4.3.2 Basic principles of organizational structure

The general trend in improving organizational structures is the need to move from linear-functional to divisional management structures. Divisional structures allow to decentralize the operational management decision ^* and to concentrate the upper echelon on strategic planning ^* and management. Decentralization is carried out gradually with the sequential transfer of a number of functions to the lowest level of control.

Any restructuring of the management structure should be assessed primarily in terms of achieving its goals. In a normally developing economy, the reorganization is aimed at improving the efficiency of the organization by improving. It should be borne in mind that the main criterion of the effectiveness of the organizational structure is the degree of achievement of the objectives of the enterprise given the constraints on resources and timing. The general criterion of efficiency is the dynamics of the profit rate, the acceleration of the technical development of production, the ability to quickly respond to changes in demand and in accordance with this reconfigure production, productivity growth, the ability of the production control system to orient production to the full use of available resources.

During the crisis period, there is a change in management structures aimed at creating conditions for the organization's survival due to more rational use of resources, reduction of costs and more flexible adaptation to the requirements of the external environment. But regardless of the reasons causing the restructuring, it necessarily pursues the goals of expanding powers at the lower levels of the management hierarchy and increasing production and economic independence [2].

The task of designing and transforming an organizational structure is complex and difficult to program. Such problems are solved on the basis of a combination of scientific methods with the subjective activity of specialists. Therefore, when designing organizational structures, it is very important to follow the rules (principles) of their construction. The basic principles for creating effective organizational structures include:

1. Structural units should be focused on the goods, the market or the buyer, and not on the performance of functions.
2. The basic units of any structure should be the target groups of specialists and teams, not functions and departments.
3. It is necessary to focus on the minimum number of control levels and a wide zone of control.
4. Interconnectedness of subdivisions of a structure by goals, problems and tasks to be solved.
5. Every employee should be responsible and have the opportunity to take the initiative. The most important factor influencing the choice of the type of organizational structure of management and its formation is the rate of controllability (control range, management scope).

The norm of control is the permissible number of performers subordinate to one leader.

Excessive increase in the number of subordinates leads to an increase in managerial responsibilities of the head, which weakens control over the work of subordinates, makes it difficult to detect failures in work, etc. Excessive narrowing of the management norm is the cause of an increase in the number of management levels, over-centralization of power, increased administrative costs and increased problems weakening the relationship between the upper and lower levels of the pyramid of the organizational structure of management.

To determine the norm of controllability, two approaches are mainly used:

1. Experimental statistical, based on the method of analogies. It is carried out by comparing the staff number of the staff of the analyzed structure with the staff number of a similar structure that performs a comparable amount of work, but has a smaller staff. This method is quite simple, does not require much labor and is most common. It defines typical states by analogy with advanced structures. At the same time, such a method cannot be, strictly speaking, attributed to scientifically based methods. Therefore, for the development of scientifically based, advanced structures apply analytical methods.

2. Calculation and analytical methods are based primarily on factors such as the nature of the work, the cost of working time, the amount of information, the number of relationships.

There are three types of work, depending on her character:

• creative (heuristic), which consists in developing and making decisions;
• administrative and organizational, consisting of administrative, coordination and control and evaluation operations;
• executive (operator), which consists in the performance of work envisaged by service instructions.

The amount of work performed by staff, due to the nature of his work, is not always possible to express in standard hours.

The complexity of the work of individual specialists will depend on the proportion in the total volume of their work activity is one or another type of work. The difficulty and versatility of the work of the staff determines the complexity of its quantitative evaluation. Creative work in this regard can be defined as the least quantifiable, it cannot be expressed, for example, in standard hours. Administrative work also fits the category of complex labor, it may contain separate operations that can be measured, but the proportion of these operations is very small. Performing work has a well-defined quantitative expression, and its costs can be measured in standard hours.

Rationing of complex labor can be done as follows: []

• when rationing labor related to making judgments, analyzing and making decisions, it is advisable to check the activities of the relevant category of personnel in studying documentation, cards, correspondence, reports, alternatives, in participating in meetings, business conversations, taking into account the experience, titles, interest of performers;

• in evaluating the work of performers who are not routinely, it is often possible, as experience shows, to use certain work patterns that manifest themselves after a while, stamps, sequence in actions, and other elements that can be formalized.

Given the psychological opposition of creative workers to the possible regulation of their work, it is useful to take a delicate approach to them and, in particular, try to involve them in the process of rationing.

When rationing the cost of working time uses the method of photographic surveying ^* observations. It is especially useful in the absence of norms and standards of expenses. The advantage of this method is the ability to establish the standard number of personnel, taking into account the specific features of the analyzed structure. However:

• analysis results reflect the cost of working time only at the time of observation;
• to obtain reliable data requires a significant investment of time and money;
• The subjective approach is not excluded. Determining the norms of controllability by measuring the amount of information is carried out on the basis of the method of statistical tests or the so-called Monte Carlo method.

The whole mass of documented information entered into and out of the system, stitched into relevant cases and fully numbered, can be represented as a square divided into parts of equal area, which corresponds to the division of the whole mass of information into separate parts related to a service function . The entry of any official document into one or another part can be determined by randomly choosing the storage address of a specific document (case number and page number in this case). Knowing the total number of sheets of all documents and the number of random samples made, it is easy to notice the number of sheets passing during the year for each service function. Knowing the average annual amount of information that can be processed by one performer according to the corresponding official function, it is possible to determine the necessary number of personnel for this official function.

This method is applicable only to determine the regulatory number of personnel associated with the processing of information, and for its implementation requires a significant investment of time. Its accuracy depends on the number of samples taken.

Already in 1933, French mathematician and management consultant of Lithuanian origin, V. Greikunas, asserted that the number of controlled relationships and interrelationships in an organization was a determining factor in the controllability rate. He noted that there are three types of relationships: the relationship of the head with individual employees, the general relationship, the relationship between subordinates. To determine the total number of such connections, Greikunas used the following equation:

C = N (2 ⁿ / 2 + N - 1),

where C is the number of connections, N is the number of subordinates.

In accordance with this equation, with two subordinates the number of links will be 6 units, with three - 18, with four - 44, with five - 110, with ten - 5210, with eighteen - 2 359 602. This analysis was used by many scientists to argue that that the number of subordinates of one leader should not exceed six people. In this case, the number of links will be 222 units. The mathematical analysis of potential interrelations at this norm of controllability made by Greikunas shows that, firstly, the interaction of the head and subordinates leads to numerous complex social processes and, secondly, there is a precipitous process of increasing the number and complexity of these processes for each next subordinate. Fortunately, this does not happen in practice, but the conclusions made by Greikunas are a kind of warning against excessive excessiveness in increasing the number of subordinates or suggest the need to reduce the number of communications primarily by providing greater independence to subordinates.

In the practice of enterprises, the number of subordinates is not fixed. It varies within the enterprise itself depending on the management levels and the number of managers. The number of subordinates depends on many factors affecting the determination of the optimal rate of control related to the specific conditions of the enterprise.

The American Council of the National Industrial Conference offers, for example, the following list of factors that should be taken into account when determining the optimal number of subordinates:

1. The level of competence of the leader and subordinate.
2. The intensity of interaction between groups or individual subordinates.
3. The limits in which the manager performs non-managerial work, and the need for time for contacts with other people and organizational units.
4. Similarities or differences in the activities of subordinates.
5. The breadth of new issues in the headed unit.
6. Prevalence of standardized procedures within an organization.
7. The degree of physical differences in activity.

Determining the number of subordinates, that is, the norms of controllability, is of great importance for the formation of the organizational structure of management, since on this basis the number of managerial levels, the number of administrative workers, managers ^{* are} determined.

From a number of publications it is known that in order for a top-level manager not to be overloaded and have the opportunity to delve into the affairs of his subordinate units, as well as deal with promising issues, the average value of the controllability rate should be 3-6 people. The norms of controllability with regard to the level of management and the type of production are shown in Table. 3.7.

T a b l and c a 3.7

The norms of controllability of linear managers

The authors of intersectoral guidelines for improving organizational structures recommend the following values ​​of the norms of controllability:

• for heads of organizations and their first deputies - no more than 10-12 people (divisions);
• for functional departments - at least 7-10 people;
• for functional bureaus - at least 4-6 people;
• for design and technology departments - 15-20 people;
• for design and technology offices - 7-10 people.

The deputy heads of structural divisions are introduced, as a rule, when the controllability rate is 1.5 times higher.

It is necessary to emphasize once again that the determination of the quantitative values ​​of the norm of controllability in each specific organization should be carried out on the basis of an analysis of all factors affecting it, taking into account the industry specifics and features of the production.

Unfortunately, in practical activities of constructing functional structures, the recommendations of scientists are often ignored, which leads to overloading of line managers.

Introduction of controllability standards for line managers:

• creates a scientifically sound basis for proper planning of their numbers;
• creates equal conditions of their work;
• allows you to identify the reserves of their number;
• provides rational manageability of staff.