Management levels and types of leaders

Completed by 3rd year student

Faculty Business and Management

Checked by teacher

· LEVELS OF CONTROL.

Management as a concept

Horizontal and vertical division of labor

Management levels

· MANAGER AND LEADER. GENERAL AND DISTINCTIVE FEATURES.

Management and functions of a manager

leader and leader functions

· Leaders and managers. General and distinctive features.

· TYPES OF LEADERS. QUALITIES NECESSARY FOR A LEADER.

The main types of leaders

Qualities required for a modern leader

Findings and Conclusions

· LEVELS OF CONTROL

· Management as a concept

Control- this is the process of planning, organizing, motivating and controlling, necessary in order to formulate and achieve the goals of the organization (Meskon M. Kh.).

Considered by many to be the world's leading management and organization theorist, Peter F. Drucker offers a different definition. "Management - it is a special kind of activity that turns an unorganized crowd into an efficient, purposeful and productive group.

Management (as a process) is the impact of the subject of management on the object in order to achieve certain goals. The subjects of management can be an investor, a manager, a state, corporate or business management body. As objects of management, there can be objects of a lower level of management in relation to the subject (an enterprise of a corporation, a department of an enterprise, a subject of the Federation, etc.), a manager of a lower level in relation to the subject of management, a specialist, a worker, objects and means of labor for the worker and etc.

Management is the implementation of several interrelated functions: planning, organization, employee motivation and control. The interaction of these functions with each other forms single process, or in other words continuous chain of interrelated actions .

Management as such is also a stimulating element social change, and an example of significant social change. And finally, it is the management more than anything else explains the most significant phenomenon of our century: the explosion of education. The more highly educated people there are, the more dependent they are on the organization. Almost all people with an education above secondary school, in all developed countries of the world in the United States, this figure is over 90% - will spend their entire lives as employees of managed organizations and will not be able to live and earn their living outside organizations.

· Horizontal and vertical principle of division of labor

Large organizations need to perform very large amounts of managerial work. It requires division of managerial labor to horizontal and vertical.

The horizontal principle of the division of labor is the placement of managers at the head of individual units, departments.

The vertical principle of the division of labor is the creation of a hierarchy of levels of management in order to coordinate horizontally divided managerial work in order to achieve the goals of the organization.

Also in this chapter we will consider 3 levels of management, or, in other words, three categories of leaders.

· Management levels

· Lower managers(operational managers). The largest category. They exercise control over the fulfillment of production tasks, over the use of resources (raw materials, equipment, personnel). Junior superiors include a foreman, head of a laboratory, etc. The work of a lower-level manager is the most diverse, characterized by frequent transitions from one type of activity to another. The degree of responsibility of lower-level managers is not very high, sometimes there is a significant proportion of physical labor in the work.

A typical job title at this level is foreman, shift foreman, sergeant, head of department, head nurse. Most of the managers in general are low-level managers. Most people start their managerial careers in this capacity.

Research has shown that the job of a grass-roots manager is stressful and filled with a variety of activities. It is characterized by frequent breaks, transitions from one task to another. Tasks themselves are potentially brief. One study found that the average time it took for a craftsman to complete one task was 48 seconds. The time period for the implementation of decisions made by the master is also short. They are almost always realized in less than 2 weeks. It was revealed that craftsmen spend about half of their working time in communication. They communicate a lot with their subordinates, not much with other masters, and very little with their superiors.

· Middle managers. They supervise the work of lower-level managers and pass the processed information to senior managers. This link includes: department heads, dean, etc. Middle managers have a much greater share of responsibility.

In a large organization, there may be so many middle managers that it may be necessary to separate this group. And if such a separation occurs, then two levels arise, the first of which is called upper middle management level, second - lower level middle management.

It is difficult to generalize about the nature of the middle manager, as it varies greatly from organization to organization and even within the same organization.

A middle manager often leads a large division or department within an organization. The nature of his work is determined to a greater extent by the content of the work of the unit than by the organization as a whole. For example, the activities of a production manager in an industrial firm mainly include coordinating and directing the work of field managers, analyzing labor productivity data, and interacting with a development engineer. new products. The head of the external relations department at the same firm spends most of his time preparing papers, reading, talking and talking, and meeting various committees.

For the most part, however, middle managers act as a buffer between top and bottom managers. They prepare information for decisions made by senior managers and transmit these decisions, usually after their transformation in a technologically convenient form, in the form of specifications and specific tasks to grass-roots line managers.

Middle managers like social group, experienced especially strong influence various changes economic and technological nature in production during the 80s. Personal computers eliminated some of their functions and changed others, allowing senior managers to receive information directly at their desk directly from the source, instead of filtering it at the level of middle managers. The wave of corporate mergers and the general pressure to increase operational efficiency have also caused a drastic reduction in the number of middle managers in some organizations.

· Senior managers. The smallest category. They are responsible for the development and implementation of the organization's strategy, for making decisions that are especially important for it. Top managers include: company president, minister, rector, etc. The work of a senior manager is very responsible, since the scope of work is large, and the pace of activity is intense. Their work is mainly mental activity. They constantly have to make managerial decisions.

Usually there is a hierarchy (pyramid) of management with differentiation according to the rank of command power, decision-making competence, authority, position.

The hierarchy of management is a tool for realizing the goals of the company and a guarantee of the preservation of the system. The higher the hierarchical level, the greater the volume and complexity of the functions performed, the responsibility, the share strategic decisions and access to information. At the same time, the requirements for qualifications and personal freedom in management are growing. The lower the level, the greater the simplicity of decisions, the proportion operational types activities.

The pyramid shape is used to show that there are fewer people at each successive level of government than at the previous one.

· MANAGER AND LEADER. COMMON AND DISTINCTIVE FEATURES

· Management and functions of a manager

Management- this is a system of management methods in a market or market economy, which involves the orientation of the company to the demand and needs of the market, the constant desire to improve production efficiency at the lowest cost, in order to obtain optimal results.

Management is also an area of ​​human knowledge that helps to carry out the management function. Finally, management as a collective of managers is a certain category of people, a social stratum of those who carry out management work. The importance of management was especially clearly realized in the 1930s. Even then it became obvious that this activity had turned into a profession, the field of knowledge - into an independent discipline, and the social stratum - into a very influential social force. The growing role of this social force forced people to talk about the “revolution of managers”, when it turned out that there were giant corporations with huge economic, industrial, scientific and technical potential, comparable in power to entire states. The largest corporations, banks are the core of the economic and political strength of the great nations. Governments depend on them, many of them are transnational in nature, extending their production, distribution, service, information networks around the world. This means that the decisions of managers, like the decisions of statesmen, can determine the fate of millions of people, states and entire regions. However, the role of managers is not limited to their presence only in huge multi-level and branched corporate governance structures. In a mature market economy, small business is no less important. In terms of quantity, this is more than 95% of all firms; in terms of value, this is the closest approximation to the daily needs of consumers and, at the same time, a testing ground technical progress and other innovations. For the majority of the population, it is also a job. To manage skillfully in a small business means to survive, to resist, to grow. How to do this is also a question of effective management.

Manager in the modern sense- this is a head or manager who holds a permanent position and is empowered in the field of decision-making on specific types of activities of a company operating in market conditions. It is assumed that the decisions made by the manager are reasonable and are developed on the basis of the use of the latest management methods.

The term "manager" is quite widespread and is used in relation to:

To the organizer of specific types of work within individual departments or program-target groups;

To the head of the enterprise as a whole or its divisions (departments, divisions, departments);

To the leader in relation to subordinates;

To the administrator of any level of management who organizes work in accordance with modern methods.

There is a management process applicable to any organization, which consists in the implementation of the functions that every leader should perform. Currently, there is a tendency in the management literature to consider management as the implementation of functions. We can only say that there is no consensus on the question of what these managerial functions are.

MANAGEMENT is the process of planning, organizing, motivating and controlling that is necessary in order to formulate and achieve the organization's goals.

Thus, planning, organization, motivation and control are the four main functions of a manager.

Let's consider each of them in more detail.

PLANNING. The planning function involves deciding what the goals of the organization should be and what the members of the organization should do to achieve those goals. In essence the scheduling function answers the following three main questions :

Where are we currently?

Where do we want to move?

How are we going to do it?

Through planning management seeks to establish guidelines for efforts and decision-making that will ensure unity of purpose for all members of the organization. In other words, planning is one of the ways in which management ensures that the efforts of all members of the organization are directed towards the achievement of its overall goals. Planning in an organization is not a single, one-time event for two significant reasons. First, while some organizations cease to exist after achieving the purpose for which they were originally created, many seek to continue to exist as long as possible. Therefore, they redefine or change their goals if the full achievement of the original goals is almost completed. The second reason why planning must be carried out continuously is the constant uncertainty of the future. Due to changes in environment or errors in judgment, events may not unfold as management anticipated when making plans. Therefore, plans need to be revised so that they are consistent with reality.

ORGANIZATION . To organize means to create a structure. There are many elements that need to be structured so that an organization can carry out its plans and thereby achieve its goal. One of these elements is work, specific tasks of the organization. Since jobs are done by people, another important aspect of the organization's function is to determine who should do each specific task from the large number of such tasks that exist within the organization, including management work. The manager selects people for a specific job, delegating to individuals tasks and authority or rights to use the resources of the organization. These delegates take responsibility for the successful completion of their duties. In doing so, they agree to consider themselves subordinate to the leader.

MOTIVATION. The leader must always remember that even the best plans and the most perfect organization structure are of no use if someone does not follow through. actual work organizations. And the task of the motivation function is to ensure that the members of the organization perform work in accordance with the duties delegated to them and in accordance with the plan. Managers have always carried out the function of motivating their employees, whether they themselves realized it or not. It used to be thought that motivation was a simple matter of offering appropriate monetary rewards in exchange for effort. This was the basis for the approach to the motivation of the school. scientific management.

Research in the behavioral sciences has shown the failure of a purely economic approach. Leaders learned that motivation, i.e. creating an internal motivation for action , is the result of a complex set of needs that are constantly changing .

We now understand that in order to motivate their employees effectively, a manager must identify what those needs really are and provide a way for employees to meet those needs through good performance.

CONTROL. Unforeseen circumstances can cause an organization to deviate from the main course originally set by management. And if management fails to find and correct these deviations from the original plans before serious damage is done to the organization, the achievement of goals, perhaps even very survival, will be jeopardized.

Control is the process of ensuring that an organization actually achieves its goals. Exist three aspects of managerial control : Setting standards- this is a precise definition of goals that must be achieved in a designated period of time. It is based on the plans developed during the planning process. The second aspect is measuring what has actually been achieved for a certain period, and comparing what has been achieved with the expected results. If both of these phases are performed correctly, then the management of the organization not only knows that there is a problem in the organization, but also knows the source of this problem. This knowledge is necessary for the successful implementation of the third phase, namely, the stage at which actions are taken, if necessary, to correction of serious deviations from the original plan. One possible action is to review the goals to make them more realistic and relevant to the situation.

· Leader. leader functions.

There are organizations in which everything seems to be done correctly, but something is still missing. They have no soul, nothing that allows them to breathe life into the administrative system. They exist without faith, without love, and without hope. They are doomed to such a gray existence, unless there is a person or a team of like-minded people who will discover the essence and meaning in this frozen system, and then hope will return. Such a person is called a leader, and the role in which he acts is called leadership.

In general, in various sources, a leader is defined as a person who thinks in global categories, anticipates potential opportunities, creates a common vision of the future, promotes the development of people's abilities, delegates authority to them, appreciates differences in people, develops a team approach to work, a sense of partnership, Welcomes change Demonstrates knowledge of technology Encourages constructive challenge Provides customer satisfaction Achieves competitive success Demonstrates personal achievement High levels of competence Shows willingness to lead cooperatively Acts in accordance with stated values the situation requires it.

Place of leadership in the organization

Let's define the sphere of application of leadership qualities in the organization. Three concepts of leadership can serve as a starting point for us: in the quality system (QS), in psychology and in management.

W. Edwards Deming defines leadership "as a method of work aimed at helping employees do their job in the best possible way." It is known from theory that leadership is an integral component of the work of teams and groups. M. Meskon and co-authors also refer leadership to the internal factors of the organization, or rather, to the "people" subsystem.

Japanese management experts believe that the most significant leadership is leadership in top management. After all, no matter how developed local leadership is, if the head of the company prefers a sofa and a newspaper to healthy risk and action, no matter how hard the subordinates try, they are unlikely to be able to move forward.

Leadership and power

Power is not always leadership. But the opposite is apparently always true: leadership generates power and largely ensures it. The advantageous difference between leadership and mere administrative power is that it is a power that does not need the use of force, although it has it. Power becomes unnecessary when ideology comes to the aid of leadership. It is the leader who is called upon to formulate such an idea or system of ideas that those who need faith are ready to believe and those who are looking for explanations are ready to accept. To avoid resistance, the manager must be strong. The great Indian thinker S. Vivekananda said: "Weakness gives rise to the very idea of ​​resistance." A leader-leader cannot be weak by definition.

When is a leader needed?

A leader must be strong, just like a leader, but does a leader always have to be a leader? Most modern authors give an affirmative answer to this. In any organization, all processes begin to flow more actively when a leader appears at the helm. W. Edwards Deming wrote that leadership is the trigger for the quality system, and without it, it is more of a fiction than a reality. “Leadership is required for all components of the system,” Deming noted in the preface to G.R. Niva "The Space of Dr. Deming". And, above all, the leading role of top management is important, without which constructive changes are practically impossible. One of the main provisions of the theory of innovation management is the assertion that leadership is a key element of the innovation process and the development of culture in the organization. Leadership is the key that opens the way to business success. Juran emphasizes that top management leadership is one of the eight lessons that successful companies learn. T. Conti expresses similar views.

Edgeman says the new, quality-focused organization depends on leadership that creates the internal conditions for success. Undoubtedly, the ultimate success of a corporation will depend on the ability of all its employees to creatively work together towards a common goal. But here again, one cannot do without leadership, which nourishes, maintains the necessary skills and the required attitude. According to Melissa Horner, today leadership is nothing more than determining the height to which you need to jump.

The fact that a manager who controls the behavior of other people must have leadership qualities is not in doubt among modern researchers and the most successful management practitioners. All advanced business models can be recognized by the leading role of leadership in them. These are models of such luminaries as W. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, Peter Drucker, Tito Conti, and others. Leadership in this case refers, as a rule, to top management and, to a lesser extent, to field management.

But this vision of the issue is beginning to change. At the Quality Management Conference in Budapest, Prof. Kondo noted:

"The importance of leadership cannot be ignored by top and middle managers." And Peter Senge, in one of his recent interviews, noted that companies need three types of leaders: a leader - the head of a company or organization, leader-managers who implement the company's policy on the ground, and activist leaders, among ordinary employees of the organization who constantly support the "fire in the fire" and do not let it fade away while the managers are not around. In this way, you can inspire the whole company from top to bottom and get exactly the right feedback which will allow continuous improvement of the process day by day.

So leadership is an essential element modern system management, and moreover, leadership is the "trigger" of this system, it is what makes all the technical elements, concepts, principles come to life.

Leadership is not only an essential component, but also an irreplaceable one. After all, its absence will entail significant financial losses and loss of competitiveness. There is an opinion that leadership can be replaced by a clear system of control, punishments and rewards. What will come of it? No leadership means tighter control (you have to control at least more often), it takes more time to set a task, the climate in the team is worse, and there is a loss of resources: temporary and human. Funds are needed to hire an extra controller or organize a control service; staff turnover, generated by a bad climate in the team, also affects financial condition organizations. All together affects the efficiency of the company, of course, not for the better. From this we can conclude that leadership is the key to "good organization and competitiveness on a global scale."

· Leaders and managers. General and distinctive features.

Leaders bring change. Where change can be dispensed with, management will suffice. However, in today's era of rapid and accelerating change, there are fewer and fewer such static areas in business.

The main difference between managers and leaders lies in their deep understanding of chaos and order. Leaders easily put up with a lack of order. Managers, on the other hand, seek stability and control.

So, there are the following opinions:

· If you look at the management functions in their classic cycle: planning - organization - motivation - control, then the roles of the manager in the framework of designing and coordinating the business process and the role of the leader in solving the problems of personnel management are clearly visible. It turns out that an effective leader is not only a person capable of launching and coordinating a business process, but also a leader capable of leading staff to achieve goals. It turns out that an effective leader is "two in one", he is a leader, he is also a manager.

Leadership begins with two feelings: with a sense of internal responsibility for oneself, for one's team and for the task taken upon oneself (responsibility accepted, not assigned), and with faith in oneself, in one's people and in the feasibility of the task. List external signs that “it turns out to be a leader”, I would open the following: when in other people's mouths and conversations you hear your own thoughts and arguments expressed earlier; when you observe the daily behavior of your employees (especially when they think that no one sees them) exactly the way you aspired to, and the reason for it is their inner conviction (it’s right, it should be), and not the fear of punishment, for example.

· A manager becomes a leader at the moment when they start following him with new energy, seeing a brighter future, believing in his “leader”. This means that the manager does not just steer the process, he inspires the participants in the workflow.

· A person (not necessarily a manager) becomes a leader at the moment when he begins not only to receive something from the world, but also to give to it. When his interests go beyond his own well-being. When he learns to see deeper and wider than others, he begins to understand how to make this world (country, community, his company) more perfect, and feels his responsibility for this. And this responsibility does not put a heavy burden on the shoulders, but inspires and energizes it!

· A manager becomes a leader when he shifts his focus (even if only temporarily) from operational problems to the future, when he focuses not on evaluation (not so much on evaluation), but on development, and begins to think in terms of potential and opportunities. When he discovers his ability to inspire his team members.

A manager becomes a leader when he can involve others in his work by not doing job descriptions, but “at the behest of the heart”, when others are ready to follow him, when they completely believe him.

· Managers are present-focused, prefer stability and think “how”. Leaders are interested in the future, make long-term plans and think “why”.

Harvard University professor Abraham Zaleznik believes that companies need both managers and leaders to survive and even more so to succeed. Below is an abstract of his famous article "Managers and leaders: is there a difference"

The concepts of "leadership" and "management" are not always identical, but most people misunderstand the essence of their differences. There is nothing mystical or mysterious about leadership. This is not the privilege of a narrow circle of the elite. Leadership is not necessarily more important than management, and one does not replace the other.

However, when it comes to preparing specialists for higher leadership positions, CEOs frankly ignore the warnings of psychologists that a person is not capable of being both a manager and a leader. They are trying to educate leaders and managers all rolled into one. And they can be understood. But is it possible? After all, managers and leaders are people completely different types. And to really be able to produce such luminaries, companies need to understand the basic difference between leadership and management.

If an organization is to survive, let alone succeed, in today's environment, it needs both managers and leaders. However, large corporations today seem to be bewitched solely by the "secrets of effective management." This passion leads to an increasing spread of managerial personalities - those who appreciate and strive to maintain formal, stable schemes. production processes. The rules of behavior among managers prescribe preference for collective leadership, and risk is recommended to be avoided.

This same lopsided bias towards management prevents the emergence of true leaders in organizations: how can an entrepreneurial spirit develop in such a conservative, impersonal environment? In order to create the most favorable conditions for the "leader" type of personality, it is necessary first of all to provide potential leaders with the opportunity to communicate closely with mentors. However, in large organizations with a complex hierarchical structure, such relationships are not welcome.

Companies need to find a way to educate smart managers and nurture talented leaders at the same time. Without a strong organizational structure, even leaders with the most brilliant ideas will be out of work. They will work in vain, only deceiving the expectations of their colleagues and not achieving any noticeable results. But another prerequisite is also important: the entrepreneurial culture that is formed when a true leader is at the helm of an organization. If not, then even companies with the most immaculate management structure are threatened with stagnation and loss of competitiveness.

· TYPES OF LEADERS. QUALITIES NECESSARY FOR A LEADER

· The main types of leaders

In textbooks dedicated to successful leadership As a rule, there are 5 types of leaders. I must say that such a grouping is too academic, and in real life leaders usually combine qualities from several types, but almost always their behavior is built around one, which is taken as a basis (of course, on a subconscious level). Let's take a closer look at the 5 main types of leaders, highlighting their obvious pros and cons.

Charismatic leader

Well it main character all American stories success. The person is usually without higher education(this is if according to the American dream), who built a business from scratch with his own hands. He knows how to inspire people like no one else (yes, the famous generals could do it, the same Hannibal, who killed almost 40 thousand people when crossing the Alps for the sake of the dream of conquering Rome). His energy is infectious. It is in companies with such leaders that technical revolutions most often occur.

Such a manager usually ignores the dress code, is always ready to listen to any employee, which, however, does not mean that he will agree with his opinion. As history shows, employees of the company are most attached to this type of leaders, since his ideas serve as a kind of catalyst for them, which subsequently turns into devotion. Every employee can grow with such a leader. And this is one of the main advantages of this style. Self-confidence and will are the main features of this type. Such a manager cannot stand defeat, as it hits his EGO.

Of course, the fact that this manager strongly encourages risk taking and new ideas also has a positive effect on talented employees. True, a charismatic leader is far from relevant everywhere today. Such a leader, of course, is the most popular in the United States, his popularity is high in many European countries (Anglo-Saxon). But in Asia and Australia, this type of leadership is completely unacceptable. due to cultural traditions.

In addition, it is worth noting that this leadership style is very productive at the stage of business formation. When the will is one of the most important attributes of success. In the case of the growth of the company, the leader will have to change, although of course not in a drastic way. One of the most famous representatives of this type is the co-founder Apple Steve Jobs.

Diplomat

From the name it already becomes clear that such a manager focuses on team activities. Perhaps this best type manager for businesses that employ highly educated professionals (who can be much smarter than a manager, such as scientists). A diplomat is characterized by benevolence, competence, ability to listen.

As a rule, the main task of a diplomat is to establish equal relations with employees. They are not subordinates, but partners. All the most significant decisions are made after discussions with employees, and the diplomat tries to make sure that everyone's opinions are taken into account. As much as it is of course possible in a particular firm.

The most popular diplomats are in Japan. It is from this country that this type of leadership came. Wise, understanding that without other people it is impossible to succeed. At the same time, this leader does not consider himself superior to others. He will never say, "I did it," but he can always say, "We did it."

If we talk about representatives of this type, then Konosuke Matsushita from Panasonic immediately comes to mind. In addition to Asia, this type of leadership is very popular in Latin America.

Humanist

This type of leader sees the company as one big family. He, first of all, appreciates employees as people, and only then pays attention to their professional quality. In companies of this type, employees often relax together, make friends, go out into the countryside. The boss may well solve some problems of his subordinates (for example, voluntarily pay for the treatment of their relatives, and he himself will call the doctor to find out how the patient's condition is, not because it is necessary for work, but purely for human reasons).

In companies where a humanist is at the helm, there are usually no fines, no rigid systems to control employees. Undoubtedly, this style of leadership is best applicable in small firms, since as the company grows, it will become increasingly difficult for the manager to communicate with each employee as with a friend. This style is most popular in some countries of Latin America, China, and other low-income countries. In Europe and the United States, humanist leaders did not take root. Firstly, because here they do not like interference in personal life (even for good intentions), and secondly, incomes are higher here, and a completely different style of work, which makes it extremely difficult to build such relationships.

Democrat

A democrat is characterized by the fact that he is ready to delegate some of his powers to employees. Thus, sharing with them the responsibility for the result. It should be noted that a democrat must fully trust his workers and be sure that they will cope with the tasks that he sets before them.

Such a leader communicates closely with the team. Moreover, he often spends non-working time with employees (billiards, bowling, fishing, and so on). He does not consider himself the chosen one, much less someone who puts himself above the employees. Everyone is equal and can speak at any time. However, this does not mean that in companies where a Democrat is at the helm, there is no control over the work performed. It’s just that not only the manager is involved in control, but also those employees who have been delegated certain powers. They already report on the work done to the head. And of course they are responsible for the result. And in front of the team as well.

Thanks to this style of management, the company is run by employees. This type is most widespread in Germany and the USA.

Bureaucrat

To date, this type of leader is no longer as common as before, but almost all other types have absorbed some of the features of a bureaucrat. Strict control, employee evaluation system, regular reports, rules to be followed. All these are the favorite tools of the head-bureaucrat.

He is a typical boss, whose orders must be followed without hesitation. No initiative, everything must be done strictly according to the rules. Such behavior by managers is due to the fact that a bureaucrat must always have accurate data. No uncertainty, no decisions are made on the basis of intuition. Everything should be clearly arranged on the shelves.

There is always a lot of intrigue, gossip around the heads of bureaucrats, and there are battles for positions. This type of leadership continues to be very popular today, perhaps only in China, where communism flourishes.

· Qualities required for a modern leader

The manager must properly organize the work of the enterprise. Why is it necessary to select qualified personnel, know the production technology, establish links between departments and employees. " The most important quality- deep knowledge of the managed object. Of course, if the production is diverse, then the manager cannot, and should not, be a specialist "in all parts." But common technical knowledge in this industry, a leader needs a broad outlook, because otherwise it will be difficult for him to follow the progress of the case and judge him.

1. One of the aspects of successful management should be called quick decision making. This is especially important in a market economy, when the external environment is changing at a tremendous speed and it is necessary to respond to these changes in time and adapt the organization's activities to them. “It is very important that the manager has a “quick mind”, a good reaction that allows you to quickly resolve the issue, since often the speed of a decision is more important than finding the ideal of several possible solutions after a long search. Of course, there are extremely serious issues that require lengthy study and thorough examination. But the current problems of everyday life usually have to be resolved promptly. "

2. The manager must organize an effective motivation system at the enterprise. Taylor also singled out motivation as one of the principles of scientific management. He believed that self-interest is the driving force for most people: "It should be clear to the worker that any element of labor has its price and its payment depends on the established output. finished products, in the case of achieving greater productivity, the worker is paid bonuses. "Of course, today a much more complex view of the system of motivation and incentives for labor has been developed. So, in addition to material incentives, incentives for responsibility are widely used (delegation of powers, career), stimulating competition between subordinates (using ratings), stimulating professional development (employees are regularly sent at the expense of the company to study at universities, for professional development courses, various trainings, including abroad), various benefits. "Not bad have proven themselves such benefits as the provision of additional leave(usually not in the "peak" season) and time off, a free work schedule, the company's transport service for employees' private trips, unexpected gifts, even small ones, work above all praise. The stimulating effect is achieved with full clarity for the staff, for what particular merits this privilege is provided. "So, for the rational use of the above incentive methods, the manager needs to study the needs of the employees of his enterprise and identify the most significant of them.

3. The leader must be a good psychologist, understand people, take into account the characteristics of his subordinates when communicating with them. In addition, the manager's communication skills and the ability to communicate with people will be useful in external contacts. For example, Kannegiser I.S. gives the following recommendations on this issue: "The leader must observe complete courtesy towards his subordinates. Any, even the most severe remark, should not be rude because rudeness irritates a person and dulls his pride, and then he treats the matter with less zeal. Exactly also, the leader cannot afford to ridicule his subordinates. On the one hand, this causes anger, and on the other hand, it gives the right to familiarity, which undermines the authority of the boss." In accordance with this, Kannegiser formulates a rule that should not be neglected by all leaders, not only present, but also future: be "favourites". In case of disagreement or disputes between employees, the decision on the part of the boss must be impartial and carried out with full consistency and perseverance. Only justice can inspire confidence in subordinates, while addiction to "favorites" inevitably entails hostile attitude towards the leader , and to the work he leads.

The manager must pay attention to creating a positive psychological climate in a team, which contributes to more efficient work.

In addition, the manager needs to establish a balance between formal and informal relations in the team, most rationally divide the functions performed, determine the range of rights and obligations of each member of the organization, introduce the necessary standards and regulate the actions of the staff to the required extent.

At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the informal relations that have developed between people on the basis of their personal likes and dislikes. The manager must maintain the status of not just a formal boss, but also a skilled professional leader who is valued and respected in the team. The manager should make the best use of other informal leaders, focus on delegation of authority. Strelbitsky S. D. believes that a simple transfer of responsibility is not enough. It is necessary to create an atmosphere of its acceptance, which, of course, cannot be achieved by order. Such an atmosphere presupposes an awareness of one's role and the need for one's participation in the process. In no case should the leader do the work for others. “Remember,” Strelbitsky warns, “that the latter is the mortal sin of the administrator, which, unfortunately, is extremely common. Every member labor collective the circle of his functions, for the performance of which he is responsible, must be clearly outlined. If the leader strives to do everything himself, if he constantly has no time, then his business is inevitably poorly organized.

4. The leader must stimulate the initiative of employees, take into account new ideas and thoughts on rationalization, and be able to listen to criticism addressed to him. In this regard, the experience of American directors is very useful, who, among the morning hours of work, specially allocate an hour dedicated to a conference with their top employees. Most often, such meetings take place in the form of reports on the department, made in the presence of department heads. So, the head of General Electric, Jack Welch, in the 80s instructed Vice President Paolo Fresco to create a "Services Council" in which top managers could exchange new ideas. And the manager of Kodak, George Fisher, installed at his enterprise for this purpose a system of communication with his subordinates by e-mail. At the end of the 1990s, the Russkiy Mir company began to regularly hold an "internal council of managers", working on the principle of the company's board of directors and aimed at expanding and deepening the understanding of management problems and tasks. the main task- not control, but advice and guidance. Discussing issues at meetings of internal boards develops in leaders important skills for the organization - the ability to create and express their own understanding of complex issues, absorb other points of view, and at the same time be persistent, persuasive and open. Experience in internal boards improves the management style of company divisions.

5. In order to be respected in the team, the leader must have high moral qualities: honesty, incorruptibility, diligence, justice in relation to subordinates. Unfortunately the level wages in our country does not contribute to the fight against corruption. However, it must be remembered that in many countries of the world the incorruptibility and objectivity of specialists is highly valued. So, in Germany they say that in honesty the auditor is in second place after the priest. And in China, the combination of high moral character with professionalism is the basis and tradition personnel policy. Moreover, the Chinese always put moral qualities first: “Our people can condescendingly treat those officials who have high moral qualities, but are inferior in intelligence and talent. However, they do not respect those who are professional, but morally not up to par. And unscrupulous and mediocre officials are simply despised, even hated. Any subordinate wants to be rid of such a boss."

6. In the context of fundamental changes, including in engineering and technology, the issues of increasing the level of competence of managerial personnel come to the fore in the field of management. No wonder during the reforms in the former GDR Special attention was given to the selection and retraining of new managers at all enterprises. Reforms in China were also aimed at improving the skills of managers. Total certification of managers made it possible to free the staff from incompetent employees. The second thing that has been done in China is the provision of universal continuous professional development of management personnel.

In the UK also Lately great attention is paid to the retraining of managers. There is a type of course that includes T-groups or sensitivity training. For several days, the participants gather in a group and explore the relationship between the members of this group. The main idea of ​​the course is to improve the perception of other people and come to an understanding of oneself, thereby promoting a more subtle, sensitive approach to leadership. Many, however, find such an experience unpleasant because it can lead to the discovery of facts that people would rather keep silent about.

Partly because of doubts about the effectiveness of the lecture approach to manager development, role-playing has become popular in recent years. Here, leaders are faced with real problems that have arisen in any organization. Theoretically, by concentrating on solving these problems, you can improve your ability to solve problems.

Another approach currently popular is mentoring. Here, the novice leader is attached to an experienced and accomplished leader - a mentor who serves as a model for the student. The benefit of mentoring is that it facilitates the development of personal qualities and managerial skills that cannot be learned in lectures. For mentoring to be successful, good relationships must be established. People who are responsible for the development of managers must be fully aware of what qualities are necessary for management and what qualities a leader should have.

CONCLUSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Having worked with the above material, we can draw the following conclusions.

Leadership is not leadership, although a leader can be a leader.

In fact, leadership and management in a company are two separate, complementary systems of action. Each has its own function and characteristic activities. For a company to succeed in today's increasingly complex and rapidly changing business world, it is necessary to master both.

Of course, not everyone is capable of being a great leader and a competent manager at the same time. Some people have a real talent for managerial work, but lack leadership qualities. Others have obvious inclinations of a leader, but for various reasons are not able to become effective managers. If the leader is smart enough, then his company will value both of them and will try to make these talented people become part of the team.

Of course, there is no perfect leader. It all depends on what the company does. Not every worker can be forced to perform their duties democratically (especially if the work is in a factory and the employees are low-skilled workers). At the same time, a charismatic leader is unlikely to successfully inspire a group of high-class doctors. They already know what they want and how to achieve it. They do not need such a guiding star.

The most popular types of leaders in most countries are democrats and charismatic leaders. There is nothing surprising in this. At the same time, bureaucrats are equally disliked in most countries. Unfortunately, in Moldova, the most common type of leaders is Bureaucrats.. True, the situation with leaders is not unambiguous. For example, in the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, the manager should not stand out from the background of employees at all. And any leadership there is not encouraged. So, it is always worth considering the industry, the size of the firm, and the country where it operates. universal systems no.

In fact, leadership and management in a company are two separate, complementary systems of action. Each has its own function and characteristic activities. For a company to succeed in today's increasingly complex and rapidly changing business world, it is necessary to master both.

Leadership complements management, not replaces it. However, in developing the ability to lead in their employees, CEOs should not forget that strong leader, but a weak manager is no better (if not worse) than vice versa. Indeed, it is not an easy task to combine skillful leadership with competent management and use them as two complementary forces.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

1. Vikhansky O. S., Naumov A. I. Management: person, strategy, organization, process: Textbook. / M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1995.

2. Meskon M. H., Albert M., Hedouri F. Fundamentals of management: Per. from English. / M.: "Delo", 1993.

3. Dictionary-reference manager / Ed. M. G. Lapusty. / M.: INFRA-M, 1996.

4. Modern business: Proc. in 2 vols. T. 1: Per. from English. / D. J. Rechman, M. H. Meskon, K. L. Bowie, J. V. Till. - M.: Respublika, 1995.

· Hornby W., Gammy B., Wall S. Economics for managers. - M., UNITI, 1999.

Ivashkovsky S.N. Economics for managers: micro and macro levels, Delo, 2002.

5. Alexander Tunik - PhD student of the Faculty of Sociology of St. Petersburg state university, sales manager at Marinetek Russia (St. Petersburg) Author of articles on economics and management.

Organizational structure of management

The functions and processes of management are concretely embodied in practice in the organizational structures of management. Any enterprise is a complex technical, economic and social structure. Organizational structure of management i (OSU) is a model in which the totality of the elements that make up the system is determined and stable relationships are established between them. The main elements of the organizational structure of management are the goals and strategy of the enterprise, hierarchical levels of decision-making and responsibility, horizontal links by levels of management, relations, relationships, communication, information.

To build management accounting, especially in terms of ensuring the coordination of the activities of managers and those headed by them structural divisions, as well as motivation, is influenced by the organizational structure of management chosen by the enterprise. In accordance with the organizational structure of management, organizational issues are determined not only for management, but also for financial (accounting) accounting. For example, a working chart of accounts is generated taking into account cost centers.

At present, an enterprise can have a linear, linear-functional, functional, divisional, matrix (flexible, adaptive) organizational structure management. (Section 1.3 gives their characteristics and development trends.)

Management levels in an organization

In enterprises of large and medium-sized businesses with a linear functional management structure, there are mainly three levels (links) of management: top, middle and bottom (Fig. 1.2).

Rice. 1.2.

The highest level of management associated with the adoption of strategic management decisions and the creation of an organization's policy in the field of motivation and coordination. The top level of management is also responsible for investment and innovation policy, in the field of accounting - for accounting policy. At this level, a significant part of external relations is implemented. Organizationally, the board of directors is most often referred to as the pinnacle of management. CEO, president, director. The highest level of management, in addition to top managers, may include shareholders and experts.

Middle management level includes heads of production and functional units: heads of main and auxiliary shops, sales, supply, logistics, financial, planning, etc. activity. Operational divisions include supply and sales departments. The service functional units include the department of personnel management, accounting, financial, planning departments, office, secretariat, department information technologies and others. Middle managers solve problems arising from functional specifics. For example, logistics managers provide traffic and inventory management, sales managers manage the promotion of goods on the market. The middle link of production management is in constant contact with managers of the lower level of management - foremen and foremen who make operational decisions on the implementation of current production tasks.

The lowest level of management is responsible for the exact implementation of plans and programs: bringing them to the workers and monitoring their implementation. Management decisions of the leaders of this link - foremen, foremen, link managers - are the most defined, have a low level of risk and come down mainly to monitoring the execution of a specific production task. Heads of workshops, foremen, foremen, i.e. representatives of the middle and lower levels of management, are usually engaged in routine management decisions, repeating with a given frequency. For example, in case of deviations from production program make decisions regarding labor relations, technical support of production. Examples of such decisions can be stopping the machine for repairs in case of malfunctions, moving workers from one workplace to another, etc. X. and S. Chakraborty "Management Accounting" call top managers the brain of the organization, middle managers - the eyes, ears and mouth of the organization, grassroots managers - arms and legs.

Management accounting should provide information to each level of management based on the needs of managers. For example, the analysis of the profitability of centralized investments is weakly related to the evaluation of the performance of middle managers and is of little interest to shop managers, but its results are necessary for top managers, they can be decisive in assessing the attractiveness of alternative investment strategies.

In the process of information support for the middle and lower levels of management, it is necessary to organize primary accounting and operational analysis of the implementation of the production program and plans for supply and sales. At the same time, in practice, the problem of duplication of information in accounting and operational and technical accounting often arises. Of great value to the leaders of these levels are data on deviations in the context of responsibility centers, which requires a special organization of management accounting.

A management accountant must understand how managers at different levels of management work and what tasks they set for preparing information.

• Chakrabotty N., Chakraborty S. management accountancy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Calcutta: Chennai Mumdai, 1997.

Management levels and types of leaders

Completed by 3rd year student

Faculty Business and Management

Checked by teacher

· LEVELS OF CONTROL.

Management as a concept

Horizontal and vertical division of labor

Management levels

· MANAGER AND LEADER. GENERAL AND DISTINCTIVE FEATURES.

Management and functions of a manager

leader and leader functions

· Leaders and managers. General and distinctive features.

· TYPES OF LEADERS. QUALITIES NECESSARY FOR A LEADER.

The main types of leaders

Qualities required for a modern leader

Findings and Conclusions

· LEVELS OF CONTROL

· Management as a concept

Control- this is the process of planning, organizing, motivating and controlling, necessary in order to formulate and achieve the goals of the organization (Meskon M. Kh.).

Considered by many to be the world's leading management and organization theorist, Peter F. Drucker offers a different definition. "Management - it is a special kind of activity that turns an unorganized crowd into an efficient, purposeful and productive group.

Management (as a process) is the impact of the subject of management on the object in order to achieve certain goals. The subjects of management can be an investor, a manager, a state, corporate or business management body. As objects of management, there can be objects of a lower level of management in relation to the subject (an enterprise of a corporation, a department of an enterprise, a subject of the Federation, etc.), a manager of a lower level in relation to the subject of management, a specialist, a worker, objects and means of labor for the worker and etc.

Management is the implementation of several interrelated functions: planning, organization, employee motivation and control. The interaction of these functions with each other forms single process, or in other words continuous chain of interrelated actions .

Management as such is both a stimulating element of social change and an example of significant social change. Finally, it is management, more than anything else, that explains the most significant phenomenon of our century: the explosion of education. The more highly educated people there are, the more dependent they are on the organization. Virtually all people with a higher than high school education in all the developed countries of the world in the United States, this figure is more than 90% - will spend their entire lives as employees of managed organizations and will not be able to live and earn their living outside organizations.

· Horizontal and vertical principle of division of labor

Large organizations need to perform very large amounts of managerial work. It requires division of managerial labor to horizontal and vertical.

The horizontal principle of the division of labor is the placement of managers at the head of individual units, departments.

The vertical principle of the division of labor is the creation of a hierarchy of levels of management in order to coordinate horizontally divided managerial work in order to achieve the goals of the organization.

Also in this chapter we will consider 3 levels of management, or, in other words, three categories of leaders.

· Management levels

· Lower managers(operational managers). The largest category. They exercise control over the fulfillment of production tasks, over the use of resources (raw materials, equipment, personnel). Junior superiors include a foreman, head of a laboratory, etc. The work of a lower-level manager is the most diverse, characterized by frequent transitions from one type of activity to another. The degree of responsibility of lower-level managers is not very high, sometimes there is a significant proportion of physical labor in the work.

A typical job title at this level is foreman, shift foreman, sergeant, head of department, head nurse. Most of the managers in general are low-level managers. Most people start their managerial careers in this capacity.

Research has shown that the job of a grass-roots manager is stressful and filled with a variety of activities. It is characterized by frequent breaks, transitions from one task to another. Tasks themselves are potentially brief. One study found that the average time it took for a craftsman to complete one task was 48 seconds. The time period for the implementation of decisions made by the master is also short. They are almost always realized in less than 2 weeks. It was revealed that craftsmen spend about half of their working time in communication. They communicate a lot with their subordinates, not much with other masters, and very little with their superiors.

· Middle managers. They supervise the work of lower-level managers and pass the processed information to senior managers. This link includes: department heads, dean, etc. Middle managers have a much greater share of responsibility.

In a large organization, there may be so many middle managers that it may be necessary to separate this group. And if such a separation occurs, then two levels arise, the first of which is called upper middle management level, second - lower level middle management.

It is difficult to generalize about the nature of the middle manager, as it varies greatly from organization to organization and even within the same organization.

A middle manager often leads a large division or department within an organization. The nature of his work is determined to a greater extent by the content of the work of the unit than by the organization as a whole. For example, the activities of a production manager in an industrial firm mainly include coordinating and directing the work of field managers, analyzing labor productivity data, and interacting with an engineer to develop new products. The head of the external relations department at the same firm spends most of his time preparing papers, reading, talking and talking, and meeting various committees.

For the most part, however, middle managers act as a buffer between top and bottom managers. They prepare information for decisions made by senior managers and transmit these decisions, usually after their transformation in a technologically convenient form, in the form of specifications and specific tasks to grass-roots line managers.

Middle managers, as a social group, experienced a particularly strong impact of various economic and technological changes in production during the 80s. Personal computers eliminated some of their functions and changed others, allowing senior managers to receive information directly at their desk directly from the source, instead of filtering it at the level of middle managers. The wave of corporate mergers and the general pressure to increase operational efficiency have also caused a drastic reduction in the number of middle managers in some organizations.

· Senior managers. The smallest category. They are responsible for the development and implementation of the organization's strategy, for making decisions that are especially important for it. Top managers include: company president, minister, rector, etc. The work of a senior manager is very responsible, since the scope of work is large, and the pace of activity is intense. Their work is mainly mental activity. They constantly have to make managerial decisions.

Usually there is a hierarchy (pyramid) of management with differentiation according to the rank of command power, decision-making competence, authority, position.

The hierarchy of management is a tool for realizing the goals of the company and a guarantee of the preservation of the system. The higher the hierarchical level, the greater the volume and complexity of the functions performed, the responsibility, the share of strategic decisions and access to information. At the same time, the requirements for qualifications and personal freedom in management are growing. The lower the level, the greater the simplicity of decisions, the proportion of operational activities.

The pyramid shape is used to show that there are fewer people at each successive level of government than at the previous one.

· MANAGER AND LEADER. COMMON AND DISTINCTIVE FEATURES

· Management and functions of a manager

Management- this is a system of management methods in a market or market economy, which involves the orientation of the company to the demand and needs of the market, the constant desire to improve production efficiency at the lowest cost, in order to obtain optimal results.

Management is also an area of ​​human knowledge that helps to carry out the management function. Finally, management as a collective of managers is a certain category of people, a social stratum of those who carry out management work. The importance of management was especially clearly realized in the 1930s. Even then it became obvious that this activity had turned into a profession, the field of knowledge - into an independent discipline, and the social stratum - into a very influential social force. The growing role of this social force forced people to talk about the “revolution of managers”, when it turned out that there were giant corporations with huge economic, industrial, scientific and technical potential, comparable in power to entire states. The largest corporations, banks are the core of the economic and political strength of the great nations. Governments depend on them, many of them are transnational in nature, extending their production, distribution, service, information networks around the world. This means that the decisions of managers, like the decisions of statesmen, can determine the fate of millions of people, states and entire regions. However, the role of managers is not limited to their presence only in huge multi-level and branched corporate governance structures. In a mature market economy, small business is no less important. In terms of quantity, this is more than 95% of all firms; in terms of value, this is the closest approximation to the daily needs of consumers and, at the same time, a testing ground for technical progress and other innovations. For the majority of the population, it is also a job. To manage skillfully in a small business means to survive, to resist, to grow. How to do this is also a question of effective management.

Management levels is a manifestation of the division of labor in organizations. At present, the trend towards specialization is becoming more and more pronounced. professional activity, under which each employee (or each unit) performs the functions assigned to him and is not involved in the performance of other functions.

The division of labor can be vertical or horizontal. With a vertical division of labor, each manager has a sphere of activity for which he is responsible (a sphere of control) or a certain number of employees who are subordinate to him. In this case, the distribution of tasks is not carried out at the same level, but "from top to bottom" - from workers occupying higher positions to workers at the bottom of the hierarchy.

At the same time, the higher the position occupied by the employee, the more common tasks he solves; the lower the position of the worker in the hierarchy, the more private are the goals facing him. This is completely natural, since the most significant decisions from the point of view of functioning are made at the very “top”, that is, the management of the enterprise.

With a horizontal division of labor, specialists are distributed among various functional areas and they are entrusted with the performance of tasks that are important from the point of view of this functional area. A prime example The horizontal division of labor is conveyor production, when each of the workers performs a separate operation and is at the same level of the hierarchy as other workers involved in the production of the same product.

The internal structure of the organization should not be taken as something settled, something that will always exist. Managers, especially senior managers, must understand that the structure of the organization is created to solve the problems facing the organization. Over time, the position of the organization in the market changes, and the conditions for its activities change (the emergence of competitors, the legislative framework, economic conditions, political situation); in addition, the size of the workforce may also change. Naturally, this leads to the fact that the goals of the organization change. And along with them, the internal structure organization, since the old structure may be (and usually is) unsuitable for solving new problems.

Management in an organization always has a pyramid structure: at the lower levels there are a large number of managers, as you move up, their number decreases. On this basis, it is customary to single out managers of the lower, middle and upper levels; this classification is based on the ideas of the American sociologist Talcott Parsons.

According to Parsons, any organization has three levels of management:

1) institutional level - the highest level of management at which planning for a long period is carried out, decisions are made that have very important consequences for the organization, there is a response to changes that have already begun or are expected in the near future, etc. Another distinguishing feature of this level lies in the fact that it is on it that decisions are made regarding the interaction of the organization with its external environment— competitors, the state, public associations etc. At this level, top managers make decisions (the so-called top managers: directors, presidents, vice-presidents of enterprises, university rectors);

2) managerial level - this next level where the coordination of the actions of various employees and departments is carried out to achieve the goals of the organization. At this level, middle managers make decisions (heads of independent divisions and departments, directors of branches, deans at universities);

3) technical level of management is the level at which standard labor operations are performed; this level can be correlated with the daily work that exists in any organization. Decisions at this level are made by lower-level managers (foreman in a workshop, head of a subdepartment, in universities - heads of departments, etc.), and their activities are studied operational management.

The tasks that managers of different levels are called upon to solve differ significantly from each other. These differences are due primarily to the fact that managers at each level must manage different types of work. Any person striving to become a leader should have a good idea of ​​the features of the leader's activity, depending on the level at which he performs his functions.

It should not be thought that leaders at one level are more important to the enterprise than leaders at another level. The activities of a leader at any level of management are important for the normal functioning of an organization. The highest level of management will be "helpless" if it does not rely on the lower and middle level, the same is true for all other levels.

Top managers are tasked with making decisions that are vital to the organization or its major division. As a rule, such decisions are strategic: they, unlike tactical decisions, determine not the ways to achieve the goals, but the goals themselves, to which the organization should strive.

As a rule, senior managers do not have a large number of contacts with people: their communications within the organization are limited to communication with other senior managers, as well as communication with a small number of subordinates. However, this does not mean that their job is simpler or easier than that of leaders at other levels. First, they have a huge responsibility.

If a wrong decision made by a middle or lower-level manager affects some aspects of the organization's activities, that is, leads to local violations, then the mistake of a senior manager can lead to the death of the organization. For this reason, one of the most important abilities required for a senior manager is the ability to take risks. Not every person is capable of this.

Middle managers, as a rule, are engaged in coordinating and controlling the activities of lower managers, and also assist senior managers in decision-making. In addition, they play the role of intermediaries between top managers and lower managers. Let's consider their functions in more detail.

Middle managers are often involved in the decision making of senior managers. Their participation in this process can consist both in the proposal of specific innovations, and in the collection of information that is significant from the point of view of the problem, or in the examination decision. Top managers have only the most general information on the activities of the organization; often they may not be aware of the problems that either exist in the organization or arise as a result of making the wrong decision.

Naturally, middle managers have more complete information about the life of the enterprise; at least they know better about how the part of the organization they manage functions. The difference between top managers and lower managers is that the former deal with the organization as a whole, while middle managers are more aware of some part of the organization's activities. From this point of view, lower-level managers have too private information about the activities of the organization.

Another task facing middle managers is to mediate between top and bottom management. Usually the optimal interpretation of the decision made at the highest level falls on them. And this is quite natural, since they can usually give these decisions a form that is optimal from the point of view of the lowest level of management. In this case, the middle managers allocate specific tasks, set deadlines in which they can be completed. The tasks facing them can be defined as the concretization of decisions taken at the highest level.

The middle manager has to communicate a lot, and this is primarily due to the fact that they act as intermediaries between other levels of management. For this reason, they must be able to highlight meaningful information and discard what is not important.

If the organization consists of a large number of employees, additional levels may be allocated in the middle management. In particular, it is not uncommon to encounter a situation where some middle managers coordinate the activities of lower managers, while others coordinate the activities of middle managers. The latter are often called top managers: they occupy a higher position than ordinary middle managers, but do not belong to the top management, as they are subordinate to it.

It should be noted that technological progress, as well as some other reasons, have led to the fact that the number of middle management is gradually decreasing. However, this does not mean that there is no need for middle managers. The point is that the functions assigned to these leaders are subject to the most dramatic changes.

The main feature of the work of lower-level managers is that they are obliged to control the production process: solve problems associated with the use of resources in a specific situation, control the quality and timing of production operations. The main difficulty that a lower-level manager has to face is that he has to switch very quickly from one job to another. For this reason, a lower-level manager must be able to make decisions quickly, since there is usually no time to think about a decision.

The lower-level manager has a special relationship with subordinates. He has to not only make decisions and exercise control over their activities, but also act as a mentor, leader. Indeed, it is these managers, consciously or unconsciously, who are tasked with training young and/or new employees. Managers at other levels perform such functions much less frequently.

Although all leaders play certain roles and perform certain functions, this does not mean that a large number of leaders in big company busy doing the same job. Organizations that are large enough to provide a clear distinction between the work of managers and non-managers usually have such a large amount of managerial work that it must also be divided. One of the forms of division of managerial labor is horizontal: the placement of specific leaders at the head of individual departments. For example, in many enterprises there are chiefs financial department, production department and marketing services. As in the case of the horizontal division of labor to perform production work, horizontally divided managerial work must be coordinated so that the organization can achieve success in its activities. Some managers have to spend time coordinating the work of other managers, who in turn also coordinate the work of managers, until finally we descend to the level of a manager who coordinates the work of non-management personnel - people who physically produce products or provide services. Such a vertical deployment of the division of labor as a result forms the LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT. On fig. 1.3. one of the options for describing the levels of control is given.

The vertical division of labor leads to the formation of vertical management levels - on the example of a military organization, as well as in a business organization. It does not follow from the title of the posts that similar positions are directly comparable in different organizations. In a military organization, there are many levels of authority above the brigadier general and below the captain. In business, there are fewer levels of management. The president or chief executive officer - the first person - is responsible only to the Chairman and members of the Board of Directors of the firm and, in accordance with the example given, cannot but be a leader below the head of the labor and wages department.

In an organization, it is usually possible to determine at what level one manager is compared to others. This is done through the job title. Wherein , the job title is not a reliable indicator of a given manager's true level in the system. This observation is especially true when we compare the position of leaders in different organizations. A simple example: a captain in the army is a junior officer, and in the navy it is a senior officer. In some companies, salespeople are called regional or territorial sales managers, even though they do not manage anyone but themselves.

For reasons we will discuss in more detail later, the size of an organization is only one of several factors that determine how many levels of management a company must have in order to achieve optimal results. There are many examples of very successful organizations with far fewer levels of management than in much more small organizations. The Roman Catholic Church - an organization with millions of members - has only four levels between the Pope and the parish priest. Major firms retail- ʼʼSiroʼʼ and ʼʼMitsukoshiʼʼ - are also known for having a very small number of levels of government, as opposed to another successful organization - the US Army. It has 7 levels and 20 ranks separating the general from the private in a battalion of 1000 people.

Regardless of how many levels of management there are, leaders are traditionally divided into three categories. The sociologist Talcott Parsons considers these three categories in terms of the function that a leader performs in an organization. According to Parsons' definition, persons on technical level mainly engaged in daily operations and activities necessary to ensure effective work without interruptions in the production of products or services. Persons who are on managerial level, mainly engaged in management and coordination within the organization, they coordinate the various forms of activity and efforts of various departments of the organization. Leaders on institutional level" they are mainly engaged in the development of long-term (long-term) plans, the formulation of goals, the adaptation of the organization to various kinds of changes, the management of relations between the organization and the external environment, as well as the society in which this organization exists and functions.

A more commonly used way to describe levels of control is to highlight low-level managers (managers), or operational managers, middle managers (managers) and senior managers (managers). Rice. 1.4. illustrates the correspondence between these levels and Parsons' concept of levels of control.

LEADERS OF THE LOWER LEVELS. Junior bosses, also called supervisors first (grassroots) link or operational managers - it is the organizational level directly above workers and other workers (non-managers). JUNIOR MANAGERS mainly monitor the performance of production tasks to continuously provide direct information about the correct execution of these tasks. Managers of this link are often responsible for the direct use of resources allocated to them, such as raw materials and equipment. A typical job title at this level is foreman, shift foreman, sergeant, head of department, head nurse, head of the department of management at a business school. Most of the leaders in general are the leaders of the grassroots. Most people start their managerial career in this capacity.

Research shows that the job of a grass-roots manager is stressful and filled with a variety of activities. It is characterized by frequent breaks, transitions from one task to another. The tasks themselves are potentially short: one study found that the average time it took a foreman to complete one task was 48 seconds. The time period for the implementation of decisions made by the master is also short. Οʜᴎ are almost always implemented within less than two weeks. It was revealed that craftsmen spend about half of their working time in communication. Οʜᴎ communicate a lot with their subordinates, a little with other masters and very little with their superiors.

Rice. 1.4. Two ways to represent levels of control.

The pyramid shape is used to show that there are fewer people at each successive level of government than at the previous one.

MIDDLE MANAGERS. The work of junior superiors is coordinated and controlled by middle managers. Over the past decades, middle management has grown significantly both in terms of numbers and importance. In a large organization, there must be so many middle managers that it becomes extremely important to separate this group. And if such a separation occurs, then two levels arise, the first of which is usually called the upper level of the middle management, the second - the lower. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, four basic levels of management are formed: higher, upper middle, lower middle and lower. Typical middle management positions are department head (in business), dean (in college), regional or national sales manager, and branch manager. Army officers from lieutenant to colonel, priests in the rank of bishops are considered middle managers in their organizations.

It is difficult to generalize about the nature of a middle manager's work, as it varies greatly from organization to organization and even within the same organization. Some organizations give their middle managers more responsibility, making their work somewhat similar to that of senior managers. A study of 190 executives in 8 companies showed that middle managers were an integral part of the decision-making process. Οʜᴎ identified problems, started discussions, recommended actions, developed innovative creative proposals.

The middle manager often leads a large division or department in an organization. The nature of his work is more determined by the content of the work of the unit than the organization as a whole. For example, the activities of a production manager in an industrial firm mainly involve coordinating and directing the work of line managers, analyzing labor productivity data, and interacting with engineers to develop new products. The head of external relations at the same firm spends most of his time preparing papers, reading, talking and talking, and attending various committee meetings.

For the most part, however, middle managers act as a buffer between top and bottom managers. Οʜᴎ prepare information for decisions made by top managers and transfer these decisions, usually after transforming them in a technologically convenient form, in the form of specifications and specific tasks to lower line managers. Although there are variations, most communication among middle managers takes the form of conversations with other middle and lower managers. One study of middle management in a manufacturing enterprise found that they spend about 89% of their time in verbal interaction. Another study indicates that the middle manager spends only 34% of their time alone, it also highlights that most of the time these managers spend on verbal communication.

Middle managers as a social group experienced a particularly strong impact of various economic and technological changes in production during the 80s. Personal computers eliminated some of their functions and changed others, allowing senior managers to receive information directly at their desks directly from the source, instead of filtering it at the level of middle managers. The wave of corporate mergers and the general pressure to increase operational efficiency have also caused drastic reductions in the number of middle managers in some organizations. Chrysler, for example, reduced the number of middle managers by 40%, and Crown Zellerbach and Firestone by 20%.

SENIOR LEADERS. The highest organizational level - senior management - far fewer others. Even in the largest organizations, senior managers are only a few people. Typical senior executive positions in business are Chairman of the Board, President, Vice President of the Corporation, and Treasurer of the Corporation. In the army, they can be compared with generals, among statesmen - with ministers, and at the university - with chancellors (rectors) of colleges.

SENIOR MANAGERS are responsible for making critical decisions for the organization as a whole or for a subset of the organization. In the event that RCA's top management decides to convert the corporation to computers before the company is able to compete with IBC's competition, there is little that middle and lower managers can do to prevent a major failure. Strong senior executives leave the imprint of their personality on the whole image of the company. For example, the atmosphere in which the federal government operates, and indeed the whole country, usually undergoes significant changes under a new president. Consider the contrasts between the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations. The influence of a senior executive in a company should be brilliantly illustrated by the dramatic change that Chrysler underwent under Lee Iacocca. For this reason, successful senior executives in large organizations are highly valued and highly paid.

Rice. 1.5. How leaders spend their time.