The choice of one or another organizational structure depends on a number of factors.

Fig.8 Factors for choosing an organizational structure

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

organization and not be more complex than necessary.

Influence technologies

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.

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.

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 assume a high level of decentralization, the presence of structural divisions greater rights in decision making.

Strategy

has a significant impact on the choice of organizational structure. 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 structure depends largely on how its choice is viewed managers

What type of structure do they prefer and how willing are they to introduce non-traditional forms of organizing an organization?

The diagram of any organization shows the composition of departments, sectors and other linear and functional units. However, it should be understood that such a factor as human behavior, which influences the order of interaction and the efforts to coordinate actions, cannot be depicted in the diagram. It is human behavior that determines the effectiveness of the structure to a greater extent than the formal distribution of functions between departments.

Analysis of organizational and management structure

Characteristics of the enterprise

The HICONICS company was founded in 1995 and is the official distributor of such well-known companies like: Mitsubishi Electric (Japan), Tadiran (Israel), Wesper (France), CARRIER (USA), CIC (Czech Republic). The company has been a member of the Association of Climate Industry Enterprises (APIK) for 7 years.

Hikoniks LLC carries out a full range of work, ranging from consultations on optimal choice air conditioning, ventilation, heating equipment and preparation of technical proposals, ending with the development and implementation of large projects of modern climate control systems, including installation and commissioning with subsequent warranty and post-warranty service industrial and administrative facilities throughout the Russian Federation.

The choice of organizational structure is influenced by a variety of factors, the most significant of which are: the size and nature of the organization’s activities, its geographical location, the goals facing the organization, the technology used, the intensity and scale of innovation, qualifications, values ​​of the organization’s managers and employees, the dynamism of the external environment. , implemented strategy.

Size and nature of the organization's activities are the most important factors determining the contours and parameters of the management structure. Approaches to building organizational structures are different in large, medium and small organizations that are at different stages of the life cycle, have different levels of division and specialization of labor, its cooperation, etc. The scale of the organization’s activities affects the number of levels of the management hierarchy, the number of divisions, the number of management employees, etc. Thus, a small organization led by the entrepreneur-founder has a simple two-level structure: manager - executors. As the organization grows, the volume of management work increases, which necessitates the development of the division of labor and the formation of specialized units (for example, for the management of production, sales, finance, innovation, etc.). As a result, an intermediate management level appears, which is designed to coordinate and control the created functional units to achieve coordinated work, which is typical for the functional type of management structure. Further growth in the size and diversity of an organization's activities may require the creation of new levels of management and the transition to the use of more complex organizational structures, such as a divisional or agricultural structure.

Geographical expansion of activities organization may lead to the need to create regional divisions, the heads of which are delegated certain rights to manage the relevant territories. In this case, it is possible various options building organizational structures: regional branches can be formed within the framework of a linear-functional structure, or a regional divisional structure or its modification is created - an organizational structure based on agricultural enterprises. The form of organizational structure depends on the size of the organization, the number of geographic markets it serves and their distance from each other, the degree of similarity or difference in the operating conditions of the organization in different territories, the regional policy pursued, etc.

Technological factor(product manufacturing methods, type of equipment used, etc.) has a direct impact on the choice of organizational structure. The type of organizational structure must correspond general principles technologies of the main production and economic activities of the company. Thus, in organizations with a mass or large-scale type of production, linear-functional structures are successfully used; in organizations that produce unique and small-scale products, design and matrix structures are effective. The organizational structure must be designed to support the required intensity and scale of innovation.

The choice of organizational structure is significantly influenced by business philosophy and values ​​of managers, their qualifications and work experience. For example, managers who are not inclined to share powers and who want to keep everything under control usually prefer traditional linear-functional management structures. The employees of the organization themselves also influence the choice of organizational structure. Highly qualified workers and workers with great creative potential prefer structures that provide them with more independence, opportunities for self-expression and development, while low-skilled workers prefer structures that provide detailed rationing and regulation of labor.

Characteristics of the external environment– complexity, dynamism, uncertainty have a direct impact on the choice of organizational management structure. In stable operating conditions, organizations successfully use mechanistic organizational structures (linear, functional, linear-functional, linear-staff, divisional), distinctive features which are rationality, responsibility and hierarchy. However, their inherent rigidity and the inability to manage the process of change with their help make them ineffective in conditions of growing complexity and variability of the external environment. If the external environment is characterized by high dynamism and uncertainty, the structure of the organization must be flexible and adaptive, capable of relatively easily changing its shape and adapting to new conditions. These properties are possessed by varieties of organic type structures - project, matrix, program-targeted, etc., focused on the accelerated implementation of complex programs and projects.

Strategy and organizational structure are closely interrelated: firstly, strategy is the main factor determining the organizational structure, and secondly, the organizational structure must create the necessary conditions for the successful implementation of the strategy. Therefore, when moving to implement a new strategy, you should check how well the existing organizational structure corresponds to it and, if necessary, make appropriate organizational changes. So, if an organization concentrating its efforts on existing products and markets, has decided to begin diversification, this will most likely require a change in the organizational structure - the creation of new structural divisions within the existing structure or the construction of a more complex structure.

It should be noted that the above factors are interrelated, and when choosing an organizational structure, their complex influence should be taken into account.

Planning for strategy implementation

Documented result of the system’s functioning strategic planning in an organization is a set of interrelated planning documents that reflect the strategic decisions made and the allocation of resources. The system of plans serves as a form of materialization of the organization’s planned activities, but not its main result. The main thing is to define goals, strategies, programs, and allocate resources that allow the organization to fully meet future changes. And these changes serve as a meaningful result of strategic planning and may include plans for research and development, product diversification, approval of new products on the market, repurposing and liquidation of unprofitable production, etc.

The basic premise underlying the structuring of the system of plans reflects the well-known conclusion of management theory - the “law of necessary diversity”, according to which a complex system requires a complex control mechanism. In other words, the system of plans should be approximately as complex as the organization itself and the external factors that should be reflected in it.

In a modern large organization, four groups of interrelated plans should be developed (Fig. 6):

1. Main areas of activity, the main content of which is a strategy for the foreseeable future - 10 - 15 years, sometimes more.

2. Development plans for the organization for a period of 1 to 5 years. From the standpoint of strategic planning, their main content is the prospects for improving production, the transition to the production of a new generation of products, new technology:

· Organization development plan;

· Diversification plan;

· Liquidation plan;

· Research plan, etc.

3. Tactical plans regulating current activities organizations in main functional areas:

· Marketing plan;

· Financial plan;

· Production plan;

· Procurement plan;

· Labor plan;

· Equipment repair and maintenance plan, etc.

4. Programs and project plans (special plans) that are targeted in nature:

· development of new products;

· development of new technology;

· reduction of production costs;

· saving energy resources;

· penetration into new markets, etc.

Figure 6 - System of organization plans

Group special plans includes both long-term (long- and medium-term) and short-term programs and projects. The planning horizon for individual programs and projects may vary depending on the nature and scale of the goals and resource capabilities. The composition of programs and projects depends, first of all, on the development strategy chosen by the enterprise.

The group of special plans includes business plans. The main purpose of the business plan is a feasibility study investment project for creditors and investors. The project may involve the creation of a new enterprise or the organization of new production at an existing enterprise. This appointment predetermines the structure of the business plan, which contains elements of both strategic and tactical planning. At the same time, issues related to the sale of products (market needs, competitive advantages of the product, product promotion, etc.) are studied in more detail.

The first two groups of plans are the main product of strategic planning. In some organizations, instead of these two groups of plans, one is developed - a strategic plan. Strategic plan may include the following sections:

1. The mission and goals of the organization, through which the future of the organization is expressed, as management imagines it.

2. Analysis of the state and prospects for the development of the organization’s external environment for each agricultural enterprise.

3. Analysis of the state and forecast of the development of competition for each agricultural enterprise.

4. Analysis of strengths and weaknesses organizations in the context of agricultural enterprises.

5. Goals and strategies of individual agricultural enterprises.

6. The overall target portfolio of the organization in the context of agricultural enterprises.

7. Action plans and budgets for the implementation of functional strategies.

8. Resources necessary to implement the organization's strategy and development plans.

9. Main stages of strategy implementation over time.

10. Assessing the possibility of implementing the strategy.

11. Financial and economic assessment of the strategic plan.

The composition of the sections of the organization's strategic plan may change in accordance with the specifics of the main activity and the existing organizational culture.

Strategic plans must subsequently be transformed into tactical and project plans, since they can only be implemented through them. In addition, projects serve as justification for those selected for more early stages organization development strategies. Consequently, tactical plans and projects are also partly included in the strategic planning system.

Methods for ensuring the adaptability of strategic plans

The fundamental approach to planning the activities of an organization in conditions market economy is to view the organization as open system, experiencing the influence of the external environment and influencing the external environment. In this regard, the principle of planning flexibility is of particular importance.

Flexibility(adaptability) of planning - constant maintenance of compliance of the organization's plans with the changing conditions of its functioning. The main methods for implementing this principle are: development of “sliding” and situational plans; resource reservation; drawing up “flexible” cost estimates.

Sliding(transition) plan compiled with distribution over time intervals within planning period. At the end of each time interval, the plan moves forward one interval so that the planning horizon remains unchanged. At the same time, clarifications are made to the plan taking into account changes in the external and internal environment of the enterprise, as well as the results of its work in the past period.

Situational(backup, spare) plan - a version of the plan developed in addition to the main one. The main version of the plan is focused on the most likely future values key factors external environment. Reserve options for the plan, which are focused on other values ​​of key factors that are less likely to be expected, include: actions of the enterprise and its divisions in a specific situation; the expected results of these actions; conditions for putting into effect the situational plan.

"Flexible" estimate - This is a cost estimate developed in several versions for different values ​​of production or sales.

The choice of management structure is influenced by a number of factors, the main of which are:

external environment,

internal environment,

chosen strategy.

In addition, the choice of structure is influenced by factors such as the size of the organization, geographic location, attitude of managers and employees towards the organization, etc.

External environment

1. Macro environment creates general conditions for the state of the environment in which the organization operates. It is determined by economic, legal, political, social and technological social components. In most cases, the macro environment does not have a specific impact on an individual organization. However, the degree of influence of the state of the macroenvironment on different organizations varies. This is due to differences in legal and economic nature in relation to separate groups organizations (industrial enterprises, banks, non-profit organizations, etc.)

2. Immediate environment determines the state of those components of the external environment with which the organization is in direct interaction (buyers, suppliers, competitors, labor market, etc.). At the same time, it is important to emphasize that an organization can have a significant influence on the nature and content of this interaction, thereby shaping for itself additional features and preventing the emergence of threats to the continued existence of the company.

Institutions of the external environment, Those who enter into direct interaction with the organization play the role of intermediaries between the general environment and the organization’s divisions, forming, through the tasks they solve, the demand for a particular function of the organization. Identifying these institutions is the first step in choosing the structure of the organization, as it helps to determine, as a first approximation, the main functional parts or divisions of the organization, which, as a rule, have direct contact with one or another agent from the external environment.

Institutions in the external environment are characterized mainly by complexity and dynamism. In this regard, many companies began to revise their organizational structures, create new divisions, make changes to the work of existing services, and reduce those that have lost contact with institutions of the external environment.

Internal environment

Technology of work. The role of technology in the selection of operating systems for an organization is widely recognized. In this context, work technology is understood as a set of business methods.

The more complex the activities of an organization, the more difficult it is to coordinate it. Stand out common factors, which complicate the activities of the company and complicate its coordination:

differentiation (specialization);

interdependence individuals or groups;

uncertainty factor.

Differentiation is a consequence of the increase in the size of the enterprise and its advantages are obvious: the work is done by those who can do it best. But specialization raises coordination problems:

problem of conflicting goals. For example, finance department personnel want to reduce costs and therefore want to reduce material inventories. But production department employees are interested in maintaining production and do not want to suddenly run out of materials, so a high level of inventory is preferred;

various departments develop their own views on the organization and priorities in it, have their own style of communication among personnel; can work within different time frames. For example. The personal atmosphere in production can be a contrast to the fun atmosphere of the sales department.

Interdependence. There are 4 types of work interdependence:

1. When centralized interdependence of work in the organization, each department is relatively autonomous and makes its own contribution to the overall cause of the organization. For example, the service centers of a computer company are usually not very closely connected with each other, but the sum of their work brings tangible results to the company.

2. Sequential Work interdependence appears in an organization when one unit must complete its part of the work before its results reach another unit. The delivery of machined parts from machine shops to the assembly shop of a machine-building plant can in this case be an example of such interdependence of work.

4. General interdependence is the most complex of those given here, since it consists of many interconnected interdependencies. Work is not moved from department to department, but is performed by employees of different functional departments collected in a special department. For example, in the process of creating a new product, its developers, production engineers, finance department and sales department continually pose problems to each other and at the same time cannot completely do anything themselves.

The presence of a large number of related and group interdependencies in work will require more efforts from the organization to integrate its parts and complicate its structure.

For example, prior to its reorganization in the mid-1980s, IBM emphasized centralization and the associated interdependence between corporate headquarters and its units at lower levels of management. However, by creating semi-autonomous regional branches, IBM was able to move to an evolving interdependence between these divisions and corporate headquarters. At the same time, within each department, a related interdependence remained between its divisions, which is caused by the specifics of their activities, which require close communication between the R&D, production and marketing departments.

Modern information technologies have significantly changed the operating systems of many successful organizations, allowing firms to effectively solve problems of interdependence. This is important, first of all, for sequential and connected interdependencies that require a lot of information exchange between performers. For example, the company "Digital Equipment Corporation", using information system of 27 thousand computers in 29 countries, provides access to it to 75 thousand employees out of 118 thousand total employees of the company. Another clear example of the use of new information technologies is the creation of flexible production systems that make it possible to combine all three types of production - small-scale, mass and pilot - within a single work process. Today, flexible manufacturing systems enable the transition of mass production management to organic structures.

Uncertainty The activities of the organization are due to the following reasons:

ignorance of your consumers;

unreliability of suppliers;

unpredictability of staff loyalty and opinions;

lack of action plans or standard tasks for each type of work;

unclear criteria for assessing the performance of individuals and groups;

changes in the organization's environment.

Strategy. In 1962, A. Chandler formulated the principle that the choice of structure for an organization should be consistent with the strategy adopted by it. This principle is based on the conclusion that when a strategy changes, the organization faces new problems, the solution of which is directly related to the choice of a new structure.

There are three possible areas of strategic choice to consider.

The first area of ​​strategic choice concerns the management ideologies, adhered to by the top management of the organization. The values ​​and principles underlying it can decisively influence the choice of such structural elements as the number of horizontal connections, the scale and norm of control, the number of hierarchical levels of management, the number of links at each level of management, centralization and decentralization. For example, the commitment of top management to centralization when choosing a structure will lead to the establishment of a multi-level hierarchy in it, the dominance of vertical connections over horizontal ones, and the creation of additional controlling and similar divisions.

The second area of ​​strategic choice has to do with what consumers will be serviced by the organization. If an organization has individual and “organized” consumers, then this duality should be reflected in all elements new structure. For example, an enterprise producing machinery, equipment and consumer goods should not be limited to forming only divisions serving industrial consumers. Ignoring this requirement in today's Russian reality by the majority of defense and industrial enterprises often makes them opponents of conversion.

The transition of an organization from a strategy focused on product production to a strategy focused on customer satisfaction requires radical changes in its operating systems. The structural and power structure of such an organization must be turned upside down.

The third area of ​​strategic choice is sales markets and territorial location of production. A corporation's expansion beyond national borders in order to locate production and sales of products in other countries will require taking into account the factor of internationalization and globalization of business. Naturally, this will make the structure of the organization more cumbersome and complex, as evidenced by the experience of transnational corporations. If an organization wants to maintain itself in the international arena as a single whole, then the duplication of functions of divisions at different levels of management that arises in this case and the complication of connections between the latter is a necessary condition.

The influence of these strategies on the structure of the organization can be illustrated by a diagram.

The influence of strategies on the structure of an organization (according to Galbraith and Nathanson).

Geographical location. 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 functional unit is given the status of relative independence, then a transition to a divisional structure occurs.

Enterprise size. The 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. If the company is small and the manager can manage the activities of employees alone, then an elementary (simple) organizational structure is used. If the number of employees increases so much that it becomes difficult for one manager to manage them, or certain specialized activities arise, then an intermediate level of management appears in the organization and a functional or linear-functional structure begins to be used. Further growth of the organization may result in the emergence of new levels in the management hierarchy and more complex management structures may be applied.

Attitudes towards the organization of managers and employees. 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 the traditional functional form of the organizational structure, since it is clearer and more familiar to them. On the other hand, highly skilled workers, as well as workers whose work has a creative orientation, prefer a structure that gives them more freedom and independence. Workers performing routine operations are more oriented towards simple and traditional organizational structures.

Thus, it is not any particular type of structure that is effective, but the structure that best suits the goals of the organization, its external and internal environment, i.e. operating conditions and internal capabilities.

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 question development and functioning of the 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 shortcomings of existing organizational structures, inherent in more than 70% of domestic enterprises, are the following:

– excessive closeness of structural divisions to top managers (at least the general director) and, as a consequence, their overload (inability to fulfill their functional responsibilities);

– the presence of many deputy general directors and directors with blurred and overlapping ranges of responsibility;

– 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 divided into functional units with different levels of subordination (HR department, HR department and labor organization department and wages);

– absent or present only formally vital financial and economic units and a real person carrying 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 there is no responsible person 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, since it gives it internal stability and allows it to achieve a certain order in the use of resources.

Organizational management structure is one of the key concepts management, closely related to the goals, functions, management process, work of managers and the distribution of powers between them. Within the framework of this structure, the entire management process takes place, 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 (the requirements of the consumer and the market, society, government agencies etc.) and internal factors of the organization’s development (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 organization’s development strategy, its size, technologies used, characteristics environment.

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, than more people employed at the enterprise, the more likely it is to use a hierarchical type structure, in which, with the help of appropriate mechanisms, coordination and control of their activities are ensured.

Technology is an important factor influencing management structure. Given the routine nature of technologies, they are most often used hierarchical structures; 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.

The environment has different impacts on the choice of management structure different organizations, which is predetermined 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:

– across 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 functional division 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 make it possible 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 specially formed teams or project groups that solve specific problems. The types of governance structures most commonly used by organizations are discussed below. Familiarization with their 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 their application 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 by which the organization divides 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 rating 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 cost-effective 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 management staff due to high level formalization organically inherent in a given 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. Senior management retains the functions of strategic planning and control, maintaining the overall efficiency of the organization and the capacity of departments 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, department heads 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 specialized work. As the number of levels at which functional services are formed increases, the number of such functional connections increases and at the same time the role and importance of execution increases individual functions. 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 technology of management created by the head of a large concern General Motors 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 economics 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 technologies. 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 necessary conditions to develop initiatives 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 implementing operational activities and earning profits, on the one hand, and strict centralized control over general corporate issues of strategy, 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;

– by geographic regions served – 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 costs of maintaining the management apparatus. In addition, as experience shows, excessive freedom of branches in choosing areas production activities and making critical decisions may threaten the integrity of the organization.

This approach provides more close connection production with 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 moving 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 into a single technological chain, this approach to building a management structure can lead to serious problems due to the severance of connections between them.

Project management structure. Acceleration of processes related to scientific research, developments and innovations, inevitably led to increased design developments 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 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 value 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 methods should be determined. constructive solution emerging problems. 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 units, whose managers retain all essential functions on personnel management. 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 multiplicity project structures complicates 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 project manager 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 effective use which require well-organized management and highly qualified personnel at all levels. From the analysis of practice, we can conclude that they are used where it is necessary to combine the efforts of different professionals for a quality solution complex problems. Required condition 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 recent years there was an objective need for the fullest use of their potential. Among the most important factors Let's 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 performance results.

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 USA by 1984 more than 200 out of 500 largest corporations created teams 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 decisive 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 tall spiritual level 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 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.

organizational management divisional personnel

The organizational structure of management is significantly influenced by a number of factors. These include the following factors: the size of the organization and the variety of activities it carries out, the scale of controllability, technology, organizational culture, environment and national cultural factors, human and economic factors, organizational culture.

The size of the organization and the variety of activities it carries out. The larger the size of the organization, the greater the number of divisions, the more numerous and varied the connections between them that need to be controlled, and therefore the more complex the organizational management structure.

The size of an organization is actually made up of several components:

• · capacity of the organization (Production organizations have a relatively constant capacity, namely the number of technological lines and their speed for processing raw materials; Universities have capacity in the form of classrooms, training areas);
• · availability of personnel in the organization (For some organizations, the larger the number of personnel, the larger the budget - religious organizations and universities; the goal of other organizations is to reduce the number to a minimum in order to reduce costs); (Sales volume is an important production parameter for many commercial organizations);
• Availability of discretionary resources for the organization in the form of material assets or net assets.

The norm of controllability or, as it is otherwise called, the scale of controllability.

In general, organizations can have a narrow or broad scope of control. The relationship between management levels (hierarchy) and the scale of controllability can be represented in the form of a matrix.

Top management must decide on the optimal balance of levels and scale of management. This ratio is usually associated with specialization and division of the labor (technological) process into separate operations.

Existing limits of controllability, overcoming which is either impossible or ineffective, since overcoming them leads to a decrease in quality management activities, its formalization and bureaucratization, ignoring important information, increasing conflict, and aggravating internal struggle.

Technology. The nature of the technology directly affects the management structure of the organization. The number of levels in the management hierarchy, the scope of powers of first-level managers and, accordingly, other managers depend on the technology used. Not only does technology influence structure, but organizational effectiveness depends on the “fit” of technology to structure.

Organizational culture. The internal culture of an organization can have a significant impact on both the formation of the management structure and its changes. This factor may influence preferences such as centralization or decentralization.

Environment. Environmental characteristics put pressure on an organization, influencing the scope of their work and the way technological production. Such basic characteristics include stability, complexity, market diversity, and hostility. The more dynamic (high degree of change) the environment, the more organic the structure. A high degree of externality leads the structure to a more decentralized form. The diversity of the organization's markets leads the management structure to the market orientation of organizational units, if it is possible to use economies of scale. The extreme hostility of the environment forces any organization to temporarily centralize its management structure.

Economic forces. This factor is quite significant in the system of factors influencing the management structure of the organization. For example, by grouping similar activities into a single unit, managed by one body instead of several previously, the associated costs can be significantly reduced.

Human factor. The management structure cannot but be influenced by the human factor - social structure and relationships between people. So, if an organization lacks people with required level education qualifications, an attempt to create this or that unit or position is unlikely to be crowned with success, even if the need for them is undoubted. And vice versa, they may not be necessary, but, nevertheless, they are created because someone needs to be placed in a good place.

Factors of national culture. National culture influences the mentality of people, their value system and leadership style. Organizations are influenced by the culture and environment in which they find themselves, just as they are influenced by size and technology. Many management experts believe that the influence national cultures is additive in the sense that national flavor is added to differences in structure due to operating technology and market constraints. Although there may be situations where cultural factors are stronger than technology.

Natural factors. Such factors may influence the management structure. These include geographical or natural-climatic. For example, their impact is manifested in the territorial dispersion of units and isolation from central leadership, as well as in the extreme nature of the conditions under which they operate.

Nature of activity. The management structure is largely determined by the nature of the activities of the divisions included in the organization. For production organizations it will be completely different than for scientific ones.

In practice, there may be a lag between the management structure and real needs, which tends to accumulate, giving rise to imbalance, tension and, ultimately, the decline of the organization. Therefore, it must be constantly improved and maintained at the proper level of efficiency.

Effective management structures are characterized by:

• · profitability;
• · unity of constituent links with a clear delineation of the functions performed;
• · dynamism and flexibility, i.e. ability to quickly change and adapt to new external and internal conditions, for which the management structure must be inertial to a minimum extent;
• · stability - the ability to maintain balance during the disturbing actions of internal and external factors;
• · minimum number of management levels;
• · optimal level controllability standards;
• rational combination of centralization and decentralization