home Management Management - Vikhanskiy OS

Management - Vikhanskiy OS

2.2. Department and cooperation

The growth of the specialization of individual works in an organization is limited by the possibilities for their coordination. You can solve this problem if you begin to group similar works and their performers, i.e. Begin to implement their specific organizational isolation of the performers of similar works.

This process of organizational isolation is called de-partimentation. By means of departmentalization, the organization can expand almost unlimitedly. Examples include giant corporations such as Exxon, General Motors, IBM, and others.

There are many approaches to grouping specialized works in organizations.

The two main areas on which the departmentalization can be carried out are grouping of works around resources and grouping of works around the result of activity. Depending on the degree of orientation to this or that direction, the corresponding type of departmentalization is carried out (Figure 7.9)

Fig. 7.9. Types of departmentalization, allocated on the basis of the direction of grouping of works

From Fig. 7.9 it can be seen that in the quadrant 1 there are types of departmentalization, for which there is a lack of grouping of works with a pronounced preference for their specialization. Therefore, in this case, approaches to departmentalization, based on rather simple principles of linear division of the organization, predominate: in number, in time, in territory or in natural factors. Thus, the grouping of works by numbers is widely used in the army, among students and in the conduct of public works. Grouping by time is associated with a shift or seasonality in production, and across the territory - with the "geography" of work in the organization.

Linear departmentalization assumes relative autonomy in work. Such autonomy, for example, has a soldier on the battlefield, a student in the classroom, an excavator while digging a trench and a factory worker in a brigade. This type of departmentalization is characterized in general by simplicity, one-dimensional relations (only vertical links) and the possibility of self-management (relative autonomy). Therefore, it is widely used in organizing work in the lower-level production units of a family or small business (Figure 7.10).

Fig. 7.10. Linear division or grouping of the student's course in the university (in terms of numbers)

Such a simple approach to grouping jobs and people is usually done when the work performed is very similar, and people do not differentiate. In organizations of medium and large size, linear division into parts gives an effect, as a rule, at the lower levels of the hierarchy (in groups, brigades, links, etc.). Once the work in the organization begins to specialize, there is a need to move to other types of departmentalization.

With the development of the specialization of work related to the receipt and distribution of resources in the organization, functional de-qualification (quadrant 2) has arisen. In production this type of departmentalization was developed during the industrial revolution in the creation of large factories and plants. To this day, a significant number of enterprises and organizations use this approach.

With the functional division of the organization into parts, the specialized work is grouped primarily around resources, as noted above. So, the planning department manages such a resource as time, the personnel department is people, the finance department is money, the information systems department is data, etc. For a production organization, this means that, along with the linear division of the work in its main link, a functional division of highly specialized works that serve the production process is added (Figure 7.11).

Varieties of functional departmentalization are the grouping of works on the process (piece, mass and pilot production), i.e. By type of production, and by technology (mechanization, automation and robotics), i.e. By type of equipment. In both cases, the work is grouped according to the principle of their similarity (assembly team in mass production or a team serving the CNC). The wide use of functional departmentalization and its varieties in the design of organizations is associated with some clear advantages that this approach has. The main of them is the possibility of doing this or that work in the most effective way. This is achieved through the development of a functional specialization that saves time, simplifies the training of an employee and, most importantly, allows the qualified servicing of any other part of the organization in the field of a specialized function. Thus, the appearance of an employee in the accounting department for calculating the wages of production personnel certainly contributes to improving the quality of this procedure.

The fact that the isolation of functional services follows in the organizational chart immediately after the level of senior management, gives strength and prestige to the most important functions. The consequence of this is to strengthen vertical links and communications in the organization and strengthen control over the activities of lower levels in the organization. Functional departmentalization thus opens the way to quantitative growth of the organization, preserving to a certain extent also qualitative characteristics of the work.

Almost all industrial giants grew on the basis of this type of departmentalization or its varieties. Mankind is obliged to this method of grouping works in the organization by allowing it to enter mass production, mechanization and automation of production.

However, the other side of this process is widely known. So, a dangerous organizational disease - functionalism - owes its appearance to this method of grouping works. Functionalism grows out of super-specialization, creating impenetrable organizational partitions between grouped works and weakening horizontal connections in this way. As a result, there is a blurring of the overall organizational goal and its seizure by functional "apartments". It creates seclusion within departments and fewer people think about the organization as a whole. In the subdivisions of the organization, the instinct of self-preservation, leading to conservatism, begins to develop, a situation arises where unnecessary work can not be removed from the organization. All this leads to the emergence of contradictions, conflicts between functional areas.

Another serious shortcoming of the functional organization is the so-called "bottle-neck effect", which it generates. Its essence lies in the fact that the development of predominantly vertical links within the framework of the functional approach raises the solution of the problems arising at various levels of the organization to its chief executive. As a result, attempts by managers to concentrate on solving strategic tasks are drowning in operational work, in fluidity. And this is not the fault of the manager, but the fault of the organizational system used.

The problems of functional departmentalization were partially solved by changing the priority in the direction of designing the organization, i.e. By grouping the work around the result (quadrant 3). The new type of grouping of works in the organization received the name "product departmentalization" at an early stage of its development. Subsequently, its varieties appeared: "according to the consumer"; «On the market». The principle of similarity, as in the previous functional version, remained, but now he began to relate not to work with the resource, but to work on obtaining the result. The development of product departmentalization in the design of organizations in practice was associated with the emergence of multi-product diversified industries or multinational companies, which was a natural reaction of business to changing the external environment. A certain influence on the development of the product approach was provided by the policy of conversion of military production in the United States after the Second World War with the aim of separating the production of consumer goods in its composition.

At departmentalization by the consumer grouping of works is carried out around the end user of production (for example, the army, the army and civil industries or goods for the house and goods for industry, etc.). Market classification is built in relation to the geographical and industrial markets of production and sales. In the scientific and development activities, as well as in the field of public administration, this type of departmentalization was called project or program (project management, program-target management).

The peculiarity of this approach is the creation of relatively autonomous parts in the organization, focused on the product, program or project, consumer or market. Within the framework of the approach, the emerging interdependence between the parts of the organization is widely used. The schematic diagram of this type of departmentalization can look like the following (Figure 7.12).

Fig. 7.12. Product Departmentalization (by the example of a machine-building production association)

The transition to a product option in the design of an organization usually begins after the top management becomes evident that it is impossible to simultaneously grow and adequately respond to changes in the external environment within the framework of functional departmentalization. In this case, the autonomous parts that are connected technologically with various products are allocated in the production unit, and heads assigned to these sectors are given full responsibility for the production of a particular product and making a profit. The sites are given the necessary functional maintenance to ensure the set tasks. Top management still has a small number of centralized functional services (usually 4-6), concentrating on carrying out actions that are strategic in nature and serve decision-making at the highest level.

The grouping of works around the result solved a number of problems that arose in the resource approach. With this approach, we finally managed to eliminate the turnover from the work of the organization's management by separating the operational level of management, which concentrates on the production of a particular product, from the strategic level responsible for the growth and development of the organization as a whole. This was also facilitated by the transfer of responsibility for profit to the "grocery" level, which undoubtedly freed up the time for top management to ponder and solve strategic problems.

Another important advantage of product departmentalization is that it leads to a significant increase in attention in the process of work to the final result (product, consumer, market). The transfer of the focus of attention in operational management to the product facilitates integration within the unit responsible for its production and unites people.

Increasing the responsibility of the "product" leader promotes the development of decentralization, initiative and autonomy. The emergence of a larger number of managers with common responsibilities translates the "bottle-neck effect" from the top level of the management hierarchy downwards and weakens its negative effect. As a result, the effectiveness of the product organization grows.

At the same time, the shortcomings of product departmentalization are obvious. Instead of functionalism, another disease emerges - "pro -ductivism", or the opposition of product goals to common organizational goals. The development of the product hierarchy leads to duplication of work and a corresponding increase in the number of personnel, as well as to inefficient use of resources. As a result, the cost of maintaining additional services is increasing.

The growth of the organization and the autonomization of its parts make it difficult to carry out control from above. The development of diversification increases the multiplicity of roles performed by the employee in the organization, and, consequently, can lead to increased stress caused by work.

If the problem of adaptation to the external environment is not effectively resolved within the framework of individual directions, then a natural way out of the situation is simultaneous strengthening in the grouping of the work of both the resource approach and the result-oriented approach. Quadrant 4 illustrates this approach to departmentalization. The most obvious concrete type of solution of this kind is the matrix approach.

Matrix departmentalization was a reflection of attempts to simultaneously maximize benefits and minimize the weaknesses of both functional and product approaches. It represents a balanced trade-off between the division and grouping of works around resources and around the outcome.

Departmentalization based on the matrix approach of all available in practice is the most difficult for practical implementation. However, under certain circumstances it can be very effective. For example, matrix analysis is used when a complex system of reactions to the influence of environmental factors is required.

The transition to a matrix approach in building an organization was a reaction to a change in the depth and force of the impact of a number of environmental factors, which was primarily manifested in the intensification of information flows. This approach is also associated with solving the problems of managing organizations in situations where they are severely constrained by resources, especially financial and human resources, and also when very high demands are placed on functional and product lines.

A distinctive feature of the matrix approach to departmentalization is the formal availability of the employee at the same time two chiefs who have equal rights. This system of double submission is based on a combination of two principles - functional and product. Each relationship matrix includes three types of roles in the organization:

• The chief executive, who maintains a balance in the system of double subordination;

• heads of functional and product divisions, "dividing" the subordinate in the cell matrix among themselves;

• heads of matrix cells, equally accountable to the functional and before the product manager.

Maintaining these relations at the proper level makes very high in all respects the requirements for personnel.

The functional or technical part of the matrix is ​​responsible for ensuring the operation of the specifications, technical management, qualified personnel and its development. The product, or administrative, part of the matrix is ​​responsible for planning work, managing and evaluating the results, performing work operations, achieving the goals. The effect of a combination of these two principles is to maintain a balance between the technical (how well the work is done) and the administrative (what work is done and how much it cost) goals.

This balance is achieved by "interlacing" the vertical (administrative part) and horizontal (technical part) of communications and communications. The worker in each cell of the matrix (Figure 7.13) is subject to both authorities simultaneously. Specialists of functional departments are fixed on a formal basis for a certain product and therefore must obey two executives.

Fig. 7.13. Matrix scheme of departmentalization

The technology of transition to the use of the matrix approach in the design of an organization consists of three stages. At the first stage, temporary target groups for the product, project or territory are created. These groups are formed from representatives of different parts of the organization. Formally, these representatives remain in the divisions that delegated them, but they must already obey the head of the task force. At the second stage, such groups are given the status of permanent units in the organization. But their participants still represent the interests of the services that sent them. At the third stage, a formal leader is assigned to this permanent group, responsible for integrating all the work in the group from beginning to end. He already enters into business relations with the heads of the functional and product parts.

Matrix departmentalization attracts managers with a number of its obvious advantages, which can only be manifested if there are necessary prerequisites for this. The main advantage of matrix departmentalization is the high potential for adapting to changes in the external environment, concluded by it, by simply changing the balance between resources and results, functions and product, technical and administrative objectives.

Более высокая эффективность матричной департаментизации по сравнению с другими подходами базируется на том, что функциональные знания пронизывают каждую работу. Этому же способствует наличие возможности гибкого использования кадров, имеющих, как правило, и функциональную, и продуктовую подготовку. Большие возможности матричный подход открывает в деле принятия решений. Еще одним наглядным преимуществом матричной департаментизации выступает то, что она является единственным вариантом проектирования организации, при котором горизонтальные связи формируются и даже изображаются на схеме. Тесное и постоянное сочетание вертикальных и горизонтальных связей развивает механизмы множественности власти и принятия решений на местах, в группах. Такое положение дел развивает способности работников и делает их участниками процесса принятия решения.

Использование матричного подхода к департаментизации порождает ряд негативных последствий для организации. В основе трудностей, с которыми в случае использования данного подхода сталкивается организация, лежит система двойного подчинения. При отсутствии баланса, который не так легко установить, двойное подчинение может стать источником многих конфликтов в организации. В частности, матричная система порождает двусмысленность роли работника и его руководителей. Это создает напряжение в отношениях между членами организации, увеличивает их стресс.

С организационной точки зрения, матричная департаментизация очень трудна во внедрении. Требуется длительная подготовка работников и соответствующая организационная культура. Матричная схема множественных связей и властей сложна, громоздка и дорога не только во внедрении, но и в эксплуатации. Как показала практика, она абсолютно неэффективна в кризисные периоды. Отдельные специалисты считают, что матричную схему можно причислить скорее к достижениям управленческой мысли, нежели практики. Являя собой управленческий «идеал», она с трудом поддается реализации и многие известные компании к ней относятся скептически. А главное — это то, что она является, по существу, пределом, так как дальнейшее ее развитие невозможно.