What is the name of changing the structure of the organization for the better. Change in organizational structure

The organizational structure should be adequate to the goals and objectives of the organization. Such an adequate structure contributes to an increase in the feeling of job satisfaction, an increase in the motivation of employees and, ultimately, ensures an increase in the quality of the product or service provided to consumers. Conversely, an inadequate structure that does not correspond to the urgent needs and tasks of the organization does not allow the organization to work effectively.

Many organizational problems on the surface, they seem to have nothing to do with the structure, but in reality they are connected with the requirements of restructuring in the most direct way. For example, the answers to the following questions are closely related to the characteristics of the structure of the organization and may change depending on changes in the structure.

1. Does the manager have sufficient authority to make decisions independently and what should be done to expand such authority?
2. How many people should a manager report directly to, and what are the consequences for the organization of increasing or decreasing their number?
3. What is the optimal level of specialization of personnel in the organization?
4. How detailed should the duties of the organization's employees be spelled out in job descriptions?
5. Does the presence of two bosses for one employee create problems and what are the consequences of such problems for the organization?

An important source of the need for restructuring can be the adopted strategy of the organization. As a rule, its implementation requires structural changes. These may be strategic objectives such as the development and introduction of a new product or service to the market, a merger or acquisition of organizations, a change in culture, a reduction in the number of levels of management to increase its efficiency, the threat of a crisis (equally of internal or external origin), a change of ownership or top management and much more. They will require the expansion of the functions of some departments and the narrowing of others, the creation of new departments and the closure of old ones, the reassignment of individuals and entire departments of the organization, the redirection of raw materials and financial resources, changes in the functions of departments, their merger or separation, and many other activities that require changes organizational structure.

Another typical source of restructuring is related to company growth. The increase in such quantitative characteristics as the number of personnel, production volume, marginal costs, sales volumes, etc., is non-linear, which means more complex relationships than a simple proportional increase in managerial efforts and resources, corresponding to the growth parameters of the organization.

Such a non-linear dependence for the required additional number of managers due to the growth in the number of employees is shown in Fig. 8.1. It follows from the graph that an increase in the number of employees from 2 to 3 thousand people (i.e. one and a half times) requires a 33% increase in the number of managers, while an increase in the number of employees from 10,000 to 15,000 (i.e. . also one and a half times) requires only a 14% increase in the number of managers. It follows that with an increase in the number of personnel in organizations of the same type, but significantly different in size, the structural problems will also be different.

Rice. 8.1.

But why do organizations tend to reduce the number of managers and levels of hierarchy as they grow? The answer to this question is related to the problems that arise in "high", or multi-level, organizations. These problems can be represented as follows:

- volume of control;
- managerial hierarchies;
- centralization and decentralization;
- specialization;
- regulation;
- unity of command and double subordination;
- communications.

Let us consider how these problems manifest themselves and what ways to solve them can be proposed.

Scope of control. This concept reflects the number of employees directly subordinate to the manager. On fig. 8.2 shows the so-called "high" management structure with seven levels, where the director has the most direct reports (4 deputies), while the rest of the unit managers have from one to three. Therefore, in such an organization, the maximum amount of control is four.

Rice. 8.2. "High" organizational structure

In "flat" organizational structures, the number of management levels usually does not exceed three. Such organizations have a number of advantages, but, as a rule, it is necessary to significantly expand the scope of management. Shown in Fig. 8.3, the flat structure provides the amount of management for the director, equal to five, and for his deputies, equal to seven.

Rice. 83. "Flat" organizational structure

Is it a lot or a little? It is impossible to unequivocally answer this question, since the optimal amount of control may depend on many factors.

1. From the degree of interconnectedness of the work performed by subordinates (work is called "interconnected" if one of them cannot be completed before the second is completed). Thus, the control of subordinates becomes more complex when the interconnectedness of the tasks they perform is strengthened, and, consequently, the amount of control is reduced.
2. From the personal qualities and experience of the manager. Less experienced managers spend more time organizing work and supervising subordinates. Important personal qualities that determine the possible optimal amount of management are character traits, the type of temperament (sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, melancholic), the presence of pronounced leadership traits, perseverance and perseverance in achieving goals, communication skills and a number of others.
3. From the relation to beginners. If it is customary in an organization to make an effort to prepare newly hired employees for independent work (mentoring), then the amount of management will be reduced, as managers will devote more time to newcomers.
4. From the degree of similarity of work. If all or most of the members of a group (department, subdivision, etc.) perform similar or slightly different work, the manager can control more people, i.e. the amount of control increases.
5. From the likelihood of unexpected, non-standard problems. If subordinates often encounter problems that require a special, non-standard approach, then the manager will have to actively participate in the process of finding their solution, which inevitably reduces the amount of management.
6. From the localization of jobs. If all team members work in the same room, this makes it easier to manage their activities. If they work in different locations (and maybe in different buildings or different geographic locations), it is more difficult to manage their work, so the amount of control will be reduced.

A manager with a large amount of control, with a high interconnection of tasks performed by his subordinates, works much more intensively, often getting into time trouble when one group has completed a task, but cannot proceed to the next one, since the other group has not yet completed its part of the task. Let's imagine a situation in the construction of a building, when one team mounts the walls, another team makes electrical wiring along these walls, and the third team is engaged in leveling the walls and painting them. If the first for some reason falls behind in the construction of the walls, the other two will also be forced to stop working. The manager-foreman will have to urgently take some measures (for example, remove the idle team of painters and transfer to another site), which lead to the cost of not only time, but also "nervous energy".

If a manager has an excessive amount of control, then such cases will be repeated very often, and, as a result, he will experience overload, stress, overwork, and ultimately his subordinates will most likely experience a lack of attention to their problems precisely when they especially need guidance. This situation not only reduces the motivation of the performers, but also leads to a poor assessment of the work of the manager by higher managers. As a result, the organizational climate worsens, the main efforts of managers and subordinates are directed to the "transfer of arrows" - the search for someone who can be blamed for the failure of the task. Better with a scapegoat!

It is also not very good when the amount of control is significantly underestimated. In this case, the manager may be weary of idleness, he may have a feeling of his own insignificance, the indifference of the leadership to his work.

The absence of universal rules for establishing the optimal amount of control requires a situational solution of the problem. But this situational approach requires a realistic view: the best solution may be unattainable due to personnel, time, budgetary, technological and other restrictions. Let's explain this with an example.

Suppose we are investigating a small organization that is engaged in innovative research in the field of electronics. Its block diagram is shown in fig. 8.4.

Rice. 8.4.

Two heads of research areas are subordinated to the director, who work in the same area, by deciding various tasks. It follows from the scheme that the amount of control of the director is equal to two. This means that the director has the opportunity to meet with the heads of research areas almost daily and delve into literally all the particular issues of their work. This can be useful if the director is not only an administrator, but also highly qualified in the field of research that the groups are involved in.

However, the scope of management of line managers is heavily overloaded: to effectively manage twelve specialists, each of whom is engaged in non-standard, creative work, and when the problems of each of them, requiring the intervention of the leader, are unique, it is almost impossible. This is manifested in the fact that managers constantly complain to the director about the lack of time, the overload of administrative work to the detriment of research and ask them to take some measures. The director invites a restructuring planning consultant and considers his recommendations.

The first recommendation (Fig. 8.5) is related to the proposal to organize four study groups (two for each direction), adding the positions of two more group leaders. These leaders can be selected from the rank and file, highlighting the most experienced and with leadership skills.

Rice . 8.5.

Also suppose that the work in each of the areas can be divided into two parts, each of which will be assigned to a separate group. Such a proposal does indeed reduce the number of researchers in the groups to an acceptable level, but the director does not like it. He gives two arguments against: first, in the organization, as there were two research projects and so they remained. Therefore, the leaders of groups 1a and 16 will work on one research task, and the leaders of groups 2a and 26 on another.

The director will inevitably face duplication of discussion of problems and their solutions for each of the directions or will be forced to meet with the leaders of the first and second directions in pairs. In addition, conflicts may arise between two leaders of groups of the same direction, as the groups will seek a "fair" distribution common resources. Secondly, the reorganization will be tantamount to reducing the number of researchers by one person, since the two new team leaders will now spend half their time on administrative work and half for research.

Another suggestion of the consultant removes these objections: it is necessary to leave two deputies reporting to the director, each of whom heads his own research area, where two groups of six researchers work. Of course, in order to implement this change, four additional team leaders will need to be hired (Figure 8.6).

Rice. 8.6.

This proposal was also rejected by the director: firstly, the management structure is becoming more cumbersome, it is obvious that decisions in it will be made and implemented more slowly, and communications from the contractor to the director will be stretched, which will inevitably affect the timing of projects. Secondly, it is not easy to hire specialists who are highly competent in this scientific field, and who also have the skills to manage research teams, because of the shortage of such specialists in the labor market. In addition, their selection will require time and significant costs, which are not provided for in the cost estimates for the project.

The third proposal, involving the nomination of group leaders for lay researchers, was also criticized for being excluded from direct research work already two positions (for the same reason: the head of the group will devote half of his working time to research, and half to the performance of the functions of the head).

As a result, it turns out that all proposals to change the structure have the character of dilemmas: they have both strong and weak sides, and the solution of some structural problems most often gives rise to the emergence of others.

management hierarchy. Hierarchy can be defined as the number of levels of management in an organization. Usually it is clearly visible on the block diagram - compare Fig. 8.2, which shows a "high" structure with big amount hierarchy levels (in the figure, seven levels can be counted), and fig. 8.3 with a "flat" management structure, where the number of hierarchy levels is three. Research shows that large organizations are not necessarily vertical, highly structured. Both large and small organizations are characterized by the attitude that two-thirds of them have five to eight levels of management, although, of course, among organizations with a large number of levels of management, large ones predominate. Even the largest organizations do not always need in large numbers management levels. For example, the Roman Catholic Church, numbering (including all priests and parishioners) approximately 800 million people, has only five levels of government: parish priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal and pope.

As we found out above, the number of hierarchy levels is closely related to the amount of control. If the number of employees in the organization does not change, and the number of levels of the hierarchy decreases, then this means that the volume of management of managers is increasing. This can be achieved without compromising the quality of management through the wide use of opportunities information technologies, the introduction of such methods as electronic document management, holding online conferences and meetings, unification of reporting, standardization of planning and a number of other similar events.

In recent decades, the general trend regarding the number of management levels indicates a desire to reduce them. This planned reduction in management levels is called downsizing. One of the reasons for using this method is that "high" structures are worse managed due to the length of communications: each order from above goes a long way to the direct executors, who are at the very bottom of the hierarchy, and at each step of their downward movement they are refined, are corrected, modified, so that the performers may see in them not the meaning that was invested by the management.

The sniffing reputation of cumbersome, multi-level organizations these days is determined by their low receptivity to change. external environment primarily to changes in the competitive environment. Their other disadvantage is the small amount of managerial management, which leads to the practice of using more authoritarian leadership styles, the unwillingness of managers to support and develop participatory management methods that involve the widespread use of working group members for decision-making and the delegation of authority to subordinates.

Centralization and decentralization. These concepts refer to the distribution of power in an organization and maintaining control over decision making. If power is centralized, all important decisions are made at the very top and go down, and subordinates are given the role of executors of decisions that were made without taking into account their opinion. In decentralized decision-making, the authority to make decisions is transferred downstream, as close as possible to the direct problem-solving process.

With centralization, the adoption and implementation of decisions is delayed, since all managers must receive approval of their actions at the level of the top management of the organization. Another disadvantage of the centralization of power is that it narrows the functions performed by each individual manager, although managers will not necessarily perceive this state of affairs as an infringement of their abilities and talents: many are quite happy with the transfer of responsibility for decision-making to the top, along with the risks of failure and exemption from consequences. wrong decisions. But this state of affairs excludes local initiative, a creative attitude to the task. Finally, motivation and job satisfaction decrease, which, as a rule, affects labor productivity. All this leads to the strengthening of the ideology of bureaucracy, slowing down the execution of tasks, duplication of work and, ultimately, to a decrease in the efficiency of using material resources and staff skills.

However, it would be wrong to say that centralization has only disadvantages. Its positive aspects include better coordination of the execution of work, greater consistency in decisions, uniformity in planning, control and reporting, saving effort due to the fact that everyone performs strictly defined functions. In addition, centralization, which is most often characteristic of "high" structures, usually provides the best conditions for a career, cultivates high qualifications in one's field of activity, discipline and responsibility as the main conditions for career advancement. Therefore, decentralization of important decision-making and delegation of authority should be used where it is strongly required by the level of uncertainty of the external environment, while there is sufficient staff qualification and a significant level of variability in decision-making, when it is difficult to unambiguously determine the criteria for choosing alternatives for decisions.

Specialization. This characteristic of the organization, which manifests itself in its structure, is determined by the range of duties performed by individual employees. There are two types of specialization:

Knowledge-based specialization; - routine specialization.

The first type of specialization involves the use of highly qualified workers who have special knowledge, skills, training and usually perform non-standard, complex tasks. These are, for example, programmers, lawyers, financial analysts, accountants, marketers. They have specialized knowledge in a particular area and are well aware of their value to the organization. The need for them increases when the complexity of the tasks solved in the organization increases, for example, when the organization is more actively engaged in project activities and specialists are required to solve new tasks for the organization.

Also, as organizations grow, more and more specialized managers are required. For example, with the advent of your own marketing department, you will need a manager who has experience in marketing departments and me x.

On the one hand, more and more specialized personnel ensures the growth of labor productivity and the efficiency of the department, subdivision, organization as a whole. On the other hand, there are problems that also have the character of dilemmas and do not have an unambiguous solution.

Consider an example. Suppose a medium-sized firm provides communication services. Most of the company's personnel work under a contract, being drawn up for the duration of the project. All equipment comes from abroad (mainly from China), and is assembled on site in a configuration that meets the needs of customers. The firm's legal department has three positions of lawyers. These are highly paid professionals who perform very important work, which can be represented by lines of activity.

First, this legal support all procedures related to the import of equipment. The lawyer who will be involved in this line of business should know English language, features of foreign (mainly Chinese and EU) legislation regulating the export of high-tech equipment, procedures for filing claims with a foreign supplier, control over the drafting of contracts and a number of other regulations that determine supply processes.

The second lawyer must specialize in the field labor law, since on the part of the staff (especially temporary ones) there are many claims against the management and it is not uncommon to apply to the judiciary with claims related to labor conflicts.

The third lawyer specializes in the legal registration of relations with customers. Moreover, practice shows that this is the area of the most intensive application of professional skills.

The question arises: what strategy to choose for the selection of lawyers for these positions? If we follow the path of development of specialization, then suppose we have a chance to recruit highly qualified specialists with extensive experience in these areas of activity for vacancies. However, the risk will increase that if one of the specialists stops working (due to dismissal, illness, etc.), the entire line of work assigned to him will be paralyzed, which will cause great material and reputational damage to the company.

By hiring lawyers who are less specialized, have a general understanding of all three areas of activity, and have relevant work experience, it will be possible to provide a replacement for a departed employee in emergency cases, at least for the time it takes for the personnel department to decide problem. However, one must come to terms with the fact that, in general, the level of qualification legal department will go down.

Another problem with specialization is that highly qualified specialists are difficult to manage. It is more difficult for a manager to detect attempts to manipulate him in order to obtain a profitable decision or even outright deception. Specialists in a certain area (computer scientists, financiers, lawyers, etc.) tend to create their own subculture in an organization, characterized by specific values, assessments of what is happening, and professional morality. It is difficult to direct their activity towards corporate goals and values when their professional values are alien to the goals of the organization. For example, computer scientists may feel first of all as representatives of their profession and only secondarily as members of the organization in which they work. They can be much easier to find common topics to discuss with colleagues from a competing organization than with their own managers, they may not share at all!) the goals of the latter, and often even conflict over the allocation of resources.

Routine specialization is the breaking down of work into progressively simpler elements. It significantly increases labor productivity when simple operations are performed at a pace set from the outside, for example, the speed of a conveyor. However, the increase in productivity here is associated with an increase in the intensity of work, which makes the work as a whole unattractive, and the level of job satisfaction is very low, which ultimately leads to high staff turnover. The task of managers here will be to search for methods of labor diversity, job rotation, and the development of personnel motivation methods specific to this particular situation.

Regulation. This concept means that work can be more or less detailed or regulated. Most often, the activities of employees are regulated by job descriptions, safety instructions and other documents that are mandatory for execution. The question arises: how detailed should everything be written down? job responsibilities employee and how to strictly punish for violations of regulations? If the task is to prescribe them in as much detail as possible, and provide for liability up to criminal (and sometimes this is necessary, especially where people's safety is at stake), then they speak of strict regulation. This regulation has several advantages:

- requires managers to more carefully determine the contribution of each to the achievement of overall organizational goals;
- reduces the level of uncertainty, which contributes to greater employee confidence in their abilities, promotes the manifestation of initiative and energy;
- facilitates the assessment of the quantity and quality of work of an individual employee;
- provides greater coordination of the execution of tasks by individual employees.

However, in some cases it is not advisable to strive for a high level of task certainty. This is especially true for:

- work in small organizations where the interchangeability of workers is highly valued;
- situations where the condition for success is flexibility in work, quick response to changing circumstances;
- work in conditions of a crisis or pre-crisis threat, when the time and money spent on preparing regulations are unjustified; period of organizational change.

Another task must be solved in the study of the features of regulation: finding out what should be the relationship between regulation and specialization. A high level of specialization is not necessarily an obstacle to devolution of important decision-making "down" to individuals and self-managed teams. However, in practice, such a relationship is observed: centralized organizations often also differ high level regulation. This is due to a more authoritarian style of management, usually characteristic of centralized "high" organizations.

Unity of command and dual subordination. The principle of unity of command, when each employee in an organization has only one boss, was elevated to an absolute at the beginning of the last century by one of the founders of management A. Fayol. This principle in practice provides clarity on what needs to be done and to whom to report for the work done.

A different state of affairs is called double subjugation. The latter is often the cause of disorder in the organization, conflicts, decreased motivation and deterioration of the organizational climate. In practice, this manifests itself in the fact that the employee receives different, often contradictory instructions from different bosses, which, in addition, require immediate execution. As an example, consider a situation where a financial analyst receives instructions from two directors. CFO demands to provide an analysis of the dynamics of expenses for the production of a certain type of product over the past six months, while the marketing director demands to urgently develop new system accounting for profitability of sales. What should an analyst do in this case, if he knows for sure that he will not meet the deadlines set by the directors? Try to explain to each of them that the reason for the impossibility of doing the work is another work declared a priority? This is likely to give rise to a conflict between the directors, which may turn into a struggle to defend their priorities and positions of power and drag on for a long time, and as a result, neither the first nor the second task will be completed.

However, there are situations when double (triple, etc.) subordination increases the efficiency of the organization. This is especially true for support services. For example, the head of a typewriting bureau may be required to follow the orders of all directors, but rules must be established governing the timing of work, priorities, etc. to streamline the work of the office.

Summarizing, let's say that, without special need, elements with double subordination should not be left in the structure, but it should be borne in mind that strict adherence to the principle of unity of command can prevent the organization from quickly responding to changes in the external and internal environment. To some extent, this shortcoming is compensated by the network of informal connections that exists in any, even the most bureaucratic organization. Its very existence means that most managers in their work are guided not only by the orders of their immediate superior, but also by the opinions and judgments of other people with influence and authority.

Communications. The organization of communications is also one of the priority structural problems: the structure can both facilitate the maintenance of communications and the exchange of information between departments and people performing parts common work and prevent it. The value of communications increases as you move to the top of the structure. This is determined by the fact that, as organizational psychologists have found, the higher the position of a manager in an organization, the more time he spends on negotiations, meetings, face-to-face conversations, preparing reports for higher managers or owners, informing stakeholders about work plans, etc. d.

One of the fairly common strategic changes is a change in organizational structure. It has already been emphasized that the organizational structure, as it is considered in strategic management, is not something that exists independently, regardless of the strategy and goals of the organization. For strategic management, the organizational structure is one of the important means of ensuring the implementation of the strategy. In this regard, both its assessment and its choice in the process of implementing the strategy are primarily determined by whether the organizational structure contributes to the achievement of the organization's goals. Therefore, the process of its selection or change is based on following scheme:

clarifies which of the tasks and functions performed in the organization are critical to the implementation of the strategy and to what extent these tasks and functions require a new and specific approach for their implementation;

a connection is established between the identified strategic tasks and functions and routine functions performed in the organization. In this case, the task is not to establish links between departments, but to establish links between the individual parts of the strategy;

structural units of the organization are formed, which are based on strategically important tasks and functions;

the degree of independence of each structural unit in decision-making and the levels in the hierarchy at which decisions are made regarding the activities of business structural units are determined;

organizational links are established between business units, which involves fixing their places in the organizational hierarchy, determining the forms and methods of communication between managers and representatives of business units, as well as the degree and form of participation in the development of a corporate strategy.

Methods and styles of strategic change.??

Carrying out changes in the organization leads to the fact that it creates the conditions necessary for the implementation of the chosen strategy. Change is not an end in itself. The need and extent of change depends on how ready the organization is to implement the strategy effectively. There are situations where no change is actually required, and there are situations where the implementation of the strategy involves very deep changes. Depending on the state of the main factors that determine the need and degree of change, on the state of the industry, organization, product and market, five fairly stable and complete types of changes can be distinguished.

Organizational restructuring involves a fundamental change in an organization that affects its mission and organizational culture. This type of change can be carried out when the organization changes its industry, and, accordingly, its product and place in the market change. In the case of restructuring the organization, the greatest difficulties arise with the implementation of the strategy. The work to create a new organizational culture deserves the most serious attention. Very big changes are taking place in the technological field, as well as in the field of labor resources.

A radical transformation of the organization is carried out at the stage of implementing the strategy in the event that the organization does not change the industry, but at the same time, radical changes occur in it, caused, for example, by its merger with a similar organization. In this case, the merging of different cultures, the emergence of new products and new markets require strong intra-organizational changes, especially regarding the organizational structure.

A moderate transformation occurs when an organization enters the market with a new product and tries to get buyers for it. In this case, the changes affect manufacturing process, as well as marketing, especially in the part that is associated with drawing attention to a new product.

The usual changes are related to the implementation of transformations in the marketing sphere in order to maintain interest in the organization's product. These changes are not significant, and their implementation has little effect on the activities of the organization as a whole.

The unchanging functioning of an organization occurs when it constantly implements the same strategy. In this case, no changes are required during the execution phase of the strategy, because under certain circumstances the organization may receive nice results based on accumulated experience. However, with this approach, it is very important to closely monitor possible undesirable changes in the external environment.

Strategic change, if done correctly, is systemic. Because of this, they affect all aspects of the organization. However, two sections of the organization can be distinguished, which are the main ones when carrying out strategic changes. The first slice is the organizational structure, the second is organizational culture.

Restructuring ("reengineering") of the organizational structure and

business processes in accordance with the strategy.

A business process is a holistic, self-sufficient function for the production of a certain set of output objects / information with possible use input objects/information produced by a certain set of resources according to the rules defined for this work.

Reengineering is the restructuring (redesign) of business processes in order to improve the company's performance.

In the process of performing the work of consultants, the following tasks are solved:

1. Creation of an existing model of the Client's business processes.

2. Analysis of existing processes and development of recommendations for their optimization.

3. Creation of a new model of the Client's business processes.

4. Implementation of a new business process model.

Reengineering of business processes of a company has the following stages:

1. Preparatory stage. Company Survey

1.1. Identification of the Client's business processes, assessment of the composition and scope of work.

On the this stage a list of the main business processes of the Client is determined (questionnaire and interviewing of the company's managers and employees, work with documents, SWOT analysis, diagnostics of the organizational structure).

The goals of the project are defined. The composition and scope of work is assessed by their description and analysis with the Client.

1.2. Development of a system of criteria for evaluating business processes.

In accordance with terms of reference criteria for evaluating the effectiveness (time of the process as a whole, degree of automation, cost, number of functions) of existing and prospective business processes are being developed.

1.3. Preparation of a project for the reengineering of the Client's business processes.

Stages of work are developed and agreed with the Client calendar plan reengineering of the company's business processes.

Corporate culture as a key to effective implementation

Strategies.

Corporate culture- a set of behavior patterns that are acquired by the organization in the process of adaptation to the external environment and internal integration, which have shown their effectiveness and are shared by the majority of members of the organization. The components of corporate culture are:

adopted leadership system;
conflict resolution styles;
functioning communication system;
the position of the individual in the organization;
accepted symbolism: slogans, organizational taboos, rituals

Each organization develops its own set of rules and regulations that govern the daily behavior of employees in their workplace, carrying out their activities in accordance with those values that are essential to its employees. When creating organizational cultures, it is necessary to take into account the social ideals and cultural traditions of the country. In addition, for a more complete understanding and assimilation of values by the employees of the organization, it is important to provide a different manifestation of corporate values within the organization. The gradual acceptance of these values by the members of the organization will allow achieving stability and great success in the development of the organization. Following them is encouraged by the administration with appropriate rewards or promotions. Until newcomers learn these rules of conduct, they cannot become full-fledged members of the team.

In her article “Values as a key element of organizational culture”, M. Sukhorukova identifies three main forms of existence of corporate values:

1) ideals - developed by management and shared by them generalized ideas about excellence in various manifestations and areas organization activities,

2) the embodiment of these ideals in the activities and behavior of employees within the organization,

3) internal motivational structures of the personality of the employees of the organization, encouraging them to embody corporate value ideals in their behavior and activities.

Corporate culture develops over time like national or ethnic cultures and in the same way develops its values and behavioral norms. Certain patterns of behavior are supported in some organizations and rejected in others. Some organizations create an "open" culture where it's okay to question everything and come up with new ideas. original ideas. In others, novelty is not supported and communication is kept to a minimum. Some people prefer to work in an organization with a "closed" culture: a person comes to work, performs his individual task and returns home to his personal life, unrelated to work. Someone also needs a family-type organization in which personal life and work are closely interconnected.

Strategy and mission: what the corporate culture is based on

Corporate culture and company success in the market
Strengthening the image of the organization
Improving the attractiveness of working in the organization for existing and potential employees
Increasing the initiative and efficiency of employees
Increasing the level of work with clients
Development of internal stability and increasing the stability of the company in the market
Development of strategic flexibility and improvement of the company's adaptation to external changes

Considering the organization as a living organism, we can assume that the structure is the skeleton, the staff of the organization is the muscles, the leadership of the organization is the brain, and the organizational culture is its soul.

When creating and changing the structure of an organization, it is necessary to visually link its tasks and the people who perform them, so that everyone understands what he is doing, to whom he is subordinate, by whom and what he manages, for what he is responsible? Therefore, the organizational structure is one of the most important tools for achieving the goal of the organization. Imagine a fruit tree in which no one forms a crown, does not cut dead dry branches. In the end, it "wild". Its branches will interfere with each other. The same thing happens with a company if the manager does not constantly improve its structure.

The situation on the market is changing, new directions, new customers appear. Accordingly, the strategic goals and objectives of the company change. And any change in the strategy, intentions, goals of the business must be reflected in the structure, otherwise the company will not be able to adapt to new conditions. On this diagram, as on a map of military operations, the direction of the main attack and the lines to be taken should be reflected. It is important for the manager to clearly imagine who will take The New Frontier what forces. It may be necessary to form a "shock" unit with certain functions, staffed by people who are clearly aware of their task. And it is necessary that the new division organically and harmoniously fit into the working structure, otherwise the whole system will begin to fail.

So, if the leader feels that the tasks that he sets remain unfulfilled, interesting programs freeze, it may be necessary to diagnose the organizational structure and correct it.

However, even if no new directions are created, it is necessary to periodically adjust the structure. After all, a dynamically developing company is a growing organism, where some changes, movements, shifts are taking place all the time. Some divisions are abolished, others are reorganized; some people take on more functions, tasks and responsibilities, while others, on the contrary, have less responsibility, fewer tasks, etc. All this requires adequate display on paper. The task of the leader is to see this in time and make the necessary corrections. Here, as in architecture, form serves function. The function changes - the form must also change.

Company management and organizational structure are directly related. A well-thought-out and clearly built structure increases controllability, and hence the speed of movement towards the goal. Today there is a lot of talk about the transparency of business, but transparency should not only concern financial indicators. When the mission, strategy and goals of the company are reflected in an adequate organizational structure, it becomes clear to everyone - employees, customers, and partners of the company, and not just the manager - what kind of organization it is, what goals it implements, what role it plays this or that division or co-worker. If the structure is incomprehensible, amorphous, does not work for the result, the company will face organizational chaos.

There are concepts of formal and informal organizational systems. And sometimes, especially in large corporations, these systems exist in parallel: formal - on paper, in documents, informal - in reality. If what is declared on paper and in public statements differs significantly from reality, we can talk about a peculiar, but very common "organizational schizophrenia". Such a “bifurcation” hits the organization very hard, and not everyone is able to recover from such blows, because any business turns into a problem, a lot of questions arise that no one can give an intelligible answer to. And any uncertainty, ambiguity, misunderstanding cause anxiety, conflicts, sabotage.

The structure should be such as to ensure the achievement of results that are truly meaningful, important for the purpose and priorities of the business. But it is important to understand that even an adequate structure does not guarantee results. But inadequate - nullifies even the most purposeful efforts.

Line managers lead teams, departments, workshops, production and are responsible for the order in the assigned areas of activity, the proper behavior of employees, the full use of technical potential and human resources, the implementation of the plan and established regulations. At the same time, line managers are not responsible for the development of plans (except social development) and regulations.

Functional management

The emergence of this type of management is associated with the need to improve various aspects of activity and improve the service of the main target process, for example, the production of products or the provision of specialized services. Functional managers deal with qualifications and professional excellence personnel, labor safety, as well as technological, personnel, environmental, social, psychological and other types of support for core activities. The most common functional subsystems include services: financial and accounting, planning, marketing, engineering, normative control, personnel management, housekeeping, etc.

Strictly speaking, all units can be called functional, but in practice only those that serve the processes of the main (core) activity are considered as such.

At the same time, each functional service contains elements administration.

operational management

On formal grounds, the operational management service can be attributed to functional subsystems, however, its significant difference is the work to coordinate the actions of all linear and functional units associated with the main production in real time and space. The operational management subsystem conducts current processes according to the approved plan (schedule), coordinating the operations and procedures of the main "production conveyor" with the actions of subcontractors - service and control departments. The operational management service includes: the apparatus of dispatching services of factories, managers in hotels and restaurants, office managers in offices, affairs management in ministries, structures of scientific secretaries in institutes, etc.

The division of management processes into subsystems, one of which (operational) is integrating, allows you to dramatically increase the efficiency of companies, since specialization creates conditions for the high-quality performance of individual functions and tasks, and integration within the framework of operational management ensures consistency various kinds activities in the current work of departments and services.

With further growth of the organization, branching and fragmentation of functions, the volume of transmitted information and inter-functional relationships continues to increase non-linearly. Interdependence, mutual influence and penetration of services into each other's work are increasing. The volume of necessary approvals is increasing. Deadlines are being extended. The number of deviations associated with the inconsistency of information aspects (interfaces), incentives, interests, goals and priorities is growing. Additional resources are required to eliminate regularly occurring inter-functional contradictions. Bodies of centralized operational management are no longer able to cope with their coordinating mission. The centralization resource has been exhausted. New approaches to the organization of management are needed.

Matrix structure

The sixth stage in the evolution of the organizational structure is practically impossible without a developed mechanism system management improvement of organizational relations.

The matrix structure makes it possible to organically combine linear, functional and centralized operational management with the principles of decentralization and independence of organizational units in local areas with clearly defined tasks.

The matrix organization is characteristic of companies that solve complex, non-standard tasks with the involvement of diversified specialists and departments. Typically, such tasks are not repeated, therefore, to solve them, temporary project teams are formed, completed in order to save resources by specialists from among the employees of this organization. In the future, with a steady stream of repetitive tasks, project teams can transform into divisions and services, or transform into branches.

The name "matrix structure" comes from the word matrix - table. The interpretation of the matrix organization is shown in fig. 7. Specialized services provide functional guidance to destinations (blue arrows). The heads of functional subsystems are the top of the hierarchical structure of their departments, while at the same time continuing the lines of administrative control coming from the general director (red arrows). The main activity is indicated by a large red arrow. In the matrix structure, functional subsystems not only serve the main production, but also improve their own hardware methods, techniques, technical means. Finally, they participate in one-off events and individual projects (coloured horizontal arrows).

Thus, specific divisions and performers are subject to the influence of both vertical and horizontal regulatory influences. In this case, there is a need to coordinate the order of work flows and the distribution of material and human resources in time and space of the organization. This function is performed by the operational management subsystem (Fig. 8).

The matrix structure allows you to combine responsibility for the final result of a "team of like-minded people" (in project structures), in-depth specialization (in functional services) and the effect of targeted and economical use of resources with centralized operational management of a single process of enterprise functioning.

The combination of the properties of the matrix model with the benefits of a centralized linear-functional structure is a sign of a high management culture. Such an organization is created over the years, and sometimes even decades, by the work of a permanent staff of managers and professional specialists.

On fig. Figure 9 shows a diagram of the administrative structure, in the configuration of which the principles of the matrix model are implemented with the introduction of elements that ensure self-organization and structural and functional self-adjustment (in Figure 9, the department system analysis and management development). As an example, an enterprise performing repair and maintenance of equipment of gas pumping stations is given.

Vertical lines from the CEO to the heads of departments and departments represent the channels of line management. The administrative and functional management of the functional subsystems is shown with blue arrows.

Each department head is an administrator in relation to his subordinates.

Functional in this example are the following services: chief engineer, equipment, general issues and security, financial and economic, personnel.

The linear structure of the main production is represented by links along the line CEO- deputy for production - head of production - heads of workshops.

The operational management service (dotted links) is divided into levels: the top management regulates relations between the services, the bottom - between the production and service units.

The table presents the advantages and disadvantages of various types of administrative structures.

It can be cautiously assumed that as information technologies (in particular, ERP) and management theory develop, the trends in the effective distribution of operations and procedures, accounting and harmonization of interests as individual workers as well as entire departments. Ultimately, this will unleash the creativity of employees (within the framework of agreed interests) and weaken the bonds of centralization, thus enhancing the synergistic effect.

The sequence of evolution of the administrative structures presented above is not strict. This development reflects only general patterns. In practice, one can find examples of a formal structure of a fairly high organizational level. However, a careful study of the business process will certainly show a significant discrepancy between the formal settings and the real development of the company. Behind modern job titles and a beautiful scheme, for example, a matrix administrative structure, archaic forms of the artel method of management ("teams of like-minded people") are sometimes hidden.

For the management of companies, the coordination of the administrative structure with the distribution of powers by functions and processes is of fundamental importance. The inconsistency of these parameters among themselves leads to confusion and personnel leapfrog, depriving the organization of stability and prospects.

Bringing administrative and functional management, as well as many other structure-forming factors in accordance with the target settings is called the organizational and functional setting. This activity requires special knowledge of the processes taking place in the company, as well as the presence in the management system of a regular function of monitoring the key parameters of the organization.

There are many things to remember when running a business, but the first thing a leader needs to understand is:

What is the purpose of the company?

What management tools are most effective in achieving these goals.

The success of a business is largely determined by the infrastructure of the company. That is why one of the main tasks of the manager is its creation, which is impossible without the development of an organizational programming system, which includes: mission, functions, organizational structure, regulations on divisions, job descriptions.

Organizational Programming Pyramid

Mission, whether it is framed as a document or not, it always exists as the ideology of the company. It is designed to coordinate and coordinate the work of the company's employees to achieve the stated goals. At the same time, the mission helps the company to take the right position in the partner value chain, realizing its potential in the best possible way.

The transition to professional corporate management based on procedures is fundamentally impossible without the development of a mission. It is thanks to the mission through the awareness of goals and strategies, as well as the list of directions commercial activities, the company can decide on its functionality - a list of constantly reproducible business functions, management functions and support functions.

This makes it possible to form basic corporate regulations - a provision on the organizational structure of the company as a whole and a package of provisions on individual divisions that fix the management's areas of responsibility. Further detailing of these documents makes it possible to obtain personnel management regulations - a position on functional duties and a job description.

Imagine a fruit tree in which no one forms a crown, no one cuts dead dry branches. In the end, it "wild". Its branches will interfere with each other. The same thing happens with a company if the manager does not constantly improve its structure.

The situation on the market is changing, new directions, new customers appear. Change accordingly and strategic goals and objectives of the company. And any change in the strategy, intentions, goals of the business must be reflected in the structure, otherwise the company will not be able to adapt to new conditions.

All this requires adequate display on paper.

It is important to understand that the organizational structure that emerged as a result of the development is not a frozen form, like the frame of a building. Since organizational structures are based on plans, then significant changes in the plans may require corresponding changes in the structure. Indeed, in existing organizations, the process of changing the organizational structure should be treated as a reorganization, because. this process, like all functions of the organization, is endless. Currently, successfully functioning organizations regularly assess the degree of adequacy of their organizational structures and change them as required by external conditions. The requirements of the external environment, in turn, are determined in the course of planning and control. Nearly every issue of Business Week reports on a major reorganization going on at some established firm.

And finally, change implies massive changes in the organizational structure, new products and fundamental change in technology. The need for successful implementation of such changes is clear. But less obvious is

After the type of activity and the list of works are established, it is necessary to assign the performance of each work to a specific division of the enterprise. Sometimes this may require a change in the organizational structure of the enterprise, its technical services, the nature of the specialization of units and individual workers. Such changes must be foreseen in the presence of objective conditions for their implementation.

Adaptation of structures H Complete design of structures Fig. 2.2. Directions of changes in organizational management structures

Depending on the degree of uncertainty, various approaches are recommended to ensure that the organization adapts to changes in the business environment, improving interaction and awareness of the state of the business environment, changing the organizational structure, strategic planning, using an entrepreneurial approach, etc. To increase the level of interaction efficiency, it is necessary to influence both the internal , and on the external environment of the organization, seeking to reduce its uncertainty. This is achieved by creating special units that communicate with the external environment, improving awareness of the state of the external environment, developing partnerships, cooperating with competitors, creating strategic alliances, etc. Carrying out organizational changes

Ensuring the developed investment strategy of the enterprise with the appropriate organizational structures for managing investment activities and the principles of investment culture. The most important condition for effective implementation investment strategy are the corresponding changes in the organizational structure of management and investment culture. The envisaged strategic changes in the field of organizational structure and investment culture should be integral part investment strategy parameters that ensure its feasibility.

The change in the organizational structure of the republican apparatus of the Ministry of Finance is due to new tasks and functions arising from the status of the ministry as one of the central economic departments of a sovereign state, playing an important role in carrying out radical economic reform.

The issues of distribution and use of planned and overplanned profits, creation and . Particular attention is paid to the organization of working capital, the features of rationing and the acceleration of their turnover on main gas pipelines. The basic principles of organization of non-cash payments, types of crediting of inventory items, methodology for compiling the estimated balance of income and expenses and analysis of the financial activities of the association are given. The second edition (1st Publishing House - 974) covers in a new way the issues of creating and using economic incentive funds, reflects changes in the organizational structure and the introduction of a general management scheme in the USSR Ministry of Gas Industry.

A study of possible changes in the organizational structure and functions of the NTO units as a result of the introduction of CAD in the NCE showed the following.

Changes in the organizational structures of management relate to both the restructuring of enterprises and changes in the internal structure of management by creating new structures and redistributing responsibilities between existing structures.

As part of the change in the organizational structures of management, new departments and services are being created - marketing, foreign economic activity, the financial department, as well as the redistribution of existing functional responsibilities between existing structures. However, changes in the organizational structure, as already noted, should be determined by the strategy of the enterprise, and not be carried out on their own. At the same time, Russian enterprises are actively engaged in such strategic areas of activity as diversification, integration, and development of new markets. At the same time, however, such aspects of activity as the analysis of real economic processes, forecasting their consequences, and developing and evaluating alternative options for economic actions are not sufficiently developed. This is largely due to the fact that special information, special methods and techniques of strategic work are needed.

All reform projects provide for priority changes in the organizational structure of the Gazprom Group. At the same time, state regulation of wholesale prices for gas produced by the Group should be maintained to some extent for a sufficiently long time. There are talks about the transfer of price regulation from the points of exit from the main transport system to the points of entry into it, that is, the transition to the regulation of prices of extractive enterprises. It should be emphasized that in all cases a combination of regulation of wholesale prices is envisaged with the establishment of a single tariff for gas transportation services for all gas owners.

There is a further change in the organizational structure, a system is being introduced

The basis for registration of amendments to the Regulations is the order of the director of the name of the organization. The change order is issued when it is necessary to redistribute, remove or add functions, when changing the organizational structure, Quality Objectives and their indicators of the unit, etc.

Changing the organizational structure in order to

Level of training - if the organization has enough highly qualified personnel, then even in a linear structure we can create fairly flat organizational structures, minimizing the number of management links. This will be connected with the possibility of expanding the zone of control of the head. If the staff is poorly trained and requires frequent management intervention, control and assistance, then it is more expedient to use a high organizational structure. Of course, more trained personnel will be able to work effectively in flexible (adaptive) structures and it is possible to use project and matrix options. One of the ways to change the organizational structure from linear to matrix, taking into account the skill level of the staff, may be the introduction of a functional organization, training a sufficient number of professionals within it, and then moving to adaptive structures. Such a way organizational transformation can be used when carrying out simultaneous reorganization and training of personnel.

The development of the situation inevitably leads to a crisis, which implies two possible outcomes: 1) a change in the organizational structure (optimization under this project or the destruction of the organization) 2) changing the goals of the organization, and consequently, the change of projects (provided with actually available resources) and the creation of a new structural model for them.

Modern world- this is a world of drastic changes, large-scale changes in organizational structures, the creation and collapse of economic and social systems and institutions.

The decision of the company's management to adopt a consumer-oriented strategy (Figure 39) leads to a corresponding change in the organizational structure (see Chapter 12).

Changes in organizational structures are associated with global strategic decisions of the company's top management. Global strategic decisions determine where to develop new production capacities, in which areas of activity to increase investments, where to start entrepreneurship in a particular business area and what products to produce, where to get resources from, how to enter new foreign markets, etc.

Under these conditions, the transition from centralized management to the expansion of the rights and responsibilities of structural units has become one of the common phenomena in the economic life of market countries. This, in turn, led to a change in the organizational structures of management and in-house management in general. Departure from

1. Concept and principles of organizational structure

2. Goals and objectives of the restructuring of the organizational structure

3. Assessment of the organizational structure

4. Trends in organizational structure

1. In a crisis, depending on the degree of its depth and the nature of the course, the management takes various measures to overcome the negative situation. A fairly common method here is to change the organizational structure, which, if properly organized, gives good results.

The organizational structure of management is an interconnected set of organizational units of the management apparatus that perform various management functions aimed at solving certain problems and achieving goals. Thus, if we consider the management structure in this light, then we can say that this is a system of the optimal ratio of functional duties and responsibilities between its constituent bodies and controls.

The elements of the organizational structure of management are departments and employees of the management apparatus who perform certain functional duties. There are links between the elements, which can be horizontal and vertical.

Horizontal management links are single-level and are carried out through negotiations and coordination. Vertical connections express the system of subordination.

There are the following types of organizational structures:

1. Line structure - decisions are made and implemented by line managers.

2. Functional structure - the manager assigns the functions of everyone in the management system.

3. Linear-functional structure - there is a main leader to whom both linear and functional systems are subordinate.

4. Divisional structure - it is based on the principle of separating large production and economic divisions and their corresponding levels of management with the provision of industrial independence to these divisions.

5. Adaptive structures are the most complexly organized management structures, among the distinguishing features of which one can note the flexibility and decentralization of management, a small number of management levels.

The management structure should correspond to the stages of development of the enterprise, since at different stages the management functions change. This fact must be taken into account when making changes in order to ensure that the new management structure contains the elements necessary for effective management at this stage of existence.

2. Goals of restructuring the organizational structure:

1. Bringing the enterprise out of the crisis and ensuring stable operation.

2. Improving the management system and bringing it to a qualitatively new level.

3. Increasing the competitiveness of the enterprise.

4. Compliance with the situation in the modern economy.

5. Changing the organizational structure and the subsequent increase in the profitability of production to attract new partners and foreign investors.

1. Ensuring the quality functioning of all departments and divisions of the enterprise.

2. Establishing links between departments and divisions and ensuring their interaction.

3. Improvement of personnel and relevant management bodies.

4. Creation of departments of forecasting and analytical work.

5. Creation of a solid anti-crisis system.

3. In a crisis situation, as a rule, an analysis of almost all areas of the enterprise is carried out, since various problems are caused by shortcomings of a different nature: economic, social, managerial. But enterprises and organizations of the new time faced another problem - the obsolescence of the organizational structure. Even 20-30 years ago, competition and technology development were not as large-scale as they are now. The high pace of development determines that enterprises have an appropriate level of flexibility and organizational structure. Newly organized enterprises from the very beginning form an organizational structure that is relevant for modern conditions. Another question is when to change it to improve management and performance. The first step is to evaluate the structure.

An assessment of the organizational structure of an enterprise should be carried out as part of a comprehensive diagnosis of the state of the enterprise, which also considers the problems of the managerial apparatus, shortcomings in personnel policy, financial and economic problems, etc. It is advisable to raise the question of changing the organizational structure if it has ceased to correspond to the goals and objectives of the organization or has become irrelevant in the context of the development of the economy and technology.

But there may be problems in modern organizational structures, in the presence of which there may be a question of making changes to the structure of the enterprise:

the main functional load is concentrated on the chief executive, which does not allow for deeper and more effective management;

too large a hierarchical network, especially for a large staff of managers;

information services of the enterprise are poorly developed and do not provide departments and divisions with the timely information necessary to identify and recognize crises at an early stage;

the personnel system in the field of organizational structure is untenable;

vital departments and divisions (economic, financial and production) have insufficient funds and opportunities for full-fledged activities, there is no control over the functioning of these departments and divisions;

there are no or insufficiently developed departments involved in the analysis and research of internal and external factors enterprises.

There are two trends in the changing state of enterprises:

negative - enterprises that are in a crisis situation and do not have the ability to overcome it;

positive - enterprises that did not fall into crisis situations or managed to overcome negative manifestations and continue to function and develop.

Before the direct implementation of the program to change the organizational structure of the enterprise, it is necessary to carry out a number of activities that are the key to successful restructuring.

As a rule, a special team or temporary department is created for restructuring, which ensures the collection of information, its processing, the development of a strategy and its further implementation.

Test questions:

Organizational structure of management.

Goals of restructuring the organizational structure.

The need to assess the organizational structure of the enterprise.