home Management Management - Vikhansky OS

Management - Vikhansky OS

2.4. The scale manageability and control

When designing organizations and people grouping occurs works on some basis or on the basis of some criterion. In the course of the grouping comes the stage when it is necessary to make a decision as to how many people work or can directly be effectively integrated under a unified leadership. In the organization of each of the leaders of limited time, knowledge and skills, as well as the maximum number of decisions he may take with a reasonable degree of efficiency.

If the number of slaves increased in arithmetic progression, the number of potential interpersonal relationships between managers and subordinates increases exponentially. This is for the reason that the leader has to deal with three types of interpersonal communication: direct bilateral; multiple lines; a combination of both. The first - is the relationship between a manager and a specific slave. The second - a relationship manager with two or more subordinates. Third - is the relationship between subordinates.

To determine the optimal scale (or range) of control or monitoring, it conducted a large number of studies.

Advancing increase in the number of contacts the head in comparison with the number of subordinates illustrated in Table. 7.2.

Table 7.2.

The relationship between the number of employees and number of contacts with whom deals Head

In 1933 V. Greykyunas determined on the basis of these data, that the leader is able to have up to 12 contacts of the first type and 28 - the second.

At the present time to determine the optimal scope of control is widely used situational approach, which is based on analysis of the factors affecting the determination of control scale. To consider the factors are factors associated with the work:

• similarity of the works;

• Territorial remoteness of the work;

• the complexity of the work.

Another group of factors associated with those who manage and who directs:

• The level of training of subordinates;

• The level of professionalism of the head.

The largest group of factors relates to the management and organization to:

• the degree of clarity in the delegation of rights and responsibilities;

• The degree of clarity in the statement of objectives;

• degree of stability (rate of change) in the organization;

• degree of objectivity in the measurement of the results;

• communications equipment;

• hierarchical level of the organization;

• The level of need for personal contact with subordinates.

Depending on the status of these variables determines the optimal for the specific situation of control scale. Many experts recommend some average values, which can be taken as a guideline in determining the scope of control. For example, it is estimated that the number of senior organizations subordinate one head should not exceed the number 7.

At the same time in the bottom tier scale organizations may reach 20-30 controllability, i.e. one head may be up to 20-30 subordinate employees. In modern conditions due to the increased use of information systems and collaboration may further increase the manageability of scale. Thus, D. Woodward after inspection companies received the following data for the three different types of industries (Table. 7.3).

Table 3 July.

The scope of control for various parts of the organizational hierarchy and types of production

The big difference (from three times to five times) on the scale of control for the Director level (High School) and the level of foreman (lower unit) is explained not by the fact that the foreman more capable director to oversee subordinate activity, and that the relationship of coordination at the level of Director and subordinate (usually his deputies and go directly to it or department heads of departments) and the relationship of coordination at the level of foreman and the workers are very different in content rights sold and the nature of the information exchange. If the foreman should be at least aware of the working face, his name and what it can do, then Director of the knowledge of his deputy is unlikely to be enough to build effective interaction with him.

Therefore, when moving from the lower levels of the organizational hierarchy to the upper scale to quantify the value of the optimum controllability becomes smaller, thus confirming the fact that, in terms of rights and information exchanged, the proportion of one pair of relations increases. There are some techniques more accurately determine the extent of control applied to a particular organization. They are based on the measurement of (five-or seven-point scale), a number of organizational variables. For example, such variable factors of the work can be used as the similarity of work, territorial fragmentation, complexity of work, the need for management and control, the need for coordination, the level of work planning. There are techniques, which also include the variables related to the interaction between the participants and the nature of the decisions taken.

Restrictions Asked scale manageability during the growth of the organization, if not change its organizational variables, forcing its leadership to constantly increase the number of hierarchy levels. Vertical growth of the organization has known deficiencies, leading ultimately to lower the overall efficiency of its functioning. Attempts to solve this problem led to the identification of two types of control scale - narrow and wide (Figures 7.16 and 7.17).

Fig. 7.16. Driving the narrow scope of control

The narrow scope of control is characterized by a minimum number of subordinates one leader. As a result, in order to connect the lower links of the organization with the highest link, increasing the number of hierarchical levels. Such a grouping of people and the work has a number of advantages. With less subordinate to the head easier to exercise control over their work, and therefore it is possible to do it more efficiently. It can also quickly share information with fewer employees. However, there are disadvantages in this construction bonds. At the head of a very small number of the loaded control workers may appear desire to intervene in their direct work. In addition, multilevel communication makes cumbersome, long and expensive.

Fig. 7.17. Driving broad-scale manageability

A wide scale of control has characteristics opposite narrow: the maximum possible number of subordinates have one leader and a minimum number of hierarchy levels.

Such a grouping of people and the work is characterized by the following advantages. With many employees, the head is forced to delegate its powers to download them all work. Delegating the authority itself - a positive fact. By giving their employees the rights to implement the work, the manager must be confident that they will cope with it, and so often in this case chosen a strong and skilled team. The disadvantages of a broad-scale manageability include the previously mentioned "bottleneck effect" leading to congestion manager in solving routine problems. Developments in this area could lead to loss of control over subordinates outside manager features. All this makes the heads of very high standards, which not all of them possess.

The survey revealed a number of organizations that there is no consistent relationship between the type of control scale (narrow or wide) and the type of problem to be solved (bad a structured and well a structured). The reason for this, according to many experts, is too many variables that affect this choice. For example, the level of specialization of work and the size of the group directly influence the choice of a particular type of control scale. In small groups, handling a wide scale helps to develop group cohesion, to increase the responsibility of each person for the common cause. As the group gradually entered the narrow scope of control. Practical approaches are often situational balance between these two extremes.

For the last ten years, the concept of control scale was used not only in relation to the determination of the number of workers' organizations, directly subordinate to the head. His start to apply to the total number of staff working "under one roof". In this case, it refers to the classical institutions like factories, offices. This is due to the fact that today there is practically no serious limitations on the scope of the organization in terms of technology.

If we define the scope of control of the above type based on the knowledge of the head of every member of the organization on behalf of, the number of employees 100 150 people should be generally limited, as a normally developed person, with experience of multiple contacts to be able to easily recall within a given number of the employee's name with which it wants to establish a working contact. In some organizations, where it is impossible to reduce the number of employees up to the said amount for one reason or another, employees wear on hats, clothes or keep the workplace signs with their name, and if required, with an indication of their positions.

If the head of the organization is guided in its relations with employees on their knowledge in the face, then the limit of the number of employees may be 800-900 people, and in rare cases up to 1000 people. So, the US is no longer mechanical engineering plants are designed with a number of employees above this figure. Similar requirements apply to the 1988 and we have to design engineering plants. Outside the specified number of business organization is considered to be unmanageable, if the leader is focused on personal relationships with all of its subordinates, and not on the "leadership of the masses."