Subordination structure in the organization. Functional form of organizational management structure using the example of a dairy production organization

Achieving high performance results is what all companies, without exception, strive for. However, without a clearly established organizational structure, the enterprise risks failure.

In this article we will analyze what the organizational structure of enterprise management is and how to choose it correctly.

Features of choosing the organizational structure of an enterprise

The organizational structure is the basis for performing enterprise management functions. Thus, it is understood as composition, subordination, interaction and distribution of work between individual employees and entire departments.

In simple terms, the organizational structure of an enterprise is a set of divisions, as well as managers headed by the general director. Its choice depends on many factors:

• age of the organization (the younger the company, the simpler its organizational structure);
• organizational and legal form (JSC, LLC, individual entrepreneur, ...);
• field of activity;
• scale of the company (number of employees, departments, etc.);
• technologies involved in the company's work;
• connections within and outside the company.

Of course, when considering the organizational structure of management, it is necessary to take into account such characteristics of the company as levels of interaction. For example, how departments of a company interact with each other, employees with employees, and even the organization itself with the external environment.

Types of organizational structures for enterprise management

Let's take a closer look at the types of organizational structures. There are several classifications, and we will consider the most popular and at the same time the most complete of them.

Linear

Linear structure is the simplest of all existing types of enterprise management structures. At the head is the director, then the heads of departments, then ordinary workers. Those. everyone in the organization is vertically connected. Typically, such organizational structures can be found in small organizations that do not have so-called functional divisions.

This type is characterized by simplicity, and tasks in the organization are usually completed quickly and professionally. If for some reason the task is not completed, then the manager always knows that he needs to ask the head of the department about the completion of the task, and the head of the department, in turn, knows who in the department to ask about the progress of the work.

The disadvantage is the increased demands on management personnel, as well as the burden that falls on their shoulders. This type of management is only applicable to small businesses, otherwise managers will not be able to work effectively.

Line-staff

If a small company that used a linear management structure develops, then its organizational structure changes and turns into a linear-staff structure. Vertical connections remain in place, however, the manager has a so-called “headquarters” - a group of people who act as advisors.

The headquarters does not have the authority to give orders to the performers, however, it has a strong influence on the leader. Based on the decisions of the headquarters, management decisions are also formed.

Functional

When the workload on employees increases and the organization continues to grow further, the organizational structure moves from a line-staff to a functional one, which means the distribution of work not by departments, but by functions performed. If everything was simple before, now managers can safely call themselves directors of finance, marketing and production.

It is with a functional structure that one can see the division of the organization into separate parts, each of which has its own functions and tasks. A stable external environment is an essential element of supporting the development of a company that has chosen a functional structure.

Such companies have one serious drawback: the functions of management personnel are very blurred. If in a linear organizational structure everything is clear (sometimes even too clear), then with a functional organizational structure everything is a little blurry.

For example, if problems arise with sales, the director has no idea who exactly to blame. Thus, the functions of management sometimes overlap and when a problem occurs, it is difficult to determine whose fault it was.

The advantages are that the company can be multidisciplinary and cope well with this. Moreover, due to functional separation, a firm can have multiple goals.

Linear-functional

This organizational structure is only applicable to large organizations. Thus, it combines the advantages of both organizational structures, however, it has fewer disadvantages.

With this type of control, all main connections are linear, and additional ones are functional.

Divisional

Like the previous one, it is suitable only for large companies. Functions in the organization are distributed not according to the areas of responsibility of subordinates, but according to types of product, or according to the regional affiliation of the division.

A division has its own divisions, and the division itself resembles a linear or linear-functional organizational structure. For example, a division may have a procurement department, a marketing department, and a production department.

The disadvantage of this organizational structure of the enterprise is the complexity of connections between departments, as well as the high costs of maintaining managers.

Matrix

Applicable to those enterprises that operate in the market where products must be constantly improved and updated. For this purpose, the company creates working groups, which are also called matrix ones. It follows from this that double subordination arises in the company, as well as constant collaboration of employees from different departments.

The advantage of this organizational structure of the enterprise is the ease of introducing new products into production, as well as the company’s flexibility to the external environment. The disadvantage is double subordination, due to which conflicts often arise in work groups.

conclusions

So, the organizational structure of an enterprise is a company’s management system and its choice determines the ease of performing tasks, the company’s flexibility to the external environment, as well as the load that falls on the shoulders of managers.

If the company is small, then at the stage of formation, as a rule, a linear organizational structure naturally arises in it, and as the enterprise develops, its structure acquires an increasingly complex form, becoming matrix or divisional.

Video - an example of a company's organizational structure:

Under the organizational structure of the enterprise refers to the composition, subordination, interaction and distribution of work among departments and management bodies, between which certain relationships are established regarding the implementation of authority, flow of commands and information.

There are several types of organizational structures: linear, functional, linear-functional, divisional, adaptive. Let's consider the main characteristics of these structures. The linear structure is characterized by the fact that at the head of each division is a manager who has concentrated in his hands all management functions and exercises sole management of the employees subordinate to him. Its decisions, transmitted along the chain “from top to bottom,” are mandatory for implementation by lower levels. He, in turn, is subordinate to a senior manager.

On this basis, a hierarchy of managers of a given management system is created (for example, a site foreman, a workshop manager, an enterprise director), i.e. the principle of unity of command is implemented, which assumes that subordinates carry out the orders of one leader. A higher management body does not have the right to give orders to any performers without bypassing their immediate superior.

A linear management structure is used, as a rule, by small and medium-sized enterprises engaged in simple production, in the absence of broad cooperative ties between enterprises.

Functional structure involves specialization in the performance of individual management functions. Separate divisions are allocated for their implementation (or functional performers). The functional organization of management is based on the horizontal division of managerial labor. The instructions of the functional body within its competence are mandatory for production units.

The functional management structure is usually used in large enterprises. In the USA, for example, 25% of large firms use this structure.

Linear-functional structure allows you to largely eliminate the shortcomings of both linear and functional management. With this structure, the purpose of functional services is to prepare data for line managers in order to make competent decisions or emerging production and management tasks. The role of functional bodies (services) depends on the scale of economic activity and the management structure of the enterprise as a whole. The larger the company and the more complex its management system, the more extensive the apparatus it has. In this regard, the issue of coordinating the activities of functional services is acute.

Linear-functional management structures are used in most enterprises. A diagram of such control structures is shown in Fig. 3.1.

Divisional (or departmental) management structure - the most common form of organization of management of a modern industrial company. Its meaning is that independent divisions are almost completely responsible for the development, production and marketing of homogeneous products (divisional-product management structure) or independent departments are fully responsible for economic results in certain regional markets (divisional-regional structure management).

Each industry department is an independent production and economic unit, consisting of departments and factories. Such an independent division is more focused on maximizing profits and gaining market positions than with a functional management system.

Experience shows that where the factor of technology and technology is important, the divisional-product form of management has unconditional advantages.

Linear, linear-functional and divisional structures are classified as bureaucratic and are relatively stable over time.

Adaptive Management Structures . Since the beginning of the 60s. XX century many organizations began to develop and implement new, more flexible types of organizational structures, which, in comparison with bureaucratic ones, were better adapted to rapid changes in external conditions and the emergence of new knowledge-intensive technology. Such structures are called adaptive, because they can be quickly modified in accordance with changes in the environment and the needs of the organization itself.

Another name for them is organic structures, having the ability to adapt to changes in the environment in the same way as living organisms do.

An adaptive management structure is characterized by weak or moderate use of formalized rules and procedures, decentralization and participation of specialists in decision making, broadly defined responsibility for work, flexibility in the power structure and a small number of levels of hierarchy.

Most management specialists see the future in the organic approach and criticize bureaucratic structures. However, when choosing a structure, it is necessary to take into account the conditions in which a particular enterprise operates. The fact is that bureaucratic and adaptive structures represent only extreme points in the composition of such firms. The real structures of real enterprises (firms) lie between them, possessing characteristics of both in different proportions. In other words, in management, as in any other area of ​​human social activity, there is no concept of “good” or “bad”. There is a choice that corresponds or does not correspond to the existing conditions.

Currently, two main types of adaptive structures are used - project and matrix.

Design structure- These are temporary controls created to solve a specific problem. Its meaning is to gather the most qualified employees of the organization into one team to implement a complex project. When the project is completed, the team disbands.

IN matrix structure members of the project team report to both the project manager and the heads of those functional departments in which they work constantly. The project manager has so-called project powers. These range from almost all-encompassing line authority over all details of a project to "staff" authority. The choice of a specific option is determined by what rights senior management delegates to the project manager.

The main disadvantage of the matrix structure is its complexity. However, it is used in a number of industries, in particular, in the chemical, electronics, computer production, as well as in banks, the insurance system, and government agencies.

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

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

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

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

Evolution of organizational structures

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

table 1 Classification of types of impact on the enterprise

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

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

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

rice. 1. Example of a project matrix structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution of methods for designing organizational structures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The organizational process consists of the following stages:

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

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

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

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

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

Line and staff powers

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

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

Building organizations

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

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

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

Organizational structure of the enterprise

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

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

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

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

Organizational management structures

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

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

Thus, the company is created as a hierarchical structure.

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

Linear structure

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

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

Line-staff organizational structure

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

Functional organizational structure

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

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

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

Linear-functional organizational structure

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

Divisional organizational structure

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

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

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

Matrix organizational structure

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

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

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

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

What's this? A diagram of squares with the names of the organization's departments, arranged in a certain order?

It is generally accepted by the average person that organizational structure is a kind of theoretical concept that has a very mediocre relationship to an actually operating organization. Moreover, within some existing enterprises, too little importance is attached to organizational structure in the implementation of their economic activities. The result is blurred functions and responsibilities among department heads, a chaotic chain of command, a lack of coherence in work and task completion to achieve the common goal of any business - making a profit.

Analysis of the financial condition of an organization begins with the study of its organizational structure. Who needs it? Representatives of the external environment of the company - creditors, investors, suppliers, buyers and customers, they all need to clearly understand the logic of the activities of the partner company. Representatives of the internal environment - directly to the employees of the enterprise, who also need to know how they interact with colleagues, to whom they report, and to whom some of the responsibilities can be delegated. The totality of groups of all employees constitutes the organizational structure of the organization's personnel.

What is organizational structure

So what is this concept? - this is the totality of all its divisions, between which functions and tasks are distributed, as well as the relationship between them.

Organizational structure of enterprise management

Organizational is management that defines the powers and responsibilities, accountability and relationships between department heads, and also establishes a list of staff duties.

The main types of organizational structures include linear, functional, linear-functional, divisional, matrix and combined.

Linear structure

The linear type of organizational structure is characterized by the fact that each division of the organization is managed by one manager, who reports to a superior manager, etc. This type has become obsolete because it is not flexible and does not contribute to adaptability to economic changes and the growth of the company in modern conditions. A manager must be able to navigate different areas and be truly a broad-spectrum specialist in order to give orders to each service of the organization. Although the main advantages of the linear type include its simplicity and clarity of relationships between the divisions of the enterprise and their functions.

Linear structure of an organization using the example of the army

The most striking example for characterizing the linear form of an organizational structure is the army, where, as is known, there is a clear organization of subordination of the junior in rank to the senior.

The diagram of the organizational structure of the army officers is presented above.

Functional structure

A functional organizational structure presupposes the presence in the organization of separate services (for example, a sales department, human resources department, accounting, production and technical department, etc.), the personnel of each of which can interact with each other, and not just with the main manager. This removes most of the burden from the chief manager and removes the task of searching for wide-profile specialists, which is the advantage of this structure. The presence of specialists in their field in departments helps to improve the quality of products. Nevertheless, the use of a functional organizational structure complicates intracompany communications and contributes to the development of the tendency to shift the responsibility of employees of some services to employees of others.

Functional form of organizational management structure using the example of a dairy production organization

Let's consider this type of organizational structure using the example of a food industry enterprise.

The diagram of the functional type of organizational structure shows the relationship between the divisions of the enterprise. For example, in the process of carrying out its duties, it interacts with the financial service departments: with the accounting department on fuel consumption rates and write-off of spare parts, with the sales department on issuing shipping documentation and coordinating the route, with the raw materials warehouse and the main production for transporting materials between them for shop needs, etc. That is, the divisions are functionally interconnected, but not subordinate to each other.

Linear-functional structure

Linear and functional forms of organizational management structures are extremely rarely used in their pure form. A linear-functional management structure can solve the shortcomings of these types of organizational structures. From the linear it is generalized by the presence from the functional it borrowed the presence of functional services that help the former, but are not administratively accountable to them.

Among the advantages of this structure, it should be noted a reasonable balance between unity of command and narrow specialization of heads of functional services; the possibility of delegating authority to lower levels of linear units of functional services. But the disadvantages include the low degree of interaction between the personnel of functional departments, since the relationship is often established only among their managers. The principle of unity of command, when strengthened, can negatively affect the quality of manufactured and sold products.

Linear-functional structure using the example of a household appliances and digital electronics store

To illustrate clearly what this type is, let’s imagine in the form of a diagram the organizational structure of a store of household appliances and digital electronics.

In the diagram, solid lines show linear connections, and dotted lines show functional connections. So, for example, the cash register is directly (linearly) accountable to the accounting department, but in the process of performing its functions it interacts with sales for the collection of funds, with the store sales department, with the HR department for issuing funds, with the purchasing department for organizing payments to suppliers and contractors in cash . The store sales departments are directly subordinate to the sales department, but in the process of activity they are functionally interconnected with the purchasing department, and with the accounting department, and with the personnel service.

Divisional structure

The divisional structure differs in that divisions are grouped according to some criterion: by type of product, by region, by consumer group. The positive aspects of using this model are a high level of response and adaptability to changes in the external environment of the company, the release of a product of higher quality and competitiveness due to the orientation of all participants in the production process in one division. Among the disadvantages of the structure, it is necessary to note such negative phenomena as duplication of functions of divisions and management, the growth of conflicts due to dual subordination, and the complexity of managing divisions as a whole.

Divisional structure using the example of a food manufacturing plant

The organizational structure of a food production plant is presented as an example. The company produces several types of products. One of the directions is the production of soft carbonated drinks and kvass, and the other is the production of gingerbread and cookies.

As can be seen from the diagram of the divisional organizational structure of the enterprise, it took the types of products produced as the basis for the divisional division. Each includes a team of workers, a service of laboratory technicians, a group of sales managers and an accounting department for calculating wages, calculating product costs, etc.

Matrix type of organizational structure

A matrix structure is a type of structure with dual accountability. This type of organizational structure realizes itself in project work. For example, an organization receives an order to perform some type of work. For this purpose, a project manager is appointed and a number of performers from different functional services are assigned to him. However, they do not leave the subordination of their immediate superiors, and upon completion of work they return back to their unit. The advantages of this type of organizational structure include: high speed of response and susceptibility of the enterprise to changes in the external environment, high level of adaptability, optimal distribution of powers, responsibility, and accountability between functional and linear departments. Disadvantages include confusion in prioritizing tasks between work on a temporary project and in a permanent unit, which also entails the threat of conflicts brewing between project managers and the management of functional departments. The very principle of dual accountability greatly complicates the entire management system.

To more clearly imagine this form of organizational structure, let us turn to the diagram of the enterprise that took it as a basis.

The company has 5 types of activities: emergency dispatch service, which provides emergency response services to several companies; provision of services for routine sanitary and technical repairs of residential buildings; intercom installation services; wholesale and retail trade in electrical equipment. But the company also takes part in electronic tenders and undertakes temporary projects. For each individual project, its manager is appointed, and a number of employees from each functional department are subordinate to him: an accountant, a personnel officer, a supplier and a work team. After completion of work on the project, the production staff is disbanded to the places where direct duties are performed.

Combined structure

The main characteristic of the combined organizational structure of an organization is the combination of several of the above types. It contains the features of line management, functional relationships, division of services according to selected criteria, as well as the principle of dual subordination. A combined organizational structure makes it possible to increase the flexibility of the enterprise and its susceptibility to changes in the internal and external environment. The advantages and disadvantages of the combined structure are the same as those of the structures underlying it.

Combined management structure using the example of an enterprise for the extraction and processing of apatite-nepheline ore

Let's consider this form of organizational structure using the example of an organization that has branches in different regions of the country, and also engages in several types of activities. Below is a diagram of the combined organizational structure.

Management is carried out by the general meeting of shareholders, which stands above the board of directors. The Board of Directors appoints the General Director and the composition of the collegial body of the Management Board, whose responsibilities include managing the strategic development of the enterprise. The Management Board and the General Director are linearly subordinate to the Management of Finance, Personnel, Main Production, Logistics and Material Flows. The functional divisions of the Complex are enterprises engaged in mining, enrichment, processing, transportation of ore, as well as a research group. The organizational structure of the organization's divisions operating in different regions also consists of line and functional services.

Regardless of the form, the organizational structure must perform the functions of dividing tasks between the organization’s services, determining the competence of each of them in achieving the final result of the activity, and also monitoring the inviolability of the relationships between departments.