Formal and informal structures.

Organizational structures of management.

Elements in the organization are interconnected by certain relationships (links). The totality of these relationships defines the structure of the organization. "The structure of an organization is a scheme for the interaction and coordination of technological and human elements".

Organizational structures are the focus of many researchers. For the effective operation of the organization, the subjects of management need to know the advantages and disadvantages organizational structures certain types and types, which determine their choice.

In any social organization, along with the formal, there is always an informal structure.

formal structure organizations form normatively fixed (by laws, decrees, orders, instructions, instructions, etc.) links between elements.

informal structure organizations are a set of normatively unfixed ties between elements of an organization (kindred, comradely, compatriot, friendly, confessional, party affiliation, client, etc.).

The formal structure is characterized by a certain degree of standardization of functions members of the organization. There are their descriptions, organizational rules, implementation procedures. The higher the degree of standardization of functions, the less opportunity for subjectivism.

The formal structure in an organization often does not coincide with the informal one. For any formal leader in an organization, a certain danger is informal leaders . The presence of an informal leader can lead to a sharp confrontation in the organization and, ultimately, to a change in the formal leader. Therefore, the identification of an informal structure in an organization (both in its own and in the organizations of partners and competitors) is one of the main tasks of any leader. Only in rare cases is it necessary to eliminate an informal leader from the organization - after all, someone else can come to his place. It is always better to negotiate with an informal leader, forming a system of influence on him.

When designing or analyzing organizational structures, one of the central problems is the measure of the ratio of centralization and decentralization. The significance of this problem is especially pronounced in management bodies with a hierarchical structure in the presence of several levels of decision-making.

A certain hierarchy has always been a sign of sociality. Already with the formation of the tribe, councils of elders and leaders appear, i.e. a certain social distance is formed, which is the basis for the hierarchy. And although "among theoretical researchers there is still no consensus on the essence of hierarchical systems," nevertheless social organizations and technical designs provide numerous examples of such structures.

Hierarchy issues have been discussed most vigorously in connection with numerous theories of organizations. So, for example, in the classic work of J. March and G. Simon, the hierarchy is associated with the fact that the elements (decision-making blocks) that make up the system have a limited "decisive ability" (or "limited intellectual capabilities"), so there is a need to split the goal into subgoals in such a way that the achievement of a common goal is equivalent to the achievement of a set of goals.

Naturally, a hierarchy can be built for various objects for any reason. Organizations need to distinguish hierarchy of goals and hierarchy of decision-making elements . The need for a hierarchical approach to decision-making in organizations is due to the presence of the following main dilemma. On the one hand, it is necessary to act immediately, because. when the time comes to make a decision, adoption and implementation cannot be delayed (any delay actually means that the decision has not been made). On the other hand, it is just as necessary to try to better assess the situation before taking action.

Exactly the search for a compromise between the quality of the decision and the time spent on its adoption leads to the need to introduce a hierarchy of levels at which decisions are made . Naturally, the most significant and "general" decisions are made at the highest level.

Thus, each higher level manages the decision-making process at the lower levels, but does not control and regulate it completely. Decision makers at the lower levels should be given a certain freedom, the opportunity to display their own activity, i.e. a certain area of ​​their "subjectivity". Naturally, in this case, the decisions at the lower levels will not necessarily be those that would be accepted by the upper level, but one has to put up with the possibility of such a discrepancy. For the effective use of a multi-level structure, it is essential that the decision-makers at each level be given some freedom. In the organization, a rational distribution of decision-making efforts between different levels should be made. Only under this condition will the existence of a hierarchical structure be justified.

The hierarchy of goals in an organization overlaps with the hierarchy of decision making., since in principle each level of decision-making has its own purpose. But options are possible when there are no own goals at some level of decision-making, or there may be a coincidence of goals at individual levels, or the presence of several management subjects with different goals at the same decision-making level. In this sense, the following classes of structures can be distinguished: 1) single-level single-purpose; 2) multi-level single-purpose; 3) single-level multipurpose; 4) multi-level multi-purpose.

In the first and second cases, technically the problem of control in accordance with the set goal can be very complex, but the conceptual scheme of such a system is simple. Its main feature is the absence of conflicts within the system.

A structure belonging to the class of single-level multipurpose has several subjects with their own goals. These goals are not necessarily conflicting. Some entities may form coalitions. In the event of a conflict between subjects, the most effective is outside intervention or the formation of a new hierarchy, where the conflict can be removed by intervention from the top level.

Finally, the class of multi-level multi-purpose structures is characterized by the presence of hierarchical relations between the subjects of each decision-making level. The existence of some higher "command level" is a distinctive feature of such systems. The decision-making problem at the level of this link is the main problem in the theory of multilevel systems.

Organizational structures of this type are based on the principle of hierarchy of levels of leadership, division of labor into separate functions and specializations, and correspondence of authority to a place in this hierarchy. Hierarchical structures include a linear organizational structure.

This structure (Fig. 3) is characterized by the fact that the leader, who is at the head of each unit, concentrates all management functions in his hands, while exercising sole control over the subordinates of the structural unit. The basis of this structure is the principle of unity of distribution of orders, in accordance with which only the higher authority gives orders, orders, orders. This principle ensures the unity of management. Such an organizational structure was formed as a result of building a management apparatus from mutually subordinate, interconnected bodies in the form of a hierarchical ladder, in this structure the leader has several subordinates, the subordinate - only one leader. The leaders of the same organizational level are not directly related to each other, and they can carry out any relationship only through a higher authority, such a structure is usually called a single-line structure.

Rice. 3

There are several types of linear structures in management. Let us consider, for example, the line-staff, which differs from the linear one by the presence in the structure of the "headquarters", the so-called body for analyzing emerging situations, posing problems, and developing solutions to eliminate them. An example is, for example, the presence in the organization of a department of financial and economic analysis, an advisory body (board), a public council under the head (Fig. 4). The headquarters is an advisory body, its decisions are, as a rule, advisory in nature. At the same time, in organizations, especially state and municipal ones, the presence of such a body is necessary, since the headquarters in them often performs the functions of a public governing body.

Rice. 4

There are also line-staff structures with various divisions. Usually, in medium-sized enterprises, with line managers, headquarters units are created that are focused on assisting the line manager in performing individual management functions, but at the same time they do not have the right to make decisions.

The next type of linear structures is a linear-functional organizational structure (Fig. 5). It is a stepped hierarchical system: line managers are single bosses, they are assisted by specially created functional bodies, while line managers of lower levels are not administratively subordinate to functional managers of higher levels of organization management.

Linear - functional organizational structures have the following feature: the disposal of all resources and the choice of goals are the powers of line managers, for example: deputy directors for life and regime, information security, and the management of production processes is entrusted to the heads of the relevant functional services and departments. Any large Russian enterprise can serve as an example of the use of these structures at present. AT European countries such a structural scheme is typical mainly for small and medium-sized enterprises and firms.

Rice. 5.

If the organization grows, then at the same time the scale of management problems grows, which leads to the uncontrollability of the organization as a whole.

The advantages of linear functional structure are the release of line managers from all functional issues and ensuring management, in which each employee of the enterprise is subordinate to only one manager. Linear-functional structures are most effective where the management apparatus has to perform many frequently recurring, routine, monotonous procedures and operations with comparative stability of management goals, tasks and functions. In this case, through a rigid system of connections, the smooth operation of all subsystems and the organization as a whole is ensured. The main shortcomings of the linear-functional structure are manifested both in the low speed of decision-making, the slow movement of information along the levels of the hierarchy, often with its distortions and often losses, and in functional disunity structural divisions organization, which is caused by the great influence of local functional group goals. With this structure, the linear levels of management command, the functional ones advise and help in solving specific issues, but they do not have the opportunity to give orders and orders to the production units of the organization, that is, various restrictions arise.

When using this structure, the quantitative characteristics of the emerging bonds are of great importance. For their exact calculation, the most commonly used following formula calculation of connections in the unit:

where n is the number of subordinates, N is the number of links.

From this formula it can be seen that the larger the production and the more various departments in its structure, the more connections of various types arise within this organization. The number of all possible relationships that a leader enters into with his subordinates directly depends on the number of subordinates. If a leader has more than one subordinate, three types of links can be distinguished: direct, group, and cross. In addition, depending on the ratio of the number of hierarchical levels to the total number of employees, linear organizational structures can also be “flat” or “high”. However, giving preference to one or another type of linear structure, it is necessary to clearly define the necessary parameters of the organization being designed, for example, the range of the scope of control, the level of interconnection between structural units, the degree and level of complexity of the tasks to be solved.

Only after analyzing the expected answers to the questions posed, we can proceed to the choice of the type of linear organizational structure.

If we summarize all the information presented on linear structures, we can conclude that their advantage is:

• - simple construction;
• - unequivocal restriction of tasks, responsibility, competence;
• - strict management of the governing bodies;
• - efficiency and accuracy of management decisions.

At present, classical linear-functional structures, especially abroad, are inherent only in small and a small part of medium-sized companies, large firms and corporations are used only at the level of their divisions. For large companies, the divisional approach to building organizational management structures has become the most acceptable (Fig. 6). For the first time, these management structures appeared at the end of the 20s of the last century in the United States at General Motors enterprises, which were engaged in mechanical engineering and have retained their production to this day. These structures were most widespread in the period 1960-1980. During this period, according to many foreign experts, about 80% of all companies in America moved from linear-functional management structures to the considered ones, including 475 enterprises from the 500 largest became divisional. . In one of the most developed countries- Japan this species structures are used by 45% of all companies and enterprises. With this structure, divisions (branches) are distinguished according to two criteria: by area of ​​activity and geographical location. Main actors in the management of organizations with the structure under consideration, it is not the heads of functional subsystems that become managers, but managers of specific production structural divisions.

Divisional, they are often called "separation", management structures (from the English word division - branch, division of the company), are currently the most advanced type of organizational structures of a hierarchical type, although very often they are considered a hybrid of bureaucratic (mechanistic) and adaptive structures , sometimes in the literature they are also called fractional structures.

With divisional structuring, large autonomous production and business units, departments and divisions are singled out. These divisions are given operational and production independence and at the same time are responsible for the profitability of production and profit. A branch (division) is an organizational commodity-market unit that has all the necessary functional units inside, they are responsible for the production of products, their marketing and profit. As a consequence, the top echelon managers of the enterprise are freed up to deal with larger strategic tasks and functions. Thus, the operational level of management, aimed at the production of a specific product or the implementation of activities in a designated area, is separated from the strategic level, which is responsible for the growth and development of the company. In this case, the main managers of the enterprise usually have from four to six centralized functional units. When using this management structure, the highest governing body of the organization exercises strict control over: corporate issues, production development strategies, research and development, finance, company profits, losses, investments in production development, etc. So, divisional structures are characterized by a combination both centralized strategic planning in the upper echelons of management, and decentralized activities of the departments responsible for making profits, at the level of which operational management is carried out. Given that the responsibility for making a profit in these structures is assigned to the level of departments (divisions), they began to be called "profit centers". These centers actively use the freedom of choice granted to them to improve the efficiency of their work. Based on the foregoing, divisional management structures are characterized as a combination of centralized coordination with decentralized management. At the same time, there is a destruction of the centralization of enterprise management, provided that coordination and control over its activities are maintained.

With this structure, the heads of departments have full responsibility for the results of the activities of the departments they lead. Therefore, the main places in the management of enterprises with a divisional structure are occupied by managers who head departments directly involved in production.

Rice. 6.

The structuring of the company by departments (divisions) is carried out according to the following basic principles: product, regional and the principle of focusing on a specific consumer of services, by analogy with these principles, the names of the types of structures - divisional-product, organizational and divisional-regional) arose.

If we consider the divisional-product structure (Fig. 7), then we can clearly see the empowerment of one manager to manage the production and marketing of a certain product (service). This manager is fully responsible for this type of product, thereby improving the coordination of all work. In addition, the heads of all functional services: production, procurement, technical, accounting, analytical, marketing and others, periodically report to the top management of the company on this product.

Considering that in modern world very often there are changes in the conditions of competition, production technologies, tastes and needs of society are rapidly changing, enterprises with the structure under consideration are much more likely to remain competitive and in demand.

The disadvantage of the product structure can be considered an increase in costs that arise due to the duplication of the same types of work for different types of products in the same enterprise. Each product department has its own functional divisions.

When organizational structures are created that are focused on a specific consumer, in this case, structural units are grouped around these consumer groups. The following can be cited as an example: army, navy, shipbuilding, space industry, social and consumer services for military personnel. The purpose of the structures under consideration is to satisfy the needs of these consumers no worse than it does an enterprise serving only one specific group. For example, an organization that uses organizational management structures aimed at a specific group of consumers includes commercial banks, the main groups of consumers of services in them are various companies, individual clients, entrepreneurs, funds and other financial organizations.

When the activity of an enterprise or firm extends to several areas, territories and regions that require the use of different types of strategies, in this case it is advisable to form a management structure according to territorial principle, applying the divisional-regional structure of the organization's management. All activities of the company in a certain region in this case should be subordinate to the appropriate manager, who is responsible for it to the highest governing body firms. The divisional-regional structure facilitates the solution of problems associated with local customs, peculiarities of legislation and the socio-economic environment of the region. Territorial division creates conditions for the training of managerial personnel of departments (divisions) directly on the spot.

With the development of companies, their entry into international markets, their gradual transformation from national corporations into transnational ones, in this case the highest level of their development is reached - the creation of global corporations. In this case, the company ceases to place the main bet on activities within the country, and restructures its structure in such a way that international operations have more importance than operations in the national market. So the advantages of the structure under consideration are as follows: it creates more favorable conditions for the growth of the company, gives greater autonomy and independence in decision-making to managers, allows for closer communication with the consumer, improves coordination processes within the company, improves the adaptability of the structure and its response to external influences. . This approach provides a closer connection with sales markets and consumers, which significantly accelerates the organization's response to changes in the external environment. With the introduction of divisional principles, as shown world practice, the management structure of the organization and all its departments remains linear-functional, but at the same time its hierarchy, that is, the management vertical, is strengthened. As a result of this process, the load on the upper echelon of the organization's management is significantly reduced, which can focus its activities on the strategic management of the organization as a whole. In addition, departments that acquire operational and economic independence begin to function as "profit centers" and actively use the freedom granted to them to increase the efficiency of their activities and labor productivity.

Rice. 7.

The disadvantages of the structure under consideration: excessive growth of hierarchy levels, too much freedom of departments, duplication of one type of work in different departments, loss of control, complex information problems, weak ties with the parent company.

Functional organizational structure - this structure is based on the creation of various units designed to perform certain specified functions (analysis, research, production, sales, marketing, etc.) at all levels of management. Here, with the help of directive guidance, lower hierarchical links can be connected to higher levels of management. The transfer of instructions, instructions, and messages is carried out depending on the type of tasks assigned.

The functional organizational structure (Fig. 8) is built in such a way that there are no linear relations of one-man management between the highest and lowest levels of management, but only cross-functional links appear. In this structure, the load on the first manager in terms of coordination work increases.

The functional structure involves the unification of specifically specialized functions into one line of activity under the actual control of one line manager. The logic of this structure is that by concentrating homogeneous resources in one area of ​​the business, the maximum effect of economies of scale of management can be achieved.

Functional services, as a rule, are composed of highly qualified specialists who perform specific activities depending on the tasks and functions assigned to them.

advantage The functional structure can be:

• - reduction of coordination links;
• - reduction of duplication of work;
• - strengthening vertical links and strengthening control over the activities of all lower levels;
• - high competence and professionalism of specialists responsible for the performance of specific functions;
• - release of line managers from the solution of many special issues;
• - the possibility of obtaining advice from experienced specialists directly at the enterprise.

The disadvantages include:

• - inconsistency of instructions and orders;
• - reducing the responsibility of performers for work as a result of receiving instructions simultaneously from several functional managers;
• -lack of mutual understanding between functional services;
• - lengthy decision-making process;
• -difficulties in maintaining constant contacts between functional services;
• - ambiguous distribution of responsibility;
• - rather long decision-making procedure;
• - the possibility of conflicts due to various directives, as the functional leader puts his questions in the first place.

In this structure, in addition, the principle of unity of command is violated and cooperation between structural units is difficult.

Rice. eight Functional organizational structure

In any human community there is a hierarchy. Sometimes it is hypertrophied (for example, military organizations), sometimes not too obvious (any private groups of people). How do you feel about this phenomenon? Do you immediately see the hierarchy in the new community you enter? Do you pay attention to it or do you not notice it at all? How do you define your place in it (or not at all)? How do you emotionally perceive the presence of this phenomenon in communities?

For me, this is an extremely difficult and even problematic issue. Emotionally, I have a sharp rejection, in the direction of disgust. Purely in practice, this can be useful, because. in some ways simplifies the interaction between people, creates a "protocol". But I personally don’t want to fit into any framework set for me from the outside and I’m not interested in walking the “beaten paths” either. And any "undercover fuss" with licking the anus of the "bosses" takes me to total disgust.

My first experience with hierarchy (from what I remember) was in kindergarten, junior group. There was an ugly fat teacher who encouraged pets who fawned on her in every possible way and combed her nasty curly hair. short hair(For some reason, this is especially memorable). I don’t remember exactly why, but she rotted me very much, up to undressing me to my shorts and placing me in a circle in front of my relatives as a sign of “shame” (it seems that I did not sleep in quiet time or something like that). And from there I remember how neutral children instantly turned into a pack under her instigation, and it was scary and ugly. I remember vaguely some of her attempts to get me to fit into the circle of "correct" - she even offered to bite her nails (I bite my nails). But it turns out that I still fell out of the hierarchy, unless the role of an outcast is also considered part of the hierarchy. You can probably count, but it's still something borderline, because. you can do anything and be sudden. But you are constantly "bitten" by everyone, this is such a payment for the right to be on your mind.

Comments

• How do you feel about this phenomenon? Do you immediately see the hierarchy in the new community you enter? Do you pay attention to it or do you not notice it at all? How do you define your place in it (or not at all)? How do you emotionally perceive the presence of this phenomenon in communities?

  It's a pleasure to walk around. I see pretty fast. It is usually the implicit hierarchy that matters. The place depends on where it is more convenient for me, what tasks are in this particular structure. As a phenomenon, it is an integral part of communities. Rigid types enrage - the army, state structures.

Let's check the terminology.
Hierarchy is a scheme by analogy with a pyramid, when, with the rise to a higher level, a certain quality increases in those who are at this level. So?

As far as I remember from social psychology, not a hierarchical model, but a role model is more adequate. Hierarchy implies a certain spectrum, a certain gradient, when there are extreme points. The role model does not imply extreme points as such and can even be circumplex (as in the case of Plutchik's wheel: there are spokes and you can fix them in a certain way, creating private hierarchies, but the model itself assumes precisely cyclicity and equality)...
So, each role has its advantages and disadvantages, just like the personality of each person has its strengths and weaknesses. weak sides. When a role is superimposed on personal characteristics, it turns out that it is easier for someone to play a role, but for someone it is difficult. Although the role of an outcast is generally assessed negatively, this role has its own philosophy, its own worldview, its own ethics in which one can find oneself.

If we talk about those communities that are strictly hierarchically organized, then on the one hand, yes, they exist and function according to certain laws. If you understand these laws and do not try to rebel against them, you can save yourself from unnecessary problems. It may turn out that hierarchy in general causes more problems and a person feels comfortable in non-hierarchical communities - then, at the stage of getting to know the community, one should simply identify its structure and refuse to establish stable relationships, since, by definition, the individual does not have a resource for their formation. All hierarchies are different in taste and color. 8-|

Hmm. It seems to me that these are parallel things that sometimes intersect, sometimes not. Need to think..

Hierarchy is something about power. Roles - no (not only). I'm still talking about the first. The topic of roles is also interesting, but does not cause such strong negative emotions.

Lutz, perhaps you don't see hierarchies in communities? It’s not that I always clearly fix them, but I constantly feel their presence. in any community. Even in a group of friends, this crap happens, only in a very mild form. Maybe it's just my bug that I see this, and in fact there is no hierarchy? :[email protected]

Such a distortion of the worldview. So it will be interesting (for me) to dig, why do I have this?

Also, maybe the hierarchical structure includes different roles? Those. roles are played with a correction for the hierarchical position in society? For example, the role of "mother" is played somewhat differently depending on whether the female is the president or a single mother with small odd jobs and living in Kupchino.

Ah, my topic. Society, community, groups and so on. I understand the hierarchy right away, who is on the throne, who licks whom, who knocks on whom. But it never infuriated me, on the contrary, it was interesting to study the mechanism itself. Until recently, I immersed myself in all the communities to which I somehow belonged, identified with the atmosphere and relationships, and assimilation and sacrifice are written somewhere in my gates. There was no awareness, and I was in these communities to the point of oversaturation, to the point of nausea, and already from the top of disappointment I dumped from there.

Now I don’t tempt fate, I respect mine internal theme, I came to the team, “sniffed”, if it doesn’t resonate, something doesn’t suit me, I leave right away, I don’t waste time. Moreover, the space supports me in this, sends pictures to me through the internal connection, images, so that the hierarchy itself becomes clearer.

When we are talking about children in kindergarten or school, you want to cry from stories about suppression. When my daughter was studying, she went through this story, put teachers and teacher in their place. I do not know how I succeeded, but my daughter drew the right conclusions.



:)

• Valchonok, what kind of pleasure, what does it look like? And what does it mean to “go around” (do not fit in? outwit and jump over a step? or?)

  Pleasure to outwit, jump over a step; not to obey it (hierarchy), but to subjugate oneself; not to follow the rules, but to set them.

  And why do rigid structures infuriate?

  They evoke a feeling of powerlessness and the need to act according to alien, often senile, laws.

  hmm. It seems to me that these are parallel things that sometimes intersect, sometimes not.

  I think so too. Hierarchy is always there, not everyone sees it. This does not at all negate the distribution of roles at one stage or another.
  

Iris, how do you see hierarchies and roles, how are they related?

• Uh .. And what exactly is embarrassing and disgusting?

  the presence of this structure. As if this is some kind of axiomatic state of human communities. And if I do not participate in this, I will never be a full-fledged member of human communities. And here it is required condition angry, as if they were rolling out an ultimatum to me immediately at the entrance. Such behavior makes me protest and want to send them to hell right away. What I do for the most part, and remain an outcast%))

  
  

  Well, you come to work (institute / school / knitting circle) and you immediately begin to turn away that the boss (teacher) is currently (situation) above you at the hierarchical level?

  and that there are people striving to climb these steps, and that there are those who have settled down on their step and sit contentedly - they say my hut is on the edge, I am an omezhka :) but more, of course, angers what I wrote above - i.e. focus on me, attempts to enslave me with someone else's structure. and what others do there is their problem, I don’t really care.

  And what do you suggest? Equality and brotherhood with great anarchy? Well, like people come to Gazprom and everyone is the same with their roles and salaries? :)

  oh no, I don’t propose to do anything with the organization of communities, I’m not in a revolutionary mood yet%)), I propose to just think about it, look at this piece of the world order a little from the side, think about what is so catchy and evoking strong emotions in this ( those who cause. who do not care - pass by)

Nouuuuuuuuu)))
me personally in recent times I am very drawn to hierarchical structures, suddenly, and as an executive link or an independent stand-alone unit, I began to acutely feel the lack of internal self-organization (hello, my completely open root)

that is, I have a strong need for a fatherly figure, but not overwhelming, but only guiding and a little controlling

although in principle I easily integrate into communities of any type, the main thing is that it helps me solve my own problems, and my role in the hierarchy is the last thing that concerns me.

if the community has ceased to satisfy the solution of my problems, I leave without worrying at all, that is, my degree of egocentrism here is prohibitive

• As if this is some kind of axiomatic state of human communities.
  ...
  over-quoting! cm.
  ...
  it also makes you angry that others also begin to immediately evaluate you and write you in somewhere. It seems to be okay, what do I care what's in someone's head, but come on - it worries ..

  Well, as if it were not in the hierarchy, in fact, the matter is, to put it mildly. Hierarchy is the structure of the distribution of certain social roles. Human beings, one way or another, they climb a candle there to hold, evaluate (according to appearance at least, and there, according to the mind mb) and play :D

  and that there are people striving to climb these steps, and that there are those who have settled down on their step and are sitting contentedly - they say my hut is on the edge, I am a small man, but more, of course, what I wrote about above - i.e. . focus on me, attempts to enslave me with someone else's structure. and what others do there is their problem, I don’t really care.

  Well, someone has harnessed himself to the game for social goodies and climbs up the hierarchy. How does it affect you? What are you better then, if you also decided to "calculate" the individual and evaluate it according to your strategy of behavior?

  Well, in fact, it is unlikely that anyone specifically wants to enslave you and impose their structure. There is a certain society with its own charter, if you need to go there, well, as if God himself ordered the charter to look through, if not, then I don’t think that this society needs a new member so much (although, of course, anything can happen). Well, as if there is an equivalent exchange, for a bun you need to adhere to a certain strategy of behavior, and if there is no peephole, then there are no cartoons.

  (for those who cause. who do not care - pass by)

  Ahh, well, call me, then I went in peace .. :D

So good. In general, hierarchies are, by definition, rigidly fixed vertical relationships, when one subordinates, and the other obeys. Moreover, in fact, the leader does not always have more responsibility than the subordinate (everyone has his own - this can be said for sure).

At the same time, there is, for example, a format of collegial governing bodies, in which there may not even be regular leaders and the rule of random management will be fixed (formal, nevertheless). Then the psychological nuances and role positions in the community will manifest themselves. Actually, that's why I draw attention to the role approach in the study of social groups.

Here's something else that's interesting to me: this rejection of hierarchies is the desire to destroy them in the bud and comfort in a certain state when there are no hierarchies (alone? or what?)?? Or is it the rejection of rigid hierarchies, inflexible, rigid? Or artificially created? It seems that we are discussing informal hierarchies. Or is it still formal (documented)? It's one thing when there is a boot and you can be poked into it, and another thing when there is no boot (established from outside the law) and everything is organized "as if by itself" (according to the internal law).

P.S. On the rights of off-top: you can always stretch a circle into a sequence of steps - in the same Zodiac, but to collapse the steps into a circle so that the end point docks with the initial one - oh, how difficult it is. Actually, around all this, debates are built about, for example, the spiral flow of time.

• those. focus on me, attempts to enslave me with someone else's structure.

  Something I have here is an association with the elusive Joe, who the fuck did not give up to anyone to catch.

  In principle, I agree with this.

  Well, in fact, it is unlikely that anyone specifically wants to enslave you and impose their structure. There is a certain society with its charter, if you need to go there, well, as if God himself ordered the charter to look through, if not, then I don’t think that this society needs a new member so much (although, of course, anything can happen) ...

  If I'm not satisfied with the stavchik, so I don't go there. The problem is that, for example, we have to deal with state structures from time to time, and here this principle no longer rolls.

• Here's something else that's interesting to me: this rejection of hierarchies is the desire to destroy them in the bud and comfort in a certain state when there are no hierarchies (alone? or what?)??

  scares when something is so total and without options. Hierarchy has always been built among people, since cave times. and it's something that doesn't change. of course, it would be interesting how a society without hierarchies would be organized. but it is so sewn into this species that you can imagine! you need to become an alien non-humanoid at least to learn other forms of interactions.

  Or is it the rejection of rigid hierarchies, inflexible, rigid? Or artificially created?

  well, this, too, there is also irritation due to the primitivization of a generally complex structure, perfectionist irritation at incompetence.

  It seems that we are discussing informal hierarchies.

  yes, more interested.

Well, if you develop and deepen the idea, then as they like to say on the Internet: "a suitcase-station .." (c) Ie. the principle is still the same, just the more generalized it is, the more nuances there are. And so that everyone was fine, alas, this has not yet been invented. And again, it's not about the principle of structuring society. And the members themselves and the prevailing culture.

• If I'm not satisfied with the stavchik, so I don't go there. The problem is that, for example, we have to deal with state structures from time to time, and here this principle no longer rolls.

  this is a normal reaction if, in principle, the presence of a hierarchical structure (which exists in any group of people, as we found out above) does not cause a rigid stance.

  In short, I'm an alien.
  :( |)

Management structures on many modern enterprises(especially large and super-large ones) were built in accordance with the principles of management formulated at the beginning of the 20th century. At the same time, the main attention was paid to the division of labor into separate functions and the correspondence of the responsibility of management employees to the powers granted. For many decades, organizations have created so-called formal governance structures that
rye are called hierarchical, or bureaucratic.
The concept of a hierarchical structure was formulated by the German sociologist Max Weber, who developed a normative model of a rational bureaucracy. It contained the following fundamental provisions: a clear division of labor, the consequence of which is the need to use qualified specialists for each position; hierarchy of management, in which the lower level is subordinate and controlled by the higher;
the presence of formal rules and norms that ensure the uniformity of the performance of their tasks and duties by managers; the spirit of formal impersonality with which officials carry out their duties; recruitment in accordance with the qualification requirements for this position. Objective character management decisions acted as a guarantor of the rationality of such a structure.
The hierarchical type of structure has many varieties, but the most common is the linear-functional organization of the board, which is still widely used throughout the world. The basis of linear-functional structures is the so-called "mine" principle of construction and specialization of the management process according to the functional subsystems of the organization (marketing, production, research and development, finance, personnel, etc.). For each of them, a hierarchy of services (“mine”) is formed, penetrating the entire organization from top to bottom (see Figure 1.14). The results of the work of each service of the organization's management apparatus are evaluated by indicators that characterize the fulfillment of their goals and objectives. For example, the work of services that manage production is characterized by indicators of the implementation of the production schedule, resource costs, labor productivity, the use of equipment and space; the work of equipment repair services is evaluated by indicators of downtime and costs for carrying out repair work etc. Accordingly, a system of material incentives is being built, focused primarily on achieving high performance in each service. In this case, the final result as a whole becomes, as it were, secondary, since it is believed that all services work to some extent to obtain it.
Many years of experience in using linear-functional
management structures showed that they are most effective where the management apparatus performs routine, frequently recurring and rarely changing tasks and functions. Their advantages are manifested in the management of organizations with a mass or large-scale type of production, as well as in the cost-type economic mechanism, when production is the least susceptible to progress in the field of science and technology. With such an organization of production management

When equal, inadequate environment.
work-eshe-
on at half-pre-
sweat-
missing - regulation -
an enterprise can function successfully only if changes in all structural divisions occur gradually. But since this is not the case in real conditions, the response of the control system to the requirements arises. external position aggravated by the loss of flexibility in the relationship of employees of the administrative apparatus due to the application of formal rules and procedures. As a result, the transfer of Information becomes more difficult and slows down, which cannot but affect the speed and timeliness of making managerial decisions. The need to coordinate the actions of different functional services dramatically increases the volume of the head of the organization and his deputies, that is, the higher womb of management.
Disadvantages of a linear-functional management structure
practices are exacerbated by such business conditions, which allow for a discrepancy between the responsibilities and powers of managers at different levels and departments; manageability standards are rising, especially among directors and their deputies; irrational informational
ki; excessively centralized operational management of production; the specifics of the work of various departments are not taken into account; there are normative and mending documents necessary for this type of structure.
linearly providing for a function in the headquarters services of various
So
called
The staff management structure has similar characteristics, as well as the onal division of managerial labor levels (see Fig. 1.15). the main task line managers here - coordination of actions of functional services (links) and their direction in the mainstream of the general interests of the organization.

A kind of hierarchical type of management organization
is the so-called divisional structure (from the English word ytayup - branch), the first developments of which date back to the 20s, and the peak of practical use - to the 60-70s of our century. The need for new approaches to the organization of management was caused by a sharp increase in the size of enterprises, the diversification of their activities and the complication technological processes in a dynamically changing environment. The first to restructure the structure according to this model were the largest organizations, which, within the framework of their gigantic enterprises (corporations), began to create production departments, giving them a certain independence in carrying out operational activities. At the same time, the administration reserved the right to tight control over corporate-wide issues of development strategy, research and development, investment, etc. Therefore, this type of structure is often characterized as a combination of centralized -
local coordination with decentralized management (decentralization while maintaining coordination and control).
The key figures in the management of organizations with a divisional structure are not the heads of functional departments, but managers who head production departments. The structuring of the organization by departments is carried out, as a rule, according to one of three criteria: by products or services provided (product specialization), by customer orientation (consumer specialization), by served territories (regional specialization). This approach provides a closer connection between production and consumers, significantly accelerating its response to changes in the external environment. As a result of the expansion of the boundaries of operational and economic independence, the departments began to be considered as granted
own-
them
“profit centers” that actively use boda to improve work efficiency.
led to demanded coordination
At the same time, divisional management structures increase the hierarchy, i.e., the vertical of management. They form intermediate levels of management for the operation of departments, groups, etc. Duplication of management functions on different levels ultimately led to an increase in the cost of maintaining the administrative apparatus. In the production departments themselves, management is built according to a linear-functional type, which is illustrated in Fig. 1.16, which shows a typical
contemporary big company divisional management structure.
Similar management structures were developed and used in our country in the 1960s and 1970s, when a course was pursued to increase the concentration of production and the consolidation of economic organizations. Its key goal is to improve the manageability of the economy by reducing the number of objects whose activities were regulated from a single center. In this way, conditions were also created for the organizational unification of science, technology and production.

Conventions: linear connections
__ - - - functional (staff) communications
Worker _TPGTPP]
The first, as an experiment, in 1961, production associations were created in Leningrad and Lvov, and already in 1965 their number grew to 672. Each association was supposed to be a production and technical complex, the constituent parts of which - enterprises and organizations - partially retained their independence, the rest turned into production units. In the 1970s, the process of consolidation of the primary National economy carried out especially intensively. As a result, large associations were formed
Analytical comment:
Between the workers and the director of the plant - three or more levels management; between workers and company management - five or more.
Headquarters services are fragmented, horizontal ties are weakened.
Information flows and management decisions move only vertically.
Rice. 1.16. Typical divisional management structure of a large organization
nia various types: mass and large-scale production in the automotive and tractor industries, agricultural engineering (ZIL, VAZ, KamAZ, etc.); combines in the metallurgical industry, chemical, petrochemical and some other industries;
machine-building associations of serial and single production; territorial production associations of single-product industries (coal, oil, gas); the largest diversified production associations in mechanical engineering (Uraltyazhmash, KhEMZ, Atommash) and other industries; scientific-production, scientific-technical and other associations.
The management of associations was built on the basis of the premise of their integrity, i.e., the organic connectedness of the constituent parts that decide common goal and common tasks. At the same time, there was a significant difference in the level of centralization of management: along with associations in which management was completely centralized and carried out by the apparatus of the head enterprise or a specially created body, decentralized structures were also used, especially where enterprises retained their economic and legal independence.
The organizational structure of management of enterprises and associations basically remained linear-functional, but as a result of the increase in hierarchy (general director - board of directors - directors of enterprises), the need for coordination of activities at all levels increased, in a clearer distribution of functions between the management bodies of the association and enterprises, in information support of the entire management process. The preservation of the linear-functional type of management of large conglomerates increased the shortcomings of this structure and led to a slowdown in decision-making processes, an increase in the terms of coordination, duplication of functions at different levels. But the main drawback was that the expected breakthrough in the field of scientific and technological progress did not occur. The entire management system of associations and their constituent enterprises and organizations aimed them primarily at the fulfillment of current and operational plans and tasks. Promising goals, including those in the development of science and technology, as a rule, were relegated to the background: they did not have enough time or money, there was no direct interest in setting and solving them, since the evaluation of work was carried out based on the results current production and economic activities.
responsibility
self-
and
Work on the reorganization of the management of large associations and enterprises continues under the conditions of perestroika, primarily ensuring the goal of raising the rights and efficiency of their subdivisions. As an example, in fig. 1.17 shows a diagram of the organizational structure of management joint-stock company"Kirovs-
types of mechanical engineering
cue plant”, producing various products (agricultural
road and industrial equipment,
and service equipment, etc.). She is
lew deep market penetration
and lower levels of government. For this
27 structural subdivisions were allocated tractors, construction and
repair, transport was developed from the price of relations to the average in the composition of the plant were which were called
prostrate,
Lena
self-supporting without being significant
the possibility of opening CEO nanocontrol,
complexes and became self-supporting units legal entities. They were given economic independence, as well as
bank account. At the same time, he reserved the right to exercise financial and also to appoint and remove the directors of the complexes. As a result, the economy of independent divisions has noticeably strengthened, which have become more actively engaged in
questions
unnecessary
irrational
costs.
and
cuts
7
A year later, the number of such complexes increased to 70. Various modifications of hierarchical structures used abroad and in our country did not allow solving the problems of coordinating functional links horizontally, increasing responsibility and expanding the powers of managers at lower and middle levels, and freeing the top echelon from operational control. A transition to more flexible structures better adapted to dynamic changes and production requirements was required.

organization of any system. Since the system has the property of hierarchy (by op division), then an element of the system is a subsystem. And just under system the lowest level (the level at which the subsystem is no longer elima) is the actual element. On the other hand, a particular system can be considered as system larger system (higher level system). Consequently, in a system one can single out internal connections between its subsystems and external connections established by it with other systems of the large system in which it enters. For example, if the faculty university be considered as a system on The subsystems of the latter are the departments, and at the same time, the faculty itself, along with other faculties, is a subsystem of the educational institution.

If for an architect a house plus a heating system plus an electrical system plus water supply is one big system, then for a heating engineer the system is the heating system, and the building itself is the external environment. For a sociologist, a family is a system, and a house, an apartment is an environment, or an external environment for this family.

If the internal connections in the system are in some sense "stronger" than the external ones, then the system can exist as such and be a subsystem of a larger system. If internal connections weaken and the strength or number of external connections with individual elements (subsystems of a given system) increases, then the integrity is violated, and the system within the larger system ceases to exist as a whole.

Hierarchy of the system. The elements of the system are in different relationships with each other and the place of each of them is a place on the hierarchical ladder of the system.

Although the system manifests itself as a single and integral object, it consists of elements (subsystems, parts), i.e., systems of a lower order. At the same time, it can itself be a system (subsystem, part) that is part of a system of a higher order.

All elements of our world are interconnected to one degree or another. It follows that, in principle, there is only one System called the "World" (the Universe, etc.), and everything that exists in it is its elements (subsystems, SFU, parts, elements, members, etc.). d.). We do not yet know either the goals of this System, or even whether this System (the Universe accessible to us in study) exists in the singular, or there are many of them. Perhaps there are infinite extensions to higher or lower orders.

But in any case, the biosphere is an organic element of this world and, at the same time, the environment for the human body. And the human body is a natural element of the biosphere, which affects it and causes its reactions. It is the effects of the external environment that can lead to various diseases - lesions of various SFU of the body.

The hierarchy of systems is due to the hierarchy of goals. The system has a purpose. And to achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve a number of smaller subgoals, for which a large system contains a number of subsystems of varying degrees of complexity, from the minimum (SFU) to the maximum possible complexity.

Hierarchy is the difference between the goals of the system and the goals of its elements (subsystems), which are subgoals for it. Moreover, higher-order systems set goals for lower-order systems. Thus, a higher order goal is subdivided into a number of subgoals (lower order goals). The hierarchy of goals defines the hierarchy of systems. To achieve each of the subgoals, a specific element is required (follows from the conservation law). Management in the hierarchical ladder is carried out according to the law "the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal." That is, direct control is possible only at the level "system - its own subsystem", and it is impossible to control the system of a subsystem of its subsystem. The king, if he wants to cut off the head of a slave, he does not do it himself, but orders his subordinate executioner.

Any living organism is a part (system, subsystem) of a higher order system - family, clan, species and the world of living beings. And these systems of a higher order, in turn, are elements of another system of an even higher order, called the biosphere, which itself is an element of a system of an even higher order, called "planet Earth". The elements of a living organism (systems and subsystems consisting of cells, liquids, etc.) are systems of a lower order in relation to itself. The goal of an organism as a system is to survive in the biosphere. This goal is divided into a number of smaller goals (subgoals) - to move, eat, supply yourself with oxygen, remove everything from yourself. final products metabolism, etc. For each of these subgoals, there are specific systems (subsystems, elements), each of which has only their specific functions.

2. The essence of transformations in the system

The hierarchy of the system lies in the fact that it can be considered as an element of a system of a higher order, and each of its elements, in turn, can be a system of a higher order. low level.

Emergence defines that the sum of the properties of the elements is not equal to the properties of the system.

Functionality predetermines that all elements of the system act and interact within the framework of their functional purpose.

A necessary condition for systemic education is:

the presence of at least two elements;

the presence of a connection between the elements;

the presence of a function;

the presence of a goal;

the presence of a tectological boundary.

An element is an indivisible part of a system. Further division of the elements leads to the destruction of its functional connections with other elements and obtaining the properties of a selected set, inadequate to the properties of the element as a whole.

Communication is what connects the elements and properties of the system into a single whole. Links between elements and subsystems of the same level are called horizontal, and links of the system with all subsystems of subordinate hierarchical levels are called vertical.

Subsystem - allocated by certain rules and featured a purposeful subset of interrelated elements of any nature.

Each subsystem can be divided into smaller subsystems. The system differs from the subsystem only by the rule and features of combining elements. For the system, the rule is general, and for subsystems, it is more individual. Based on this, the system can also be represented as something whole, consisting of subsystems, each of which can be considered relatively independently. Subsystems identified on the same horizon are subsystems of the same level. The division of subsystems into subsystems of a lower level is called a hierarchy and means the subordination of a lower level of the system to a higher one.

Tectological boundaries as an area of ​​contact between the interaction of several systems (elements of systems) are the contours of the system.

The goal of the system is the "desired" state of its outputs, i.e. some value or subset of system function values. The goal can be set from outside or set by the system to itself, in which case the goal will reflect the internal needs of the system.

The function of the system is set from outside and shows what role this system performs relative to more common system, in which it is included as an integral part, along with other systems that act for it external environment. Any change in the function produced by the environment causes a change in the mechanism of the system's functioning, and this leads to a change in the structure of the system and connections. The system exists as long as it functions.

The structure of the system is a set of stable connections and relations of elements, specified in size, direction and purpose.

Many systems that exist in the world around us can be classified depending on a number of features.

The most commonly used classification approaches are:

on interaction with the environment;

according to the degree of complexity;

if possible, the operation of the system in time;

according to the purpose of the object;

according to the formal properties of a formal system.

According to interaction with the environment, systems are divided into closed and open.

According to the degree of complexity, simple and complex are distinguished. Simple systems are characterized by a small number of internal and external links.

Whenever possible, the system's actions in time are divided into static and dynamic. Static systems are characterized by non-variability, i.e. their parameters do not depend on time. Dynamic systems, unlike static ones, are changeable; their parameters are related to time.

According to the purpose of the object, the systems are divided into: organizational, energy, technical, managerial, etc.

According to the formal properties of a formal (for example, mathematical) system: linear, non-linear, continuous, discrete and other systems.

From the position of the system approach, management is considered as a multidimensional system and involves the allocation in the system:

managed system, which is the object of management;

the control system, the subject of control, is a part of the system;

management, exercising managerial influence.