Typical management structures

Typical management structures

This type of structure is built to more effectively manage the units and personnel that make them up. As with any other structure, their application has its advantages.

Achieves good organizational, managerial and technological unity between the various social systems and their subsystems. Unity of rights, responsibilities, opportunity to create a unified approach to their construction. There is an opportunity to reduce the management staff, to bring durability and clarity to the relationship between staff.

But even with these advantages, the implementation of the standard organizational and management structures has so far been unsuccessful.

Hierarchical management structures

This type of structure has an established center, which performs management functions with a high degree of centralization. 

There are vertical links for the transmission of management decisions and control of their implementation. It is characteristic that there are a large number of levels with strong relations of subordination and precise division of the functions, responsibilities, and powers of the structural units. 

These units are the so-called link between the different levels. They perform the role of leader as the powers are linear and the direct horizontal connections are unregulated. 

In this structure, there is a strong formalization of processes and functions, planning, regulation, and control.

The advantages of this species are related to their origin and development. They arise and develop following objective processes, so they have the opportunity to build formal hierarchies and clearly defined responsibilities. 

They have stability and a clear goal in the changing environment, a clearly defined structure, and high specialization, which is a solid base in the field. If this hierarchical structure is well organized, conditions appear that are optimal for the following processes:

  • concentration of the capitals and their directing in the determined direction
  • researching new technologies and researching market breakthroughs
  • unified innovation policy
  • developed and coordinated application of the legal and regulatory framework
  • implementation of a unified financial, market, personnel, economic, and marketing policy
  • building accounting and external links
  • creation of own information banks, research units, and staff training system.
  • greater financial opportunities for exploration and burial of licenses, etc.

These opportunities become possible and well expressed in a well-structured and functioning system, and when this is available, they become its advantages over others.

Disadvantages of hierarchical management structures

The main shortcomings of hierarchical structures are not very common. There is a constant increase in the complexity of management objects, a dynamically changing environment, and new flexible approaches and methods of action are needed for rapid adaptation. 

There is a high degree of formalization of the processes, there is a strong desire for absolute power, and opportunities for improvement are limited. All this makes this structure rigid and difficult to change. 

These structures do not have the necessary flexibility, dynamism, adaptability to change. their change is also a source of problems. Hierarchical structures are generally multi-linked. 

This is an objective prerequisite for duplication of functions. the connection between the definite and the realization of the goals is broken, as is the coordination. 

And as a result of many attempts to overcome all these shortcomings at some point, the system begins to work inertially and management becomes more expensive, the staff becomes automatic and a crisis occurs. 

These problems need to be addressed by managers, who need to take action to minimize at least some of the problems until the implementation of the new structures. 

For example, to expand the decision-making powers of the authorities, to reduce the concentration of power, the monopoly control over information. 

Horizontal management structures

These structures have a minimum number of hierarchical levels or only one. They are characteristic of systems that are very small or result from the inevitable development of large systems. they have horizontal connections and management decisions.

The advantages depend on the personal qualities of the structure. These management structures are characterized by the division of management functions between structural units with equal rights. Hierarchical links are also a means of information. 

Management decisions are made at a high level and this creates conditions for flexibility and efficiency in decision-making, as well as the ability to react quickly in risky situations. 

There are also conditions for the more pronounced specialization of labor, greater freedom of action, high motivation, and the emergence of internal competition, which is a stimulus for innovation in management and production.

The disadvantages are related to unjustified decentralization which can lead to the loss of the overall goal. The independence of the units in a system requires coherence between the structural units. 

This overloads the connections and disturbances that appear in the synchrony of the actions of the structural posts - incorrect distribution of resources, the feedback is missing, the corporate management is detached from the problems. 

There is also a low degree of coordination between the units, and all these things are a big "minus" in the development of the structure as a whole.

Therefore, their application is in small systems, where the requirements meet their capabilities.

If a comparison is to be made between hierarchical and horizontal structures, as many authors do, many such examples can be given.

Hierarchical structures, for example, provide unified guidance and a one-way street in achieving goals, but at the same time limit creative initiative, leading to low efficiency. this requires decentralization, but a large number of units changes the authenticity of the information. 

Both types of structures are a source of information for designers and managers about the characteristics of the construction. They reflect the processes of centralization and decentralization of management. 

The way of realization of the connections, the degree of organization of the system, the different possibilities for coordination and regulation of the processes are the main criteria for the qualities of the systems. 

And when this is present, the advantages of these types of structures become much more than their disadvantages.

The division into hierarchical and horizontal structures reflects the way the structural units are located, the predominant characteristics, and the relations in the certain system. A major problem in the analysis of these species, however, is that they mix the horizontal with the decentralized management systems. And the difference between them is big. 

Decentralized systems can have hierarchical organizational and managerial relations, but they cannot be "horizontal". Even if it is conditionally separated as an independent separate system, it will, in any case, be considered as a part, a fragment of the structure but a system of a higher rank. 

And this type of system of a higher rank is a condition that has the force of law and must be complied with by all system designers and managers. 

References

Evolution and improvement of the types of management structures

Evolution is related to the factors that directly affect the development of systems. The development of systems as an object of management leads to changes in the number of functions, the volume of resources, and the way of their processing and distribution, and this, in turn, changes many things. 

The responsibilities, the way of making decisions are changing, the procedures for the realization of the management, the centers of power, the rights, and the procedures for control are completely changed. When a complete change is needed, it is not based only on changes, for example in economic conditions or a change in production technology. 

The complexity, the degree of centralization and decentralization, the manner of implementation, and the process of making and implementing management decisions are in line with the complexity and characteristics of the management object. 

The evolution of the model of the organizational structure is characterized mainly by the fact that in case of change the characteristics of the previous model are preserved. There is a spiral development of organizational forms, which confirms certain relationships in all models and confirms the evolutionary nature of the change in structures. 

The emergence of any type of structure is accompanied by the development of management science. This happens step by step, evolution is slow because organizational forms function in a complex, dynamic and risky environment for them. 

For managers, evolution has important heuristic and practical significance. The conditions, factors, and forms of transition at each stage of the life cycle of a particular model must be well known. 

Evolution takes place in different directions and in direct dependence on the way the new structural units are grouped.

The development and the process of transformation of the organizational forms are carried out in stages. In each of them, together with the new ones, elements of the structure of the previous stages are adapted. 

The structure can change its model by changing, for example, from centralized to decentralized and vice versa. 

Deciding on change is quite difficult. A lot of information is needed about the factors that determine the time to start partial changes or a complete change. 

The period of resilience is the life cycle of structures. It depends on the compliance of the development of the system and its organizational structure with the environment. 

The start-up phase is very important. The change of structure must begin before the phase of extinction of the already existing structure. When this happens, the managed system lags behind the development of the environment, ie it is ahead. Therefore, it is important for managers to strive for organizational change following changes in the environment and to ensure a longer life cycle of the structure.

 Generally speaking, evolution reflects any change-oriented towards the creation of a new model, it is a stage from the beginning to the end of this long process. 

It takes place in stages, and the managers are at the heart of the process. They provide maximum synchronization in the dynamics and the degree of change between the system as a whole and its elements.

It is obvious that the problem that exists in building and improving governance structures is not easy at all and I think that what is being done and done will pay off. 

In most cases, there is no optimal strategy to meet the needs and requirements of decision-making. The role that organizational structures play in the effectiveness of management is great and must have all the necessary factors to be successfully implemented. We need to build balance, stability, by building a dominant value system, to form targeted programs, teams, and units on the principle that "the little is wonderful." 

The goal should be focused on the success of the actions, and not be focused on something impossible that is idealized. 

And my personal opinion is that there is still something to be done and while all managers, scientists are in the process of searching, their efforts will always yield good results. and the more experience and necessary competencies the specialists in the units have, the easier it will be to fight the innovations. 

The very species diversity of management structures is a confirmation of the tendency to complicate the process of organizational and structural design, and that scientists contribute and do their best to create effective structural models.

 It is necessary to emphasize that these structures usually do not exist in their pure form and that the real systems of their construction are a combination of their individual elements. 

And when complexity grows faster than uncertainty, it is appropriate to replace a given structure with another corresponding to that complexity.

 It is this interaction between the complexity of the structure and the uncertainty of the external environment, the complexity and the information necessary for their normal functioning that determines their evolutionary character. 

And I think that when there is evolution, there is development, while there is development, the problems associated with building effective structural systems will decrease until their complete elimination.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The new Certified Project Manager in the company

Project management roles and positions

Agile methodologies