regulates the number of team members (within no less than four and no more than twenty) and coordination of efforts by the members themselves (through rotation).
This approach to the formation of teams has a strong motivational effect both for the team as a whole and for its individual members.
The transition to brigade structures usually involves significant preparation. First of all, this is the formation of teams according to their purpose (tasks), as well as the determination of their composition. The concept of team work - mutual assistance, interchangeability, group and personal responsibility, focus on customer needs - predetermines a new role for the leader, who strengthens his training and consulting functions and relies heavily on group problem solving. This changes the requirements for the composition of the team: preference is given to people with universal knowledge and skills, since only they can ensure interchangeability and flexibility when changing tasks.
Often, when forming teams, it is necessary to rearrange equipment in order to concentrate it. This reduces transportation time, reduces inventory, and provides better control. The resulting losses from underutilization technical means and equipment are offset by opportunities to more fully utilize human potential.
The consequence of group interaction is the expansion of the labor functions of workers, their mastery of several specialties and a more complete use of their potential. The combination of group and personal responsibility for the quality of work and its final result dramatically reduces the need for strict control. Pay conditions are changing in such a way as to stimulate cost-effective cooperation and increased interest in the profit and income of not only the team, but also the organization as a whole.
The spread of brigade structures abroad (for example, in the United States by 1984, more than 200 of the 500 largest corporations had created brigades of varying degrees of autonomy) stimulated the development of intra-company market-economic relations and led to a significant reduction in the management apparatus, especially at the middle level. This period saw massive layoffs of mid-level managers, and in a number of corporations the upper echelons of power were also “cleansed.” This was the real result of teaming up with specialists who understood the problems and how to solve them and did not need additional guidance from above. They also do not require numerous auxiliary analytical services, the number of which had previously been growing sharply.
One of the developments that develops the idea of flexible organic management structures is their construction in the form of an inverted pyramid. In it, professional specialists are placed at the top level of the hierarchy, and the management of the organization is represented at the bottom.
Such structures can be useful where professionals are able to draw on experience and knowledge that enables them to act independently and skillfully work directly with clients. First of all, these are healthcare organizations and educational institutions.
The performance results of the management apparatus depend on many factors related to both the managed and control subsystems. However, given equal production capabilities a vital role ultimately depends on how well the management apparatus of the enterprise is staffed with personnel who know their business well; how perfect is the organizational structure of the management system; how well all parts of the system work; How high is the spiritual level of managers, specialists and employees. Such moral qualities and character traits of employees engaged in managerial work as honesty, integrity, integrity and exactingness are becoming increasingly important.
The purpose of analyzing the effectiveness of organizational structures is not only to give a quantitative description of the changes occurring in the management system, but also to promptly signal a violation of its compliance with production requirements. Such forecasts can be obtained based on an analysis of the dynamics of indicators characterizing the overall effectiveness of the current management system and its individual elements.
As mentioned above, the multifaceted activities of management bodies necessitate the use of a system of general indicators that characterize the management system as a whole, and local indicators that show the effectiveness of individual, private measures to improve the management system.
These types of assessments are divided into two groups: forecast and actual. Forecasts include estimates obtained before the implementation of measures to rationalize management systems. Such assessments are made at the system design stage and when choosing the most effective technical means and control methods. Actual assessments include assessments formed on the basis of data on performance results in new conditions, that is, after the implementation of planned measures to improve management.
General assessments include performance indicators of the management apparatus. The efficiency of the management apparatus is assessed by the amount of labor costs and expenses for the maintenance of the management apparatus, allocated to a unit of work (product). For the main activity of transport, this indicator can be determined using the formulas
where E n and E d are the efficiency of the management apparatus, respectively, in physical and monetary terms;
H 0 – total costs of managerial labor, people. (or person-hour);
Σ R l– volume of transportation work, given in t-km;
D – expenses for maintaining the management staff, rub.
The efficiency of the management apparatus is a broader concept than efficiency. This indicator characterizes the degree of influence of the management apparatus on the final results of the production activities of an enterprise or production site served by the management body in question, and can be expressed in a certain period through the effect realized in production or can represent comparative efficiency as the ratio of the effect to the costs that determined it.
The choice of one or another organizational structure depends on a number of factors. The most significant factors are the following:
The size and degree of diversity of activities inherent in the organization;
Geographical location of the organization;
Technology;
Attitude towards the organization on the part of the organization’s managers and employees;
Dynamism of the external environment;
The strategy implemented by the organization.
The organizational structure must correspond size of the organization and not be more complex than necessary. Typically, the influence of the size of an organization on its organizational structure manifests itself in the form of an increase in the number of levels of the organization's management hierarchy. If the organization is small and the manager can manage the activities of employees alone, then an elementary (linear) organizational structure is used. If the number of employees increases so much that it is already difficult for one manager to manage them, or certain specialized activities arise, then an intermediate level in management appears in the organization and a functional (linear-functional) structure begins to be used.
Further growth of the organization may cause the emergence of new levels in the management hierarchy. As a result, organizational structures such as divisional or a structure reflecting the creation of strategic business units (project) can be used. The emergence of complex projects in an organization leads to the use of a matrix structure.
Geographical location organization, if the regions are sufficiently isolated, leads to the delegation of certain rights in decision-making to regional units and, accordingly, to the emergence of regional units in the organizational structure. If the rights are not very large, then the number of cells in the functional structure increases. If a territorial unit is given the status of relative independence, then a transition to a divisional structure occurs.
Impact of Technology on the organizational structure is manifested in the following. Firstly, the organizational structure is tied to the technology that is used in the organization. The number of structural units and their relative position strongly depend on what technology is used in the organization. Secondly, the organizational structure must be designed in such a way that it allows for technological upgrading. In particular, the organizational structure should facilitate the emergence and dissemination of ideas for technological development and the implementation of technological renewal processes.
Organizational structure largely depends on How do managers feel about her choice?, what type of structure they prefer and how willing they are to introduce non-traditional forms of organizing an organization. Managers are often inclined to choose a traditional, functional form of organizational structure, since it is clearer and more familiar to them. Also, what kind of organizational structure is formed in the organization is influenced by the location and attitude to work that are characteristic of employees of the organization. Highly skilled workers, as well as workers whose work is creative, prefer structures that give them more freedom and independence. Workers performing routine operations are more focused on simple and traditional organizational structures.
Dynamism of the external environment is a very strong factor determining the choice of organizational structure. If the external environment is stable and there are minor changes in it, then the organization can successfully use mechanistic organizational structures that have little flexibility and require great effort to change them. In the same case, if the external environment is very dynamic, the structure must be organic, flexible and able to quickly respond to external changes. In particular, such a structure should imply a high level of decentralization and the presence of structural divisions with greater rights in decision-making.
Strategy has a significant impact on the choice of organizational structure. It is not at all necessary to change structures every time the organization moves to implement a new strategy. However, it is absolutely necessary to establish how the existing organizational structure corresponds to the strategy, and only then, if necessary, make appropriate changes.
