Organizational structure is a set of divisions of an organization and their relationships, within which management tasks are distributed between divisions, and the powers and responsibilities of managers and officials are determined. The organizational structure is built, on the one hand, in accordance with the tasks that its strategy sets for the organization. On the other hand, the structure at different levels ensures the use of economies of scale to save the organization's resources. Thus, the structure connects external - strategic efficiency with internal efficiency - economy.

The distribution of tasks between departments and officials, the distribution of powers and responsibilities must remain stable for some time to ensure the reproduction and maintenance of the strategy. Therefore, the structure sets the static system properties of organization management.

In cases where strategy changes, or when the structure is recognized as ineffective in terms of strategy objectives or economics, reorganization occurs. Reorganization can be both global in nature and change the principle of structure construction, and solve local problems of individual divisions and their relationships. Any reorganization should help improve the orderliness and efficiency of the structure. Which, unfortunately, does not always happen.

At the same time, the structure is constantly subject to a kind of degradation and corrosion, unjustifiably simplifying and blurring the distribution of tasks, powers and responsibilities. Thus, in parallel with the process of organization and increasing efficiency, a process of disorganization and destruction occurs in the structure. Therefore, any formal organizational structure is always different from the actual structure. And any reorganization requires analysis of both the formal structure and the actual one, and their comparison.

Evolution of organizational structures

As A. Chandler showed in his works, the organizational structure is formed under the influence of the enterprise strategy. The structure is the configuration of a management system within which the tasks established by the strategy are distributed among organizational units, the powers and responsibilities of managers are determined, and a system of job relationships is established.

table 1 Classification of types of impact on the enterprise

Market changes	Depth of change	Type of management response in strategy	Competitive changes
New markets, changing public values ​​and macroeconomic policy priorities	Strategic	Strategic	New technologies, destruction of the usual technological and product boundaries of areas of activity, organization of a management system
Market segmentation, changing consumer preferences	Marketing	Innovative	Changeability of products, technologies, optimization of sets of product-market segments
-	-	Operational	Improvement of existing products and technologies, price competition

As a result of the study of the strategies of companies in countries with developed market economies, all the most important influences were divided into market and competitive ones. Market ones include those that are caused by changes in consumer preferences and the structure of market demand. Among the competitive ones are those caused by the actions of competitors. Based on the depth of impact on the company, market changes are classified as marketing and strategic. Competitive changes – both operational, innovative and strategic. The content characteristics of these types of external influences are given in Table. 1. Since the actions of all competitors are a consequence of management decisions made in specific market conditions, the given groups of competitive influences are simultaneously the main elements of the strategy of competing firms. Different hierarchical levels are responsible for the implementation of these components of strategy in management structures: operational management, innovation and entrepreneurial (strategic).

The first to be used in business enterprises linear And functional organizational structures. Linear structures came from traditional social institutions, such as the army. Structures based on linear subordination with vertical connections made it possible to exercise leadership in a stable business environment in growing markets with stable technologies. In cases where the work of an enterprise involved the implementation of various functions of economic activity, such as R&D, production, marketing, finance, MTS, etc., the departmentalization of linear units took place according to a functional principle. In this way, a type of linear structure was formed, which came to be called a functional structure.

The production and improvement of existing products within the framework of operational activities, the creation of new equipment using innovative management were initially inherent in a number of industries. There have been several strategic external influences that required changes in previously established strategies and management structures both at the firm and industry levels in the history of Western industry. The first of these was associated with the global economic crisis called the Great Depression. This crisis has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the previous management principles applied in the previous economic growth cycle for new high technology industries. At the stage of mastering new industrial technologies, a vertical integration strategy was widely used, in which the company controlled the entire production process, from the early stages of raw material processing to delivery to the final consumer.

rice. 1. Example of a project matrix structure

Source. Star S.-H., Corey E.-R. Organization Strategy. - Boston, 1971

New, relatively small firms could not, within the framework of existing flexible management structures, cope with the increasing diversity and growth in the scale of production. The result was the formation of project-matrix management structures (see Fig. 1). Such structures are still preserved in production and development companies, which have become structural units of modern large corporations.

The second period of strategic changes was associated with World War II. Since 1936, government purchases of military equipment began to increase significantly. The production volumes of military equipment increased by 5-6 times. At the end of the war, military industrial companies faced an unpredictable reduction in government purchases, which was only slightly offset by increased demand in the commercial sector. Faced with such a limitation, firms, in order to reduce their dependence on government markets, began to actively use the strategy of diversification into unrelated areas of activity. They began to form conglomerate divisional and multiple management structures.

But, starting in 1949, the state began to increase the volume of its orders to prevent a sharp decline in the industry. At first, through the purchase of civilian equipment, and after the start of the Cold War and the intensification of the arms race, missile and space programs were launched, and arms purchases increased. This trend continued until 1987, when global changes in the world economy led to a new radical transformation of markets.

The end of the Cold War opened the way for the processes of globalization of the world economy. In the new information technology economy, industry's target priorities have shifted towards the creation of commercial global communications. Since 1994, in order to maintain competitiveness in the context of serving global markets and rising R&D costs, specialization and interrelated diversification strategies have been actively used in the United States and Europe. Formally, this group of strategies usually includes companies whose 70% or more of sales come from one type of product or group of products interconnected by a common sales market or technology.

At different stages of each industry development cycle, the effectiveness of company strategies changes. During periods of stability, when firms reach industry growth limits, unrelated diversification is preferred. As markets expand and new growth prospects emerge, flexibility and the ability to focus resources on new promising areas become key strategic factors. These requirements are best met by strategies of specialization and interrelated diversification.

rice. 2. Example of the structure of a specialized company

Management structures turned out to be tightly linked to strategy. Companies that followed similar strategies had equally similar types of organizational structures. For example, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which have maintained industry specialization, use multi-level, complex matrix management structures (see Figure 2). In particular, they retained only those electronics and engine manufacturing firms that were necessary to implement elements of the vertical integration strategy for the production of core products.

Companies engaged in interconnected diversification based on electronic technologies have structures with differentiated operational profit centers and powerful strategic and innovation centers. These centers, as part of innovation activities, provide promising developments to several operational profit centers (see Fig. 3). An example would be the structures of Texas Instruments or General Electric corporations.

rice. 3. Example of a company structure of interconnected diversification

Companies with disparate sets of areas of activity, such as United Technologies and Textron, have several relatively independent departments with integrated financial planning and control systems at the highest level of management (see Figure 4). Such structures are usually called divisional. Their characteristic feature is the formation, within departments - divisions, of a full set of functions of economic activity. Depending on the specific type of divisional structure, departments within it may have a set of functions necessary to independently conduct only operational activities, or both operational and innovative ones. Individual functions of economic activity within the divisional structure can become centralized, serving all divisions. This occurs when combining a function into a centralized unit creates a synergistic effect. In the simplest version of the divisional structure, support and headquarters functional units, for example, finance, become centralized. In more complex versions of divisional structures, the main functions are centralized: R&D or production, or both of these functions. The centralization of production began to occur most actively in the framework of the outsourcing system - the transfer of production to regions with cheap labor (China, Southeast Asia, India, etc.).

The choice of strategy is determined not only by the market situation, but also by the goals of the company. The goals of companies and key economic performance indicators are determined by influence groups, the most important among which are shareholders interested in the growth of market capitalization, and the state, as the main consumer of the industry's products. Those companies in which shareholder influence dominates are more likely to improve economic efficiency. Where the influence of the state is stronger, firms are more inclined to achieve growth in scale even at the expense of temporary losses. rice. 4. An example of a company structure of unrelated diversification.

However, as the experience of the French company Aerospatiale shows, when the need to choose an effective strategy conflicts with the current system of goals, the company can change the composition and importance of influence groups. Aerospatiale had the French government as its main shareholder. However, potential partners in the European integration of the aerospace complex feared that after merging with them, Aerospatial would act not in the interests of the united European company, but in the interests of the French government. As a result, before the creation of a single European aerospace company, a significant part of the state stake in Aerospazial was sold to one of the integration partners - the private aerospace group of companies Lagyarder.

The development of strategies and structures of enterprises in the domestic aerospace industry is characterized by a number of features that arose due to the difference in the trajectories of the country's macroeconomic development from the development trajectories of the United States and economically developed countries of Western Europe. The closed nature of the country's national economy and universal state ownership in the USSR created a stable environment for the activities of enterprises. In such conditions, elements of strategies and management structures that ensure external efficiency did not develop. The closed nature of the Soviet economic system and fierce competition with the West led to the formation of the priority nature of the defense and aerospace industries, designed to ensure the security and prestige of the state. This priority was manifested primarily in the provision of almost unlimited amounts of economic resources to enterprises in these industries. It is enough to point out that, according to various sources, up to 60% of domestic industry worked on defense and space, and unified national economic plans ensured economic stability and guaranteed demand for products. In addition to the state, an important place in the goal-setting of the activities of defense and aerospace enterprises was occupied by their creators - chief designers interested in the implementation of their technical and scientific ideas. The main goal of defense and aerospace industry enterprises in these conditions was the development and production of advanced equipment that allows solving national problems and satisfying the scientific and technical ambitions of top management. Enterprises had to solve these technical problems against the backdrop of rapid scientific and technological progress. The key to success in achieving goals was the timely introduction of scientific achievements and the development of new technology. The development of science and technology, thus, has become the main factor in the instability of the external environment, influencing the choice of strategies and the formation of organizational structures of enterprises. Under the influence of these factors, project-based matrix organizational structures began to take shape in the industry. Depending on the complexity and novelty of the products, as well as on the volume of resources involved, in each specific case there was a variation in the level of integration of project and functional line management, the ratio of responsibilities and powers of functional/line and project managers. (see Fig. 5) A characteristic feature of these organizational structures was a strict administrative hierarchy, which made it possible to carry out management on the basis of driving influences from a higher-level system - an industry or a large intersectoral program. The need for such rigidity arose as a consequence of highly centralized macroeconomic planning, concentration and specialization of production, which led to functional differentiation of structures at the sectoral level. This means that within the industry there were separate organizations engaged in R&D and manufacturing enterprises. Coordination was carried out by departments in the process of implementing programs for the creation and production of new equipment.

rice. 5. Example of a development/pilot plant structure.

At enterprises, general/chief designers or their deputies were responsible for the implementation of projects. In research and development organizations, projects appeared as topics. Leading designers and topic managers, depending on the complexity, importance and novelty of the projects, had the authority of either line or coordinating managers. The formation of these structures took place without a theoretical basis, spontaneously, using the method of consistent trial and error. Organizational decisions were often heavily influenced by political motives. Therefore, as a rule, the organizational structures of enterprises were not optimal from the point of view of the criterion of internal efficiency. There was unjustified duplication of work, the specialization of departments was not clearly defined, controllability standards were not observed, etc. But all the shortcomings of the organization were fully compensated by the excess resources attracted by the state for the production of products, especially military equipment, aviation, space systems and the implementation of space exploration programs. The peculiarity of the practical structures of enterprises was that linear divisions were allocated on the basis of either large projects or subsystems of a complex product. Our project structures were distinguished from the structures of Western companies by their greater rigidity. The project itself did not exist as a temporary unit. Project managers were permanent elements of a rigid linear structure, occupying the positions of Chief Designers, alternately coordinating the execution of work on the creation / production of the next product. As a result, design structures were formed that in their pure form did not correspond to any of the types described in the theory. Enterprises responsible for the production of serial technologically interconnected products have formed structures with linear subordination of divisions formed according to product subsystems or stages of the production process. In parallel, functional units developed that were responsible for coordinating the use of homogeneous, most important functional resources of the enterprise: personnel, energy, development of technological processes, supplies, etc. These units had coordinating powers in relation to line management. (see Fig. 6).

rice. 6. Example of the structure of a serial production enterprise

The system for selecting contractors used elements of competition. In the early stages of development, several enterprises took part in the projects, each of which offered its own alternative version of the product. One of these options was selected, and the company that proposed it became the contractor. Such a system made it possible to preserve the diversity of generated technical solutions when selecting projects and eliminate unnecessary duplication of projects at the most expensive late stages of creating new equipment.

In the sixties, in the domestic military and aerospace industry, the competitive selection of contractors began to be replaced by the specialization of enterprises in creating a narrow range of products. Specialization was based not only on technological reasons. Political criteria began to be used when distributing orders. Unjustified duplication of projects appeared, which, in particular, took place during the implementation of the lunar program. In general, the industry increasingly suffered from the lack of a coherent state development program. With non-functioning market mechanisms, total state control and full state funding, the lack of program goals has deprived enterprises of long-term guidelines. A coordinated selection of promising areas of activity and the distribution of resources between them turned out to be impossible. The developments of individual enterprises began to be fragmented and did not allow the development of organizational and technical potential.

As a result of the development of this trend, later, already in the seventies, the principle of rivalry prevailed in the management strategies of industries and enterprises. If in the USA the strategies of, for example, NASA and aerospace companies were focused on market commercial and government needs, then our strategies were focused on the only remaining reference point - the competitor, i.e. to achieve technical parity with a potential enemy. For example, the Americans created their own reusable space system to reduce the cost of servicing increasing cargo flows both into orbit and in the opposite direction. The need for such a decision was dictated by the deployment of SDI and peaceful space research programs. When creating the Energia-Buran system in the USSR, they proceeded from the need to maintain technical parity with a competitor. From the point of view of the tasks of modern domestic cosmonautics, this system turned out to be ineffective.

In the advanced industrial sectors of the USSR economy in the seventies, crisis trends were already clearly emerging. To overcome them, Chairman of the Council of Ministers Kosygin A.N. tried to implement soft economic reform. However, the political leadership ignored proposals for gradual liberalization of the economy and began to pursue austerity policies at the state level. The symbol of this policy was the slogan: “The economy must be economical.”

At the same time, at the state level they tried to solve the problem of accelerating the implementation of technical innovations in production. This was especially necessary to achieve in a number of industries of the new technological wave: the modern defense industry, the radio-electronic industry, the aerospace industry, etc., in which the rate of updating and complexity of technical systems increased most rapidly. An attempt to solve these problems was the integration of enterprises through the creation of scientific and production associations. The associations included cooperative serial factories and design bureaus with pilot production facilities. This ensured additional economies of scale, and also broke down intradepartmental barriers between the R&D and production functions. Project management was to become end-to-end, and the time frame for developing and introducing new products was to be reduced.

The basis of economic relations in society did not change; the social status of enterprises and their form of ownership, and, consequently, the system of goals, remained the same. In practice, the merger of production enterprises with design bureaus and design bureaus was often mechanistic. Another level of management appeared in the system, to which the old R&D and production structures were subordinate. Traces of these mergers in enterprises can still be found today. Thus, in design bureaus and design bureaus, the heads of topics usually had linear authority, and functional managers (heads of complexes and departments) were coordinators. In production, which was most often focused on one product or a group of closely related products, priority in the distribution of authority remained with functional managers. Project managers were, at best, part of headquarters planning units.

rice. 7. An example of the structure of an aerospace research and development organization

After the formation of the NPO, project management did not become end-to-end and the new product, developed under the leadership of the chief designer at the design bureau, was transferred to production at the plant, where other people were involved in it. In another type of organization, the chief designer acted as a line manager at the development stage, and at the production stage he became a coordinator. That is, differences in the management structures of the design bureau and production remained (see Fig. 7). At the level of organizational cultures, mutual hostility between workers at factories and design bureaus often persisted.

At the same time, the Government of the USSR, trying to solve the problem of saturating the market with consumer goods, began to re-create or transfer the production of civilian products to military-industrial complex and aerospace industry enterprises in the order of conversion. At enterprises, new areas of activity, according to established management practice, tried to be integrated into old matrix structures by introducing the position of Chief Designer for Conversion Products. This was done even in cases where there was a negative relationship between consumer goods and traditional enterprise products. As a result, such integration, along with the insusceptibility of the organizational culture to such non-prestigious innovations, most often did not allow the creation of sufficiently cheap and high-quality civilian products.

The strategies and structures of Russian defense and aerospace enterprises corresponded to the objectives of innovation management and allowed the use of technologically active innovation strategies. But the underdevelopment of strategic management systems did not allow for effective adaptation to the fundamental change in the conditions of economic activity caused by economic reform and the beginning of Russia’s integration into the international economy.

It would be wrong to reduce the reasons for the changes to the influence of market reforms and the reduction in the volume of government funding, which, since 1989, has decreased by several dozen times. These factors are only part of more complex global processes unfolding in the world economy since the seventies. The opening of Russia to the international economy and the acceleration of globalization of world industry required our enterprises to form fundamentally new strategies and management structures. The majority of Russian enterprises and the industry as a whole reacted to all external strategic changes that took place since 1987 as isolated and unrelated. And the period of developing a management response exceeded the period of development of changes.

So, in fact, still Kosyginskaya, the program for the transition to self-financing (transition of the budget-orders phases) began to be implemented only in 1989, when the state conversion program (transition of the orders-market phases) had already begun. The conversion plan was prepared and implemented until 1992, when the inevitable economic reforms had already begun in the country. A plan for a new reorganization, adequate to the ongoing processes, existed and was implemented only at some enterprises. The strategy of internationalization of activities (international regional diversification) turned out to be the most successful for enterprises in the context of globalization. After the liberalization of foreign economic activity in Russia, only individual manufacturing enterprises and enterprises in export-oriented raw materials industries that had technological advantages over foreign competitors were able to use its capabilities.

For enterprises in the high-tech sector, the main difficulty was the backwardness of technology and the lack of direct access to the most promising markets in Western countries. The solution to the problem of market access for enterprises with a competitive level of technology was to enter into strategic partnerships with leading foreign competitors. Thanks to this, our enterprises gained access to orders, and foreigners gained access to our advanced technologies. We are talking about projects such as Sea Launch, with the participation of RSC Energia and the Boeing Corporation, a joint project of the State Research and Production Space Center named after. Khrunichev with Lockheed Martin, projects of Perm Motors JSC with Lockheed Martin and Right & Whitney. To gain the freedom of action necessary for independent work in the foreign market, leading enterprises needed increased independence in making management decisions. The most striking example of increasing the independence of economic activity is the privatization of NPO Energia, which in 1994 became a rocket and space corporation.

rice. 8. Typical diagram of the organizational structure of an industrial complex

In the aviation and defense industries, traditionally closed to foreigners, internationalization took place through the promotion of products to third world markets. To successfully implement this strategy, aviation companies needed to maintain their previous cooperation. The solution to this problem was the creation of specialized groups of companies MAPO Mig and AVPC Sukhoi, which included development and production enterprises in their structure (see Fig. 8). However, for a number of subjective reasons, it was not possible to carry out a complete restructuring in this sector.

The main feature of current internationalization strategies is their lack of balance in terms of long-term effectiveness. For Russian enterprises, participation in international projects was a means of survival in the face of a significant reduction in government funding. But, entering the international market through Western partners, our enterprises did not have the opportunity to create their own infrastructure to independently promote their products. After Western partners gained access to Russian technologies of interest to them, mutual interest in cooperation and cash flows from foreign markets declined.

Evolution of methods for designing organizational structures

The development of theoretical concepts for designing management strategies and structures occurred in accordance with the evolution of practical management tasks. Using the experience of leading companies, the theory at each stage of economic development created a new “social technology” of management, effective for changing operating conditions. During the formation of basic mass production technologies and large industrial companies of the fourth great economic cycle, management was not functionally separated from technical and engineering management. The key factor in competitiveness at this time was the speed of mastering technical innovations and organizing the production process. The high importance of innovation for ensuring the effectiveness of management strategies led to the emergence of flexible structures in enterprises that did not correspond to the traditions of hierarchical rigidity of large government and financial institutions of that time.

The principles of building flexible strategies and structures were outlined by G. Ford during the emergence of the automobile market. He argued that: excessive rigidity and regulation create red tape and interfere with the rapid implementation of ideas to improve business operations; the manager is fully responsible for the work of his unit and must have unlimited decision-making powers; the organizational structure does not imply the existence of a staffing table and job descriptions, since everyone must create a place for themselves in accordance with their abilities and perform the duties necessary at the moment; official relations are based not on a formal hierarchy, but on the freedom to establish any necessary contacts between employees. Structures built in accordance with these principles ensured the required speed of decision-making and effective management of small enterprises, the management of which was based not on a clear division of tasks, but on the general organizational culture of a group of like-minded people. Gradually, technological advances became the property of many companies, which created a competitive environment. Those who succeeded in these conditions were those who ensured growth in scale by standardizing business operations, reducing costs and increasing product reliability. Such competitors easily absorbed their rivals. The means of survival for the weaker ones was to merge into larger corporations.

Entrepreneurial activity, which required capital investment, is a thing of the past. The vast majority of enterprises remained single-product and single-market. Medium-sized and, especially, large industrial companies have a need for professional leadership. So, for example, all T. Edison’s companies, having reached medium size, failed because he “didn’t even try to create a management level for them.” General Electric and Westinghouse Electric survived only by removing their founder from management and hiring professional managers to replace him. For the effective management of fast-growing enterprises in a stable external environment, a method of organizational construction was formed, which in the DuPont company was called “an association of homogeneous activities”, and in management theory - a functional organizational structure. This method of organization is based on the specialization of enterprise divisions in performing homogeneous types of work - functions of economic activity.

In management theory, the rules for constructing structures to ensure the efficiency of companies were formulated by management classics A. Fayol, F. Taylor, G. Emerson. Briefly, these rules can be stated as follows: no duplication of functions of divisions, compliance of the hierarchy of divisional goals with the goals of the entire company, unity of leadership for each employee, compliance with controllability standards, minimizing the number of hierarchy levels, centralization, ensuring decision-making at the lowest level of the hierarchy with the necessary competence .

At Lockheed Corporation, these principles were implemented in the so-called control coverage model. To optimize the number of levels of the management hierarchy and the standard of control in the structure, its developers used a comprehensive assessment of the workload of each manager according to five variables: geographical proximity of subordinates, complexity of functions, management activity, breadth of coordination and degree of uncertainty in planning. Thus, the emergence of a scientific theory of management consolidated the formation in management practice of a level of management of operational economic activities that ensures the internal efficiency of companies.

The founders of scientific management theory were among the technological innovators who were faced with the need to organize management in their fast-growing companies. Therefore, in their works, in addition to setting out the principles of operational management, there was a description of the elements of strategic management, which ensured the process of adaptation of firms to the new tasks posed by the industrial revolution. However, during the period of optimization of operations and growth in the scale of companies, this aspect of their theory turned out to be unclaimed. The principles of functional organization, starting from 1927, were supplemented by socio-psychological elements, the study of which was begun by E. Mayo, and subsequently continued by M. R. Follett, K. Argiris, M. Weber, D. McGregor, etc. These studies showed that in teams there should be psychological compatibility of employees. The motivation system must take into account the management culture of the staff. Individual and group value systems of managers and employees must correspond to their tasks within the structure and general goals of the enterprise. In general, the combination of the described functional and psychological principles ensured the effective management of industrial giants during a period of active industrial growth and widespread vertical integration strategies.

The post-World War II period in management theory was characterized by the development of systems concepts. One of the first was the theory of information by N. Wiener and K. Shannon, formulated in 1949. In it, divisions of firms were considered as entities that receive, process and transmit information. The company, thanks to information connections, became an integral system. The task of designing the structure of this system was to optimize information connections and distribute the tasks of compressing and processing information between control levels and providing effective feedback.

Within the framework of the concept of an enterprise as a purposeful system, organizational structuring was proposed to be carried out through hierarchical decomposition and synthesis of a tree of goals. By analogy with the functional principle of organization, to group goals and transfer them to the responsibility of one unit, the sign of homogeneity of goals and resources allocated to achieve them (functional potential) was used. This concept theoretically substantiated the possibility of designing various types of organizational structures using a unified methodology based on the use of system laws common to all organizations. Thus, the functional structure became a special case of a target organization, based on the sign of homogeneity of work.

For the divisional management structures that had become widespread by this time, the differentiation of goals at the highest level of management took place on the principle of full responsibility for the profitability of activities in separate, unrelated areas of activity. Product or regional departments, otherwise known as profit centers, were responsible for achieving these goals. At the next level of the hierarchy of goals within profit centers, the distribution of tasks was carried out according to a functional principle. However, divisional structures were not a simple sum of several functional substructures of profit centers. In a divisional structure, centralized functional units can be formed that provide the company with common types of resources for all departments: finance, personnel, supplies, energy, etc.

The most comprehensive approach to the design of structures was developed within the framework of the system concept of enterprise management, formulated in the works of Simon, Marg and others. Here the structure is optimized in accordance with a set of other internal and external variables: demand, competitors, institutional environment, business goals, production technology, planning and control system, interests of shareholders, management and personnel of the enterprise.

In the theory of organizations of this period, the development of the systems approach was the work of J. Thompson and J. Galbraith on situational management, which substantiated the need to adapt the management organization depending on the specific state of the main situational variables, both external and internal. Moreover, the necessary changes can range from changing the spheres of authority of managers to changing the type of organizational structure. Subsequently, these ideas were developed in the works of M. Porter and G. Mintzberg. The situational approach justified, in particular, the principles of designing so-called multiple structures, in which each department, depending on the specific operating conditions, can have different functional or matrix management substructures.

The next fundamental breakthrough in the theory and practice of management occurred in the mid-seventies, when the evolutionary concept of management was formulated. Its authors were researchers who, starting from the second half of the forties, studied the dynamics of enterprise development and the role of organizational and technical innovations in these processes. It is generally accepted that the beginning of the evolutionary concept was laid by A. Chandler, when his book “Strategy and Structure” was published in 1962. Further development of the theory was continued by I. Ansoff, R. Nelson and others. P. Drucker viewed the development of practical and theoretical management from largely similar positions. The evolutionary concept is based on research into the natural logic of the development of macroeconomic processes by N. Kondratiev and J. Schumpeter. In the context of this development, economic sectors, strategies, and company structures naturally evolve. At the same time, the random nature of the interdependencies of situational variables was replaced by a more rigid logic of evolution, based on the study of the historical retrospective of the activities of Western firms. Thus, if the situational approach assumed the existence of static, optimal strategies and structures of firms for a specific situation, then the evolutionary approach assumes the need for continuous adaptation and development.

This theoretical concept, which had been developing since the period of the management revolution of the late forties, gained recognition in the mid-seventies, when the pace of development of the external environment of companies began to rapidly increase. P. Drucker called this time “an era without patterns,” and D. Bell called it “the post-industrial era.” The evolutionary concept of management theory theoretically justified the emergence of complex multidimensional matrix management structures, used, in particular, in the aerospace industry. Thus, the emergence in management structures of so-called strategic economic centers, responsible for the development of long-term projects by the company as part of an innovative and strategic reaction, providing these developments to several technologically interconnected profit centers at once, was explained.

Within the framework of the evolutionary concept, a typification of the management structures of firms was carried out and a model of their evolution associated with the complication of the conditions of economic activity was built. But, characteristically, in organizational design, standard solutions neutralize the individual characteristics of the strategy, which form the basis of the competitive advantages of firms and create the basis for further development. This violates the principle of continuity in the development of management strategies and structures in conditions of systematic and continuous external changes characteristic of the globalization process.

In the USSR, the appearance of the first studies on the organization of enterprise management, including the problem of developing strategies and structures, dates back to the sixties. In total, in theory at this time it was customary to distinguish the following types of organizational structures: linear, functional, linear-functional, linear-staff, matrix. Linear organizational structures presupposed a clear organizational hierarchy with administrative subordination of employees to a superior manager in the absence of a clear functional specialization of departments. They represented a classic bureaucratic organization and ensured effective management in a stable external environment. Functional structures were considered as a kind of antithesis to linear structures. Their main difference from linear ones was the functional specialization of divisions according to the types of work performed. This scheme, according to the authors, ensured a higher professional level of work performance and the quality of the final product. However, such a scheme was not rigid enough to create complex products, which required specialization of departments not only according to functionality, but also according to the stages of the product life cycle and work with individual subsystems. Therefore, the functional organizational structure was considered unsuitable for large enterprises.

Line-staff structures were proposed as a means to eliminate the shortcomings of linear and functional structures. Their peculiarity was that a number of auxiliary and support functions were separated into separate centralized units that advised line managers in developing management decisions. Headquarters units had advisory powers, and their decisions were implemented through the linear administrative vertical. Line-staff structures provided qualified management of large enterprises, but, due to the long chain of decisions, they remained insufficiently flexible.

The problem of flexibility began to be solved by establishing direct management connections between headquarters functional and line units at all levels. This meant a clear distribution of responsibilities between line and functional managers. Most often, the line manager was responsible for implementing the work program and allocating resources for the department, and the functional manager provided the necessary level of specialized potential: personnel qualifications, novelty and operability of equipment. Such structures are called linearly functional. In general, the above theoretical classification of organizational structures corresponds to the typology adopted in Western management theory. The qualitative difference lies in the higher degree of abstraction and theoretical convention of the classification adopted in our country. In practice, linear and functional structures do not occur in their pure form. Moreover, the meaning of their differences disappears as soon as the differentiation of enterprise divisions begins to occur on the basis of the functions of economic activity. Linear and functional subordination are mixed. Therefore, the above concepts of linear and functional structures relate not so much to the classification types of organizational structures, but to the types of powers of the manager: linear (administrative) or functional (staff, coordination). Both types of authority occur in any organizational structure.

The typology of organizational structures should be based on the characteristic by which divisions are differentiated: functional, project, product, market, technological, regional, etc. If you follow this logic, then, indeed, functional and linear structures in the above understanding do not exist. And linear-staff and linear-functional structures are in our case varieties of functional structures according to the classification adopted in Western theory.

The features of the domestic classification of structures can be easily explained. Under the conditions of the monopolistic structure of the economy, which used the effect of scale of activity at the microeconomic level, enterprises for the most part remained single-product and single-market. Therefore, there was no variety of signs of internal differentiation. The only significant sign was functional. And secondary classification features came to the fore. Based on the characteristics of the classification of organizational structures in the USSR, various approaches to their design began to be formed. At first, the functional approach prevailed, which optimized structures based on the rules of internal efficiency outlined above when talking about the functional approach to designing structures in Western theory. After consolidation and the creation of research and production enterprises on the basis of development enterprises and serial factories, the complexity of the tasks of practical management began to exceed the possibilities of solving them when organizing management within functional structures. As a result, new approaches to organizational design were formulated: target, systemic, situational and evolutionary. But if the first three of them corresponded to similar Western theories, then the evolutionary concept had some specificity.

table 2. Chronology of the development of theoretical methods for developing strategies and management structures Period Formation of practical structures of aerospace enterprises Formation of theoretical methods

1900s – 1930s Formation of the industry Vertical integration strategies. Functional structures and large projects. Flexible functional and project structuring. 1940s – 1950s Market differentiation, rapid growth and reduction in military orders (single strategic changes) Product renewal. Unrelated diversification. Project-matrix and divisional structures. Functional and psychological methods of designing structures. 1960s – 1980s Stable development of all market sectors, technological differentiation. Multicompetitive environment of national markets. Interconnected diversification. Multidimensional matrix structures. Systemic and situational concepts of management. Target design methods. 1990s – Globalization of the world economy. Strategic transformation of markets. Consolidation of companies in conditions of international competition. Formation of multidimensional structures with departments in all significant technological, product and market areas. Evolutionary concept of economic and management development

1970s – 1980s The beginning of economic changes, later - instability of orders Consolidation and integration of developing and manufacturing enterprises into scientific and production enterprises. Elements of divisional structures in conversion areas, program-targeted, situational and evolutionary design methods, 1920s - 1960s. Stable growth in a deterministic economic environment Development, production and renewal of products. Linear-functional and design-matrix structures. Functional and system design methods

Within the framework of this approach, in domestic management practice it was customary to identify the formal parameters of structures and establish possible typical values ​​of these parameters. Based on such a parametric model, a structure classifier with a cipher system was created. By observing and recording the values ​​of parameters of practical structures, conclusions were made about stable trends in their development and optimal values ​​of parameters. So, in 1972-1975 Of the 24 research institutes, 18 changed their classification codes. The advantage of this approach is its dynamism and practicality. The disadvantages are related to the fact that a structure designed according to this principle will solve new promising problems of the enterprise, focusing on past organizational experience and standard structural parameters. And the shortcomings of standard organizational solutions have already been discussed earlier.

In general, an analysis of the concepts of designing strategies and management structures shows that the development of the theory provided solutions to problems arising in the practical activities of companies and enterprises. This is also evidenced by the chronological correspondence of the evolution of management problems, advanced practical solutions and theoretical concepts (see Table 2). The generalization of advanced practical solutions forms the basis of theoretical management models, which are subsequently replicated by everyone who wants to solve similar problems.

--Nikolay alekseev 10:35, September 7, 2011 (MSD)

Structure is the logical relationship between management functions and the functioning of areas, built in such a form that allows the most effective achievement of the organization's goals. The structure of production is understood as the number, composition of departments, management levels in an interconnected unified system.

Principles of formation of organizational structures:

The structure must reflect the goals and objectives of the company (i.e., be subordinate to production and change with it).

The structure should reflect the functions of the division of labor and the scope of authority (procedural policies, rules, job descriptions).

The structure must reflect the characteristics of the external environment.

The structure should reflect the correspondence between functions and authorities.

Types of company management structures:

Linear.

The linear organizational structure of management is characterized by the fact that at the head of each structural unit there is a single manager, vested with all powers and exercising sole management of the employees subordinate to him and concentrating in his hands all management functions.

With linear management, each link and each subordinate has one manager, through whom all management commands pass through one single channel. In this case, management levels are responsible for the results of all activities of managed objects. We are talking about the object-by-object allocation of managers, each of whom performs all types of work, develops and makes decisions related to the management of a given object.

Since in a linear management structure decisions are passed down the chain “from top to bottom”, and the head of the lower level of management is subordinate to the manager of a higher level above him, a kind of hierarchy of managers of this particular organization is formed. In this case, the principle of unity of command applies, the essence of which is that subordinates carry out the orders of only one leader. A higher management body does not have the right to give orders to any executors, bypassing their immediate superior.

In a linear structure, the organization's management system is arranged according to production characteristics, taking into account the degree of concentration of production, technological features, range of products, etc.

The linear management structure is logically more harmonious and formally defined, but at the same time less flexible. Each of the managers has full power, but relatively little ability to solve functional problems that require narrow, specialized knowledge.

The linear organizational management structure has its advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages	Flaws
Clear delineation of responsibility and competence	High professional requirements for the manager;
Simple control;	Complex communications between performers;
Fast and economical forms of decision making;	Low level of specialization of managers;
Simple hierarchical communications;
Personalized responsibility.

Functional.

The functional management structure is a structure formed in accordance with the main areas of activity of the organization, where divisions are combined into blocks. For most medium and large enterprises or organizations, the main approach to the formation of divisions is functional. Functions in this case mean the main areas of activity, for example, production, finance, sales, etc. In accordance with the functions, blocks of divisions are formed - production, management, social.

The separation of individual divisions within blocks is carried out in accordance with one of the approaches discussed above or several at the same time. For example, workshops can be organized taking into account the products produced, and sections - based on the technologies used in them.

The production block includes the main divisions associated with the production of specialized products or the provision of services; auxiliary, providing the necessary conditions for the normal functioning of the main units; divisions serving main and auxiliary processes; experimental divisions where prototypes of products are manufactured. It is clear that, depending on the nature of the organization’s activities, the role of certain divisions of the production structure is different - prototypes are not created everywhere, auxiliary production is not available everywhere, etc.

The management block includes pre-production units (R&D, etc.); information (library, archive); service departments dealing with issues of marketing research, sales, warranty service; administrative (directorate, accounting, planning service, legal department); advisory (committees and commissions working to improve the organization and technology of production and management).

The third block of the organization's functional structure consists of divisions of the social sphere - health centers, clubs, children's institutions, recreation centers.

Areas of application of the functional management structure:

Single-product enterprises;

Enterprises implementing complex and long-term innovative projects;

Large specialized enterprises;

Research and development organizations;

Highly specialized enterprises.

Specific management tasks with a functional management structure:

Difficulty of communications;

Careful selection of specialist managers in functional departments;

Leveling the load of units;

Ensuring coordination of functional units;

Development of special motivational mechanisms;

Preventing separatist development of functional units;

Priority of specialists over line managers.

The functional management structure has its advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages	Flaws
Professional specialization of department heads;	Lack of unified technical guidance for products and projects;
Reducing the risk of erroneous events;	Reduced personal responsibility for the final result;
	The difficulty of monitoring the progress of the process as a whole and for individual projects;
High coordination capabilities;	Blurred responsibility and boundaries of competence.
Ease of formation and implementation of a unified innovation policy.

Linear - functional.

Linear-functional (Multilinear organizational) management structure is characterized by the fact that functional management is carried out by a certain set of units specialized in performing specific types of work necessary for making decisions in the linear management system.

The idea of ​​this management structure is that the performance of certain functions on specific issues is assigned to specialists, that is, each management body (or performer) is specialized in performing certain types of activities. In an organization, as a rule, specialists of the same profile are united in specialized structural units (departments), for example, the marketing department, planning department, accounting, logistics, etc. Thus, the overall task of managing an organization is divided, starting from the middle level, according to functional criteria. Functional and line management exist together, which creates double subordination for performers.

As can be seen in the diagram, instead of universal managers who must understand and perform all management functions, a staff of specialists appears who have high competence in their field and are responsible for a certain direction. This functional specialization of the management apparatus significantly increases the effectiveness of the organization.

The linear-functional management structure has its positive aspects and disadvantages:

Advantages	Flaws
High professional level of preparation of solutions;	Difficulty in preparing and agreeing on decisions;
Fast communication;	Lack of unified leadership;
Relieving top management;	Duplication of orders and communications;
Professional specialization of the manager;	The difficulty of lack of control;
Reducing the need for generalists	A relatively frozen organizational form that has difficulty responding to changes.

Linear staff structure.

With a line-staff organizational structure of management, full power is assumed by the line manager who heads a certain team. The line manager is assisted by a special apparatus consisting of functional units (directorates, departments, bureaus, etc.) in developing specific issues and preparing appropriate decisions, programs, plans.

In this case, the functional structures of the divisions are subordinate to the chief line manager. They implement their decisions either through the chief executive or (within the limits of their authority) directly through the relevant heads of the performing services. The line-staff structure includes special functional units (headquarters) under line managers that help them carry out the organization’s tasks

The line-staff organizational structure of management has its positive aspects and disadvantages:

Project management structure

In management, a project is, moreover, a temporary unit that is liquidated after completion of work. As a rule, these works involve conducting scientific and practical experiments, mastering a new type of product, technology, and management methods, which is always associated with the risk of failure and financial losses. An organization consisting of such units is called a project organization.

Project management structures are mobile and focused on a specific type of activity. This allows us to achieve high quality work. At the same time, due to their narrow specialization, the resources used in the project cannot always be used for further use upon completion of the work, which increases costs. Therefore, not all organizations can afford the use of project structures, despite the fact that such a principle of organizing work is very fruitful.

One of the forms of project management is the creation of a special unit - a project team (group) working on a temporary basis, that is, for the time necessary to implement the project tasks. The group usually includes various specialists, including work management. The project manager is vested with so-called project powers, covering responsibility for planning, scheduling and progress of work, spending allocated funds, as well as for material incentives for workers. In this regard, the manager’s ability to develop a project management concept, distribute tasks among group members, clearly outline priorities and constructively approach conflict resolution is of great importance. At the end of the project, the structure dissolves and employees move to a new project team or return to their permanent position. In contract work, they are fired in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

Thus, the scope of application of design structures are:

When creating a new enterprise;

When creating a new innovative product;

Institutions, subsidiaries or branches;

Conducting large-scale R&D;

A temporary organization created to solve individual problems.

Specific management tasks under a project management structure are:

Justification of criteria, identification of target projects;

Specific requirements for the selection of project managers;

Ensuring a unified innovation policy;

Preventing conflicts due to milking subordination of employees;

Development of special innovative mechanisms regulating intra-company cooperation.

The project management structure has its positive aspects and disadvantages:

Advantages	Flaws
High flexibility and adaptability of systems;	Complex coordination mechanisms;
Reducing the risk of wrong decisions;	Possible conflicts due to double subordination;
Professional specialization of heads of functional departments;	Blurred responsibility for an individual project;
Possibility of taking into account specific conditions of the region;	Difficulty in monitoring work on the project as a whole;
Delineation of areas of responsibility;	The need to differentiate control by function and project.
Personnel autonomy of functional units;	Targeted project management based on unity of command.

Matrix structure .

A matrix management structure is created by combining two types of structures: linear and program-targeted. During the functioning of the program-target structure, the control action is aimed at fulfilling a specific target task, in the solution of which all parts of the organization participate.

The entire set of works to implement a given final goal is not considered from the standpoint of achieving the goal provided for by the program. The main attention is focused not so much on improving individual departments, but on integrating all types of activities, creating conditions conducive to the effective implementation of the target program. At the same time, program managers are responsible both for its implementation as a whole and for the coordination and high-quality performance of management functions.

In accordance with the linear structure (vertical), management is built in individual areas of the organization’s activities: R&D, production, sales, supply, etc. Within the framework of the program-target structure (horizontally), the management of programs (projects, topics) is organized. The creation of a matrix organizational structure for managing an organization is considered appropriate if there is a need to develop a number of new complex products in a short time, introduce technological innovations and quickly respond to market fluctuations.

Matrix structures are used in the following areas:

Multi-industry enterprises with a significant amount of R&D;

Holding companies.

Matrix management structures have opened up a qualitatively new direction in the development of the most flexible and active program-targeted management structures. They are aimed at boosting the creative initiative of managers and specialists and identifying opportunities to significantly improve production efficiency.

The main objectives of management under a matrix management structure are:

Ensuring a unified innovation policy in all product groups;

Determination of the composition of functional services and divisions;

Careful preparation of regulations on departments and job descriptions;

Development of special motivational mechanisms regulating intra-company cooperation;

Providing centralized management of facilities.

As can be seen, special staff bodies are introduced into the established linear structure, which coordinate significant horizontal connections for the implementation of a specific program, while maintaining the vertical relationships inherent in this structure. The bulk of the workers involved in the implementation of the program find themselves subordinate to at least two managers, but on different issues.

Program management is carried out by specially appointed managers who are responsible for coordinating all communications within the program and achieving its goals in a timely manner. At the same time, top-level managers are freed from the need to make decisions on current issues. As a result, at the middle and lower levels the efficiency of management and responsibility for the quality of execution of specific operations and procedures increases, that is, the role of heads of specialized departments in organizing work according to a clearly defined program is noticeably increased.

With a matrix management structure, the program (project) manager does not work with specialists who report not directly to him, but to line managers, and basically determines what and when should be done for a specific program. Line managers decide who will do this or that work and how.

The matrix management structure has its advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages	Flaws
Clear differentiation by products (projects);	High demands on line and functional managers;
High flexibility and adaptability of the main divisions;	High requirements for communication;
Economic and administrative independence of divisions;	Difficulties and lengthy coordination when making a conceptual decision;
High professional qualifications of functional managers;	Weakening of personal responsibility and motivation;
Favorable conditions for a collective leadership style;	The need and danger of compromise solutions;
Ease of development and implementation of a unified policy.	The possibility of conflict between line and functional managers due to the dual subordination of the former.

Requirements for building management structures:

Efficiency (i.e. the control action must reach the control object before the change occurs (it will be “too late”)).

Reliability.

Optimality.

Economical.

But the structure must first of all correspond to the goals, given principles and methods of managing the company. Forming a structure means assigning specific functions to departments.

Structure formation technology:

Divide the organization horizontally into broad groups (blocks) according to areas of activity and implementation of strategies. Decisions are made which activities should be performed by line and which by functional structures.

Establish the relationship of powers of various positions (i.e. establish a chain of command; if necessary, make further divisions).

Determine the job responsibilities of each department (define tasks, functions) and entrust their implementation to specific individuals.

Organizational process is the process of creating the organizational structure of an enterprise.

The organizational process consists of the following stages:

• dividing the organization into divisions according to strategies;
• relationships of powers.

Delegation is the transfer of tasks and powers to a person who assumes responsibility for their implementation. If the manager has not delegated the task, then he must complete it himself (M.P. Follett). If the company grows, the entrepreneur may not be able to cope with delegation.

Responsibility— obligation to carry out existing tasks and be responsible for their satisfactory resolution. Responsibility cannot be delegated. The amount of responsibility is the reason for high salaries for managers.

Authority- limited right to use the organization's resources and direct the efforts of its employees to perform certain tasks. Authority is delegated to the position, not the individual. The limits of authority are limitations.

is the real ability to act. If power is what one can actually do, then authority is the right to do.

Line and staff powers

Linear authority is transferred directly from a superior to a subordinate and then to another subordinate. A hierarchy of management levels is created, forming its stepwise nature, i.e. scalar chain.

Staff powers are an advisory, personal apparatus (presidential administration, secretariat). There is no downward chain of command at headquarters. Great power and authority are concentrated in headquarters.

Building organizations

The manager transfers his rights and powers. Structure development is usually done from the top down.

Stages of organizational design:

• divide the organization horizontally into broad blocks;
• establish the balance of powers for positions;
• define job responsibilities.

An example of constructing a management structure is the bureaucratic model of an organization according to M. Weber.

Organizational structure of the enterprise

The ability of an enterprise to adapt to changes in the external environment is influenced by how the enterprise is organized and how the management structure is built. The organizational structure of an enterprise is a set of links (structural divisions) and connections between them.

The choice of organizational structure depends on factors such as:

• organizational and legal form of the enterprise;
• field of activity (type of products, their range and range);
• scale of the enterprise (production volume, number of personnel);
• markets that the enterprise enters in the process of economic activity;
• technologies used;
• information flows inside and outside the company;
• degree of relative resource endowment, etc.

When considering the organizational structure of enterprise management, the levels of interaction are also taken into account:

• organizations with ;
• divisions of the organization;
• organizations with people.

An important role here is played by the structure of the organization through which and through which this interaction is carried out. Company structure- this is the composition and relationship of its internal links and departments.

Organizational management structures

Different organizations are characterized by different types of management structures. However, there are usually several universal types of organizational management structures, such as linear, line-staff, functional, line-functional, matrix. Sometimes, within a single company (usually a large business), separate divisions are separated, the so-called departmentalization. Then the created structure will be divisional. It must be remembered that the choice of management structure depends on the strategic plans of the organization.

The organizational structure regulates:

• division of tasks into departments and divisions;
• their competence in solving certain problems;
• the general interaction of these elements.

Thus, the company is created as a hierarchical structure.

Basic laws of rational organization:

• organizing tasks according to the most important points in the process;
• bringing management tasks into line with the principles of competence and responsibility, coordinating the “solution field” and available information, the ability of competent functional units to take on new tasks);
• mandatory distribution of responsibility (not for the area, but for the “process”);
• short control paths;
• balance of stability and flexibility;
• ability for goal-oriented self-organization and activity;
• the desirability of stability of cyclically repeated actions.

Linear structure

Let's consider a linear organizational structure. It is characterized by a vertical: top manager - line manager (divisions) - performers. There are only vertical connections. In simple organizations there are no separate functional divisions. This structure is built without highlighting functions.

Linear management structure

Advantages: simplicity, specificity of tasks and performers.
Flaws: high requirements for the qualifications of managers and high workload for managers. The linear structure is used and effective in small enterprises with simple technology and minimal specialization.

Line-staff organizational structure

As you grow enterprises, as a rule, have a linear structure converted to line-staff. It is similar to the previous one, but control is concentrated in headquarters. A group of workers appears who do not directly give orders to the performers, but carry out consulting work and prepare management decisions.

Line-staff management structure

Functional organizational structure

With the further complication of production, the need arises for the specialization of workers, sections, departments of workshops, etc., a functional management structure is being formed. Work is distributed according to functions.

With a functional structure, the organization is divided into elements, each of which has a specific function and task. It is typical for organizations with a small nomenclature and stable external conditions. Here there is a vertical: manager - functional managers (production, marketing, finance) - performers. There are vertical and inter-level connections. Disadvantage: the manager’s functions are blurred.

Functional management structure

Advantages: deepening specialization, improving the quality of management decisions; ability to manage multi-purpose and multi-disciplinary activities.
Flaws: lack of flexibility; poor coordination of the actions of functional departments; low speed of making management decisions; lack of responsibility of functional managers for the final result of the enterprise.

Linear-functional organizational structure

With a linear-functional management structure, the main connections are linear, the complementary ones are functional.

Linear-functional management structure

Divisional organizational structure

In large companies, to eliminate the shortcomings of functional management structures, the so-called divisional management structure is used. Responsibilities are distributed not by function, but by product or region. In turn, divisional departments create their own units for supply, production, sales, etc. In this case, prerequisites arise for relieving senior managers by freeing them from solving current problems. The decentralized management system ensures high efficiency within individual departments.
Flaws: increased costs for management personnel; complexity of information connections.

The divisional management structure is built on the basis of the allocation of divisions, or divisions. This type is currently used by most organizations, especially large corporations, since it is impossible to squeeze the activities of a large company into 3-4 main departments, as in a functional structure. However, a long chain of commands can lead to uncontrollability. It is also created in large corporations.

Divisional management structure Divisions can be distinguished according to several characteristics, forming structures of the same name, namely:

• grocery.Departments are created by type of product. Characterized by polycentricity. Such structures have been created at General Motors, General Foods, and partly at Russian Aluminum. The authority for the production and marketing of this product is transferred to one manager. The disadvantage is duplication of functions. This structure is effective for developing new types of products. There are vertical and horizontal connections;
• regional structure. Departments are created at the location of company divisions. In particular, if the company has international activities. For example, Coca-Cola, Sberbank. Effective for geographical expansion of market areas;
• customer-oriented organizational structure. Divisions are formed around specific consumer groups. For example, commercial banks, institutes (advanced training, second higher education). Effective in meeting demand.

Matrix organizational structure

In connection with the need to accelerate the pace of product renewal, program-targeted management structures, called matrix ones, arose. The essence of matrix structures is that temporary working groups are created in existing structures, while resources and employees of other departments are transferred to the group leader in double subordination.

With a matrix management structure, project groups (temporary) are formed to implement targeted projects and programs. These groups find themselves in double subordination and are created temporarily. This achieves flexibility in the distribution of personnel and effective implementation of projects. Disadvantages: complexity of the structure, occurrence of conflicts. Examples include aerospace enterprises and telecommunications companies carrying out large projects for customers.

Matrix management structure

Advantages: flexibility, acceleration of innovation, personal responsibility of the project manager for work results.
Flaws: the presence of double subordination, conflicts due to double subordination, the complexity of information connections.

Corporate or is considered as a special system of relationships between people in the process of their joint activities. Corporations as a social type of organization are closed groups of people with limited access, maximum centralization, authoritarian leadership, opposing themselves to other social communities based on their narrow corporate interests. Thanks to the pooling of resources and, first of all, human ones, a corporation as a form of organizing the joint activities of people represents and provides the opportunity for the very existence and reproduction of a particular social group. However, the unification of people into corporations occurs through their division according to social, professional, caste and other criteria.

Organizational management structures

Mechanical organizational management structures

The structure reflects the structure of the system, i.e. composition and relationship of its elements. The elements of the system form a whole due to the connection between them. The following elements are distinguished in the organizational structure: links (divisions, departments, bureaus, etc.), levels (management levels) and connections - horizontal and vertical. Horizontal connections are of the nature of coordination and, as a rule, one-level. Vertical connections are connections of subordination; their necessity arises when there are several levels or levels of management (hierarchy). Relationships in the structure can be linear and functional, formal and informal. Thus, the organizational structure is a set of management units, between which a system of relationships has been established, designed to ensure the implementation of various types of work, functions and processes to achieve certain goals.

Each organization is characterized by a greater or lesser degree of specialization, formalization and centralization. Their combinations significantly affect the performance of individual employees, groups, and the organizations themselves. There are two main models of organization: mechanical and organic.

The essence mechanical approach to building an organization is that the organization is viewed as a system that is similar to a machine. It works according to the established order, accurately and reliably. The work performed at a given time is planned in advance and can be anticipated. The technology for performing the work is quite simple. People perform repetitive, automatic operations, actions and movements. In such an organization there is a high level of standardization, which applies not only to products, technology, raw materials, equipment, but also to the behavior of people. Mechanical organization management has the following characteristics:

– clearly defined formal tasks;

– narrow specialization of work;

– centralized structure;

– strict hierarchy of powers;

– predominance of vertical connections;

– use of formal rules and procedures, impersonality of relationships;

– power is based on the position that the leader occupies in the hierarchy;

– resistance to change;

– strict control system.

Usually an organization that works like a machine is called bureaucratic. The efficiency of its activities is ensured by saving time, high productivity and quality of work based on specialization of labor, division of functions and powers, training, rationalization, control, i.e. due to the high degree of organization of the system. Mechanical organizational management structures include: linear, functional, linear-functional, divisional.

Linear organizational management structure

This is the simplest organizational management structure (OMS). At the head of each production or management unit is a manager who is vested with full powers and exercises sole management of the employees subordinate to him and concentrates all management functions in his hands. Decisions are passed down the chain top down. The head of the lower level of management is subordinate to the head of the higher one.

Rice. 4.1. Scheme of linear organization of the management structure

This is how the subordination of managers at various levels develops vertically (line), who carry out administrative and functional management simultaneously (Fig. 4.1). Moreover, subordinates carry out the orders of only one leader. Every subordinate has a boss. Each boss has several subordinates. The linear management structure is logically more harmonious, but less flexible. Each of the managers has full power, but relatively little ability to solve functional problems that require narrow specialized knowledge.

Let us note the main advantages of linear OSU.

1. Unity, clarity and ease of management.

2. Coordination of actions of performers.

3. Speed ​​in decision making.

4. Personal responsibility of each manager for the final result.

However, this structure has disadvantages.

1. Concentration of power in the upper levels of management.

2. High requirements for the manager, who must have extensive, versatile knowledge and experience in all management functions and areas of activity carried out by employees subordinate to him.

3. Overload of information, a huge flow of papers, many contacts with both subordinates and superiors.

4. Lack of links for planning and preparing decisions.

At present, linear OSU in its pure form is not used anywhere except in the army, where such a structure exists at the lower levels of army organizations or in the management of small and medium-sized firms engaged in simple production in the absence of broad cooperative ties between enterprises. When the scale of production is larger and the range of problems being solved increases, both the technical and organizational level increases. The linear structure turns out to be ineffective because the manager cannot know everything and therefore cannot manage well. At the same time, it is present as an element of the formal structure in all administrative organizations, in which relations between the heads of production departments are built on the basis of the principle of unity of command.

Functional organizational structure of management

Rice. 4.2. Functional organizational structure diagram

AND This OSU is sometimes called traditional or classical because it was the first structure to be studied and developed. Its essence lies in the fact that the performance of certain functions on specific issues is assigned to specialists. Specialists of the same profile are united into structural units and make decisions that are mandatory for production units. The general task of managing an organization is divided, starting from the middle level, according to functional criteria. Each management body or executive is specialized in performing certain types of activities. Thus, a staff of specialists appears who have high competence in their field and are responsible for a certain area (Fig. 4.2).

The functional structure is based on subordination by areas of management activity. In fact, a particular unit has several senior managers. For example, the head of a workshop with such a structure will have heads of the departments of supply, sales, planning, remuneration, etc. But each of them has the right to influence only in his own field of activity.

This functional specialization of the management apparatus significantly increases the effectiveness of the organization. The line manager has the opportunity to deal more with operational management issues, since functional specialists free him from solving special issues. Functional units receive the right, within the limits of their authority, to give instructions and orders to lower units.

Advantages of a functional OSU:

1) high competence of specialists responsible for the implementation of specific functions;

2) exemption of line managers from resolving special issues;

3) reducing the need for general specialists;

4) standardization and programming of phenomena and processes;

5) eliminating duplication in the performance of management functions.

The functional management structure is aimed at performing constantly recurring routine tasks that do not require prompt decision-making.

The disadvantages of functional structures include:

1) the difficulty of maintaining constant relationships between various functional services;

2) lengthy decision-making procedure;

3) lack of mutual understanding and unity between employees of functional services of different production departments of the company;

4) reducing the responsibility of performers for work as a result of depersonalization in the performance of their duties, since each performer receives instructions from several managers;

5) duplication and non-coordination of instructions and orders received by employees “from above”, since each functional manager and specialized department puts their issues first;

6) violation of the principles of unity of command and unity of management.

Functional organization aims to stimulate quality and creativity, as well as to strive for economies of scale in the production of goods or services. However, the implementation of different functions involves different time frames, goals and principles, which makes coordination and planning difficult. The logic of this organization is centrally coordinated specialization.

The functional organizational chart is still used in mid-sized companies. It is advisable to use such a structure in those organizations that produce a relatively limited range of products, operate in stable external conditions and require standard management tasks to ensure their functioning. However, the functional structure is practically never used in its pure form. It is used in close limited combination with a linear structure operating along the top-down management hierarchy and is based on the strict subordination of the lower management level to the higher one.

Functional organizational structure - management, which is carried out using a set of specialized units to perform certain types of work that are necessary for decision making.

Basic Concepts

Organizational structure is a special form used in the division of labor in the process of production management. Each separate division is created to perform specific management functions or work. To effectively perform their functions, units and their officials are vested with certain rights. This is necessary both for the rational management of resources and for the distribution of responsibility for performing the functions assigned to one or another department.

Relationships in the organizational structure

Any business entity has its own functional organizational structure, the diagram of which should reflect both the static position of structural units and the nature of their relationships.

The following connections are known:

• linear, expressed in administrative subordination;
• functional, which can be defined without direct administrative subordination in the field of activity;
• cooperative (cross-functional), represented by connections between individual departments of the same level.

There is a slightly different classification of organizational structures:

• functional;
• linear;
• linear-functional;
• divisional;
• matrix;
• multiple.

Linear-functional organizational management structure

In this type of management structure, the chief provides leadership to lower-level structural units for absolutely all types of economic activity. The linear-functional organizational management structure has the following advantages: efficiency, simplicity and extreme unity of command. However, there is also some drawback - rather high requirements for the qualifications of managers. Today, such an organization of management cannot be found in modern business entities.

Features of some types of management structures

A functional organizational structure is capable of connecting the administrative and functional branches of management.
However, in a structure of this type, cooperation is often difficult and the principle of unity of command is violated. Therefore, it is very rarely seen in practice.

The linear organizational and functional structure of the organization has a stepped hierarchical form. With such an organization of management, managers must be single-managers. They are assisted mainly by various functional organs. At the same time, the bosses of the lower levels are not directly subordinate to the heads of the highest hierarchy. This type of management is most widespread in enterprises. Such a functional organizational structure is also known under another name - “headquarters”, due to the fact that management at one level constitutes the corresponding headquarters of its line manager.

Branch and matrix management structures

The branch (divisional) structure has this name due to the fact that branches (divisions) must be allocated either geographically or by field of activity.

A matrix functional organizational structure is characterized by the presence of two or more superiors for the performer. For example, one is a line manager, and the other is the head of a certain direction or program. This scheme was quite common in R&D. Today it is used in modern companies that carry out work in several directions simultaneously. It can completely displace the linear-functional organizational structure.

As for the multiple structure, in this case we are talking about the unification of different structures at different management levels. For example, a divisional management structure is used for a company, and in its branches - a matrix or linear-functional one.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of a functional management structure include:

The organizational and functional structure of the enterprise also has some disadvantages, among which are the following:

• certain difficulties in maintaining constant relationships between structural divisions;
• long period of decision making;
• there is no unity and mutual understanding in actions between divisions of a business entity;
• reducing the level of responsibility of performers for the work performed, as a result of which each individual performer can receive instructions from several superiors at once;
• inconsistency and duplication of orders and instructions that employees receive due to the fact that each line manager considers his own issue to be the most important.