1. How to solve four problems of organizational structure design standardization?
So far, few people have explored scientific methods to solve organizational structure design, and there are no books and periodicals. In this case, the discussion on the standardization of organizational structure design only becomes a statement of the discussant's personal subjective preference for organizational structure.
When we say whether to standardize, this is not a simple value judgment. We don't decide what is good or bad by our subjective preference, but we should grasp the nature of the regulated object and define the norm by its internal logical connection and development law. That is to say, it is not something imposed on the regulated object from the outside, but the regulated object should operate and develop according to its proper form and law. Only in this way, standardized management can achieve the purpose of enhancing enterprise value. The standardized management of enterprises must be fully reflected in the promotion of enterprise value-the improvement of management efficiency and management benefit. When we explore the standardized management of enterprises, we have repeatedly stressed that we should seek a scientific method, and the most fundamental point is how to solve the problem of management efficiency and benefit.
2. What is the scientific method to standardize the design of enterprise organizational structure?
Before answering this question, we must first understand what the enterprise organization itself is.
It has been analyzed that enterprise organization is an organic system, which exists in a larger system and can be subdivided into many subsystems. As a social organization composed of people, enterprise organization has its own purpose, that is, its existence serves people's specific purposes and is created by people to achieve specific purposes. Enterprise organization is different from natural existence, it is created by people, and it must serve the will and purpose of the people who created it. In this sense, it can be said that it is a tool created by people themselves to achieve a specific purpose.
As an instrumental social organization created by human beings, the purpose and goal of an enterprise are obvious, and it is also obvious that its internal structure must serve this specific purpose and goal. Its purposeful and functional characteristics provide clues for us to find a scientific method to standardize it. This method is a target function tree system analysis model directly corresponding to its target functional characteristics.
The so-called target function tree system analysis model is to systematically analyze the target function structure of the analysis object itself, so as to analyze and determine the internal structure and development and operation law of the analysis object.
All the beings created by human beings have the same feature, that is, they have multi-level structure, goals and functions. The existence of landscape vegetation itself has no purpose, and it is impossible to distinguish its internal goals from its functional hierarchy. Vegetation itself has no will. When it is chosen as a special tool to achieve a specific purpose, people give it a specific purpose. The function that can achieve this goal also becomes its function. When this kind of natural existence is chosen as a specific tool of human beings, it is no longer a natural existence in the full sense, but a means and tool injected with the goal of human will. The goal here is actually a human goal, and its function is its function and nature relative to this goal.
Goals and functions are not diametrically opposed, but interdependent. Relative to function, the goal is the goal. A function is only a function relative to a target. Breathing is the function of the lungs, but it only has this function compared with animals that need to breathe. Need is a specific purpose or goal. The definition of goal and function itself is relative. In a complex system structure, goals and functions exist at multiple levels. In order to achieve a certain goal, it must have corresponding functions; In order to ensure the normal operation of some functions, there must be a series of small functions. The function of the upper layer is the goal relative to the function of the lower layer.
Through this objective function tree analysis, the hierarchical structure within the system can be easily and effectively clarified. As far as the specific system of enterprise organization is concerned, using the target function tree system analysis model to analyze it can accurately provide a framework tool for the design of enterprise organizational structure. This kind of analysis not only helps us to determine the goals to be achieved in different periods, but also helps us to choose and determine the specific measures that must be taken to achieve the enterprise goals at different levels.
Analyzing the enterprise system, the goal of the enterprise is to make money. How do enterprises make money? How can we make money? After a little analysis, we will find that the enterprise system is composed of four systems: information (information flow), organization (people flow), marketing (logistics) and finance (capital flow). This is an analysis of the first-level objective function. If we want to further subdivide and enter the third and fourth level objective function relationship analysis, we can get 6 1 subsystem. The following is an analysis of the "four-stream" system of the enterprise to clarify its internal structure and the objectives of subsystems at all levels. This paper analyzes the standard of organizational structure and the method that must be adopted in the standardization of organizational structure-the target function tree system analysis model. However, what is analyzed here is how to standardize the organizational structure.
The first step is to choose the basic mode and determine the organizational structure. This step needs to choose and determine a typical organizational model as the basic model of enterprise organizational structure according to the reality of its own enterprise. In the practice of contemporary enterprises, it is common to choose linear functional structure and matrix structure, and more and more enterprises choose to add the corresponding characteristics of elastic model to supplement the limitations of their basic models.
The second step is to analyze and determine the workload responsible for the target function of each subsystem. This step needs to analyze and determine the workload of the target functions of each subsystem in the enterprise according to the target function tree system analysis model. There are two variables to consider: first, the size of the enterprise; The second is the industry nature of the enterprise.
The third step is to determine the functional departments. This step needs to determine the functional management department of the enterprise according to the workload of each subsystem within the enterprise and the relationship between different subsystems. That is, the target functions of interrelated, independent subsystems with little workload are merged, and a function management department is the main undertaking unit, which is responsible for coordinating and summarizing the target functions of the merged subsystems. The target functions of the check and balance subsystem are entrusted to different units, departments or work roles.
The fourth step is to balance the workload. This step requires that the workload of the proposed units and departments be roughly balanced. Because units and departments with too much workload often lead to too large a management span, units and departments with too small a workload often lead to too small a management span. Therefore, it is necessary to straighten out the management span through the workload balance between units and departments. It should be noted here that the subsystems with checks and balances should avoid assigning their target functions to the same unit, that is, priority should be given to ensuring that the target functions of the subsystems with checks and balances are undertaken separately.
The fifth step is to establish the setting of subordinate counterpart units, departments or posts. If the scale of subsidiaries, independent companies and branches under the enterprise is still large, and the functional management department at the higher level cannot fully undertake the coordination and summary of the target functions of its corresponding subsystems, it is necessary to set up corresponding functional departments or specialist posts at the same level.
Step six, draw the organization chart. This step requires the intuitive construction of the relationship between units, departments and positions of the whole enterprise and the corresponding work of the target functions of the subsystem.
Seventh, prepare the enterprise system analysis document. This step is to establish norms for the organizational structure of enterprises. The enterprise system analysis document specifically describes the target function of each subsystem within the enterprise, which units, departments or posts should undertake it, and the content it undertakes, and defines the responsibilities and authorities.
Step 8: Write an organizational statement according to the enterprise system analysis document. This step is to analyze and define the specific job responsibilities, powers, information transmission paths and resource circulation paths of all units, departments, institutions and posts on the basis of organizational composition.
The ninth step is to draw up the working standards of units, departments and posts. Clearly define the responsibilities, objectives and requirements of all units, departments and posts.
Step 10: Analyze the work according to the enterprise system analysis documents, organizational instructions and work standards of units, departments and posts, and write the work instructions. In addition to clarifying the above contents, it is also necessary to clarify the qualifications and qualifications.
The eleventh step is to summarize and discuss the above-mentioned documents, and formally promulgate them after adoption, so as to complete the adjustment and reform of the organizational structure. When we systematically investigate the organizational structure of enterprises, we often start with the following four dimensions: business structure, functional structure, hierarchical structure and authority structure.
When there are multiple businesses in an organization, we examine the division of labor structure of each business and the proportion of organizational resources. Specific to a single business, we start with the business process and examine whether the setting of the organization department is enough to cover the business process without overlapping. According to Robbins' research on organizations, there are several ways to divide business departments, and each way has different advantages and disadvantages, which we can grasp flexibly in actual operation.
1. Dividing departments by products
Advantages: it is conducive to product improvement and coordination within the department. Disadvantages: Departmental tendency (departmentalism), high management cost (overlapping institutions)
Application: large scale, many products, and great differences between products.
2. Divide by region: concentrate the business in a certain region in a certain department.
Reasons: inconvenient transportation and difficult information communication brought by geographical dispersion Advantages: strong pertinence and quick response to environmental changes in the region Disadvantages: difficult to coordinate with the headquarters (difficult to control)
3. Classification by customer: provided that the specific customer needs served by each department are the same and the quantity is sufficient. Such as: an office supplies company sales: retail department, wholesale department, government departments.
4. Comprehensive standard: In practice, several classification methods are often combined.
In this dimension, we examine two issues. First, whether there are overlapping or missing functions, especially whether the key functions needed by the organization are available. Second, whether the functional departments have a clear positioning and a clear mission.
Including the management level and scope of the organization.
Management level is produced with the expansion of organization scale and the complexity of relationship, which is closely related to scale and management scope. Management scope refers to the number of subordinates that a supervisor can directly and effectively manage. The scope of management is inversely proportional to the level. Generally speaking, we think it is more appropriate to manage 3-20 direct subordinates. Among them, the senior manager manages 3- 10 subordinates; Middle managers manage 6- 15 subordinates; Grass-roots managers manage 15-20 subordinates reasonably, but not absolutely. The following factors will also affect the scope of management: such as the quality and ability of managers, the quality and ability of subordinates, the similarity of work, the stability of salary environment, the perfection of plan, authorization, the spatial distribution of personnel, the allocation of assistants and so on.
It refers to the division of labor and relationship between departments and levels in terms of rights and responsibilities. According to Robbins' understanding, there are three kinds of functions and powers:
1. Linear authority: command and command relationship between superior and subordinate. This is what we usually call "chain of command".
2. Employee rights: the right of organization members to provide opinions and suggestions to managers. This kind of authority stems from the demand of front-line personnel for professional knowledge, such as finance, quality, personnel, public relations and so on.
3. Authority: Part of the power of the staff department or staff officer originally belonging to the line personnel. This kind of authority refers to the fact that due to the lack of professional knowledge, the line personnel delegate part of the command power to the staff officers, so that they can exercise the command power within a certain functional scope. Functional authority is only valid within the scope of its functions. This is a limited order.
When investigating the authority structure, we need to grasp two main points: First, is the authorization reasonable? Second, is the information communication smooth?
Through the above four dimensions, we can usually make a systematic analysis of the organizational structure of enterprises. Of course, every enterprise has its own characteristics and background, and the problems it faces are different, which requires us to master flexibly in practical work.