Principles of coordination and grouping of work in the organization
Coordinating mechanisms in the organization. The process of distributing tasks between performers or departments of the organization is called decomposition (i.e. division) of the overall goal of the activity.
Decomposition assumes that the timely and correct performance by each performer of his part of the work will ultimately lead to the achievement of a common goal. However, the correct division of a complex task into its component parts, in accordance with the competencies and responsibilities of employees, does not yet mean effective organizational activity. For productive work, it is necessary to ensure the coordination of the work of performers.
So, the formation of an organizational structure implies, firstly, the correct distribution of tasks, and secondly, the implementation of coordination that ensures the integration of the joint work of performers. In what ways can coordination be ensured?
G. Mintzberg identifies five coordination mechanisms – the ways by which organizations coordinate their activities and ensure the integration of all their parts:
- Mutual agreement.
- Direct control;
- Standardization of work processes.
- Release standardization.
- Standardization of skills and knowledge (qualifications).
With mutual agreement, the control of processes and results of labor, relatively speaking, is carried out by the employees themselves. To do this, they use informal, but aimed at specific professional issues of communication.
This simple coordinating mechanism is often a very effective way to keep the workflow going. It does not require a significant distraction of performers from solving their immediate tasks.
The mechanism of mutual agreement is based on the assumption of sufficient qualification (competence) of employees within the framework of the task they are operatively solving, which allows them to refuse to involve other specialists or managers.
Mutual coordination is a method of coordination, which consists in the fact that the employees themselves control the processes and results of work, using informal communications for this.
An example of this method of coordination is when two workers discuss the reason for the suspension of the machine and independently eliminate it in order to prevent significant interruptions in work.
As a rule, this coordination mechanism is based on horizontal communications, however, in some cases, diagonal channels of communication can also be used (between representatives of different functional areas and levels of management, for example, communication between the head of the assembly shop and the head of the section of the painting shop).
Obviously, in most cases, mutual agreement implies not only the necessary level of professional competence of employees, but also a fairly high level of their motivation and loyalty to the organization.
The use of direct control assumes that the formulation of production tasks, responsibility for the work of performers and the assessment of the quality of their work are assigned to one person – the manager (coordinator). Otherwise, direct control can be called direct linear control.
For example, the foreman of a construction team is responsible for the results of the work of his subordinates, their mode of work, their coordination of work stages, the use of resources, tools, etc.
Direct control is a method of coordination, which consists in the fact that the responsibility for the work of the performers is assigned to one person – the leader.
This coordination mechanism increases the efficiency of the coordination process and organizational work in general due to the high managerial qualifications of the coordinator. Direct control also reduces the dependence of work results on factors associated with low labor discipline, low level of motivation of performers and their loyalty to the organization.
Standardization of work processes is a precise definition (specification) or programming of the content of labor. This coordination mechanism is applied everywhere.
Specification (from Latin specificatio – genus, species, variety) is a term denoting a set of requirements and parameters that an object (process) satisfies.
In the simplest case, it is implemented through the issuance of job descriptions, technological maps, oral briefings on the procedure and rules of work, etc.
Standardization of work processes is a method of coordination, which is a precise definition (specification) of the content of labor.
The standardization of work processes is based on the assumption that the accurate and timely execution of production operations by employees, in accordance with the instructions, ensures the continuity and consistency of their joint activities and does not require the intervention of a coordinating manager or mutual agreement.
In practice, the system of instructions and standards is by no means always able to provide the necessary level of coordination by itself.
This can be due to a number of factors: low discipline and qualifications of employees, obsolescence of instructions (inconsistency with their changed tasks and working conditions), random technical failures, etc.
In addition, the unreasonably high attention of management to this particular method of coordination can lead to the dominance of the bureaucratic method of building organizational relations at the enterprise, which in some cases reduces the flexibility of the organization and its ability to adapt to changing market conditions.
Nevertheless, it is precisely this coordination mechanism that most often underlies the organizational structure of enterprises engaged in the production of medium and large-scale products, the provision of services, etc.
Output standardization, in contrast to the previous coordination mechanism, involves the standardization of labor results: product parameters, production rates, the number of customers served, the amount of profit, the nature and parameters of the service provided, etc. “A taxi passenger doesn’t tell the driver how to drive or which route to take, they just tell them where to take them.”
Standardization of output is a method of coordination that involves the standardization of the results of labor (products or services).
Output standardization involves initial coordination due to the understanding by each participant of the production (or other) process of the final requirements for the quality and quantity of manufactured products and their contribution to this result.
This coordination mechanism can be implemented in various ways, for example: drawing up a detailed drawing and specification for manufactured products; determining the number of clients that the employee must serve during the month, or the amount of contracts concluded by him during this time, etc.
Owners and general managers of companies can set before the directors of divisions the task of obtaining a certain profit, leaving the choice of technological, production, commercial and other processes at their discretion.
Another example of the use of this method of coordination is the work of a writer who has entered into an agreement with a publishing house for the release of a book. In most cases, the contract determines the terms for submitting the work to the editorial office, its volume, sometimes the structure and content. However, the process of working on a book is managed by the author himself, undertaking only to fulfill the requirements of the release standards (in this case, the book).
The standardization of knowledge and skills is the precise definition of requirements for the qualifications of workers. Moreover, these requirements are considered as conditions for the applicant’s participation in the labor process. Usually, this coordination mechanism begins to “work” even before an employee is employed in an organization – during his professional training at a university, college, etc.
In other words, the foundations of this type of coordination are laid even in educational institutions, when they draw up and implement curricula and programs within the framework of one or another area of professional training.
Standardization of knowledge and skills is a way of coordination, which consists in the precise definition of requirements for the qualifications of workers.
The presence of the required qualifications among specialists allows them to independently coordinate joint activities in solving complex professional problems. In addition, it is the standardization of qualifications that allows the organization to count on the fact that employees will successfully apply other coordination mechanisms, such as standardization of output, standardization of work processes.
Mutual agreement (i.e. informal professional communications), subject to the standards of knowledge and skills of employees, also becomes more productive and reasonable.
Depending on the specifics of the enterprise, the degree of importance for it of the pre-acquired (so-called input) qualifications of employees can be different.
For example, for job positions that involve simple operations that do not require special skills, the input requirements for the qualifications of applicants for employment are also low.
However, it is difficult to imagine that a person who does not have special qualifications, and often certain work experience, can apply for a position, for example, a neurosurgeon of a hospital or dean of a university faculty.
How do the considered coordination mechanisms work? To coordinate the joint activities of a small group of people solving simple problems, as a rule, mutual agreement is sufficient.
The increase in the complexity and variety of tasks, as well as the increase in the number of personnel of the organization, requires the involvement of the skills of a manager who exercises direct control.
At the same time, despite its “autocratic” name, direct control does not necessarily imply authoritarian administrative methods of management. This method of coordination is most effectively used by leaders who are able to create a team whose members understand and share the goals and values of the organization.
A further increase in the complexity of production, commercial and other processes, as a rule, requires the involvement of labor standardization. The importance and timeliness of this coordinating mechanism becomes especially evident with a certain repetition and uniformity of the stages of these processes.
The need to perform more complex, including non-trivial, tasks forces the organization to turn to the standardization of labor results. This approach allows the employee (team, department) to choose the nature of the work process: its features, time and other parameters, etc.The most complex tasks that require special training of performers force organizations to focus more on standards of knowledge and skills.
The coordination mechanisms complement each other and in the vast majority of cases are applied in a complex manner. Nevertheless, the dominance of individual coordination mechanisms in an organization determines the features of its structure and functioning.
For ease of perception, the combination of coordination mechanisms in an organization (the organization’s coordination profile) can be represented as a radar diagram. Management is carried out by one person (for example, the owner).
It is allowed to solve a significant part of operational tasks by informally agreeing on options for action by employees. Employees do not require special training and high qualifications.
Work processes are standardized to the extent necessary to ensure that activities meet the minimum requirements of external control bodies and customer expectations. An example of such an organization would be a small grocery store or a shoe repair shop.
The petal chart represents the approximate distribution (percentage) of coordination mechanisms specific to a particular organization; the sum of all values of all equals 100%.
The noticeable dominance of standardization of work processes in the diagram indicates the desire of the organization to streamline all production and commercial processes as much as possible in order to increase labor productivity and reduce costs.
Coordination of the work of working groups (teams, shifts, etc.) is carried out by line managers, whose role in the conditions of the most standardized activity is only to monitor compliance with standards and norms. Examples of such an organization can be: a plant for mass production of low-tech products – consumer goods; Postal office.
The diagram corresponds to an enterprise whose competitive advantages are manifested in the innovative nature of its products (services) and technologies (including management technologies).
As can be seen, the management of such an organization considers its highly qualified, creatively thinking employees to be its main strategic resource. Management allows them to participate in important decisions and choose the most convenient working conditions for themselves, without resorting to unreasonable guardianship from line managers.
Much attention is paid to the quality of products (services), while the quality parameters are accurately described in corporate standards. The organizational structure of such a company can be a set of rapidly formed project teams, and the system of organizational relations is dominated by an organic (adaptive) approach.
Principles of grouping work in an organization . In addition to ways of coordinating joint activities, an important tool for building an organization is grouping – combining job positions into organizational units (divisions).
A rational choice of the grouping option allows you to ensure the efficiency of the organization’s functioning in terms of the following indicators:
- the system of control over all official positions and organizational units is simplified;
- a rational pooling of resources in organizational units is achieved;
- general performance and efficiency indicators are established, which increase the objectivity of their assessment;
- conditions are being created for the effective use of such a coordination mechanism as mutual agreement.
On what basis are job positions combined in an organization? Grouping can be done by:
- knowledge and skills (qualifications);
- workflows and functions;
- release (product type);
- place of activity.
As can be seen from the above list, some grouping methods are initially focused on the use (dominance) of specific coordination mechanisms.
- Grouping by knowledge and skills suggests that job positions should be combined into units in accordance with the special knowledge and skills (competences) that employees have. For example, in hospitals, surgeons belong to one department, therapists to another, psychiatrists to a third (see the coordination mechanism “Standardization of knowledge and skills”).
- Grouping by work processes and functions is that organizational units differ from each other in technological processes or activities performed by employees. For example, a factory has a foundry, a welding shop, and a machining shop.
- Grouping by time means that departments or teams are formed in accordance with the time periods for completing work tasks. In other words, different organizational units can do the same work in the same way, but at different times. For example, the work of the plant in the day and night shifts.
- Grouping by output (products) leads to the formation of subdivisions (divisions) according to the products they produce or the services they provide. For example, a large manufacturing company may create separate divisions for each product line – one for the production of household appliances, another for the production of cars, and so on.
- Grouping by clients involves the creation of departments depending on the specifics of clients. For example, an insurance company may have sales departments for individual and group policies; a garment factory may have an adult clothing workshop and a children’s clothing workshop.
- Grouping by place of activity is the formation of units in accordance with the geography of their activities. For example, a trading network includes fifty stores opened in different cities of the country.
How to Stay Above the Line and Achieve Results Through Personal Responsibility
Why do some companies prosper while others gradually sink? Why do some succeed in innovating successfully while others fail? Why do we sometimes have to make up stories to justify failure instead of telling the truth? Is this an unavoidable practice in business or is there a healthy alternative? You will find answers to all these questions in the article.
How to Stay Above the Line and Achieve Results Through Personal Responsibility
We admit that we are inspired by the success of market leaders, we would like to one day be in their place. And we are determined, ready to act towards success, and not just talk about it. If this is about you, get ready to receive valuable information.
Do you think that in order to repeat the success of someone else’s company, you need to learn how processes are built there, how things are done, how personnel management is established, etc. and use the same for yourself?
Many do, especially since successful companies and leaders often openly share their success stories.
Not everyone succeeds
To implement successful experience, enterprises are studying new approaches, moving to new principles of work:
- practice the creation of knowledge bases,
- empower each member of the team
- implement agile,
- automate processes,
- pay attention to networking,
- create quality departments,
- build process maps
- learn reengineering and much more.
It is unlikely that anyone will argue with the fact that the above approaches are quite working and are able to take the company to a new level. All this really works, there are a lot of examples.
But it brings success to some companies, and not to others. There are a huge number of companies that have tried different approaches and abandoned them because they did not work.
Many admit that the introduction of new popular programs for them is difficult to implement, if not simply ridiculous, and the promised results begin to seem like just a marketing ploy.
But it works for others. And it is true.
Or maybe they forgot to tell us about the secret ingredient in the recipe? And there is! This is our conversation today.
This ingredient is a personal responsibility . The authors of the book The Oz Principle. Achieving results through personal and organizational responsibility ”Tom Smith, Roger Connors and Craig Hickman believe that all these hobbies and popular programs achieve their goals only in one case – the results depend on people who take responsibility for achieving them .
We are used to talking about responsibility in isolation from new implementations, but it is without responsibility that no program will be successful, and with it, any implementation will exceed all expectations.
How exactly it works and what specific steps need to be taken, we will analyze right now.
One of the most successful businessmen in Russia, Alexander Svetakov, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Absolut Investment Group, said the following on this topic:
“If, despite all the efforts invested, the goal is not achieved, then, looking back, it is quite easy to see moments where you could have made a slightly different decision, not to pass by some, at first glance, insignificant fact .
I think most executives and business owners would give a lot for the ability to “see in time” and make the right decision.
It turns out that the success of some and the failure of other companies in the implementation of certain innovations depended not on the innovations themselves, but on how responsibly they treated every detail in a particular company .
Something painfully familiar, isn’t it? Do not pass by abandoned garbage, an unwashed cup, an unanswered letter to a colleague, otherwise all this can turn into big losses. It’s all about responsibility .
The good news is that a culture of responsibility can be nurtured, thus cultivating in your own company this important ingredient , key to any implementation.
How to nurture a culture of responsibility in an organization
Now we know the main condition for successful implementation – to take responsibility.
To take the responsibility
Everyone probably knows situations when we make every effort to get to the coveted training, buy that particular book, get that particular program – something that magically solves this or that problem or closes a certain need. Now there will be an opening for many.
To associate your success with external circumstances is to be a victim of circumstances . Taking responsibility means walking your own path step by step from start to goal. And set an example for others.
The path from ignorance to knowledge, from fear to courage, from complete impotence to omnipotence is the path that everyone must take, remembering the main lessons of achieving the goal:
- Don’t get stuck on the way.
- Don’t blame others for the circumstances.
- Don’t wait for some wizard to decide everything for us.
- Don’t expect problems to “dissolve”.
In difficult economic conditions, feeling like a victim of circumstances is a huge temptation , but it is precisely the rejection of it that can work miracles, moreover, with your own hands and without the help of wizards.
Many companies fail because of managerial errors. The culture of responsibility in the company depends on the ability of the leader to take responsibility for their failures.
Today’s leaders too often spend a lot of energy justifying their own miscalculations. Insufficient resources, inept employees, the intrigues of competitors – all this can serve as an excuse for someone who is not ready to take responsibility for their mistakes. This path is wrong. Instead, start moving towards success and start looking for opportunities by analyzing failures.
Honestly analyze the failed path and learn from the mistakes for the future by answering yourself the following questions:
- What facts did you consider insignificant and ignored, although you knew about their existence?
- What would you change if you were in the same situation again?
- What warning signs did you encounter along the way?
- How to prevent the repetition of the same situation?
- Are you aware of how your behavior prevented you from getting the desired result?
These questions will be useful for analyzing failure in any area, not just in business.
Get rid of illusions
A culture of responsibility is a culture of willingness to face reality. Most employees of organizations, faced with undesirable facts (bad work, unsatisfactory results), immediately begin to act according to the principle “you can’t talk about bad things”. The reasons may be different – unwillingness to be punished, fear of upsetting the leadership, negligence, unwillingness to face difficulties. As a result, the one who noticed the flaw, hushed up about it or come up with an excuse, arguments and logical explanations for why he should not be held responsible.
This phenomenon of failed responsibility only brings us closer to the position of the victim. This happens whenever one chooses simplicity over difficulty, good humor over justice, current reputation over problem solving, and illusion over reality.
What will happen to the ship, in which a leak has already formed, but which everyone is silent about? Making ourselves a victim of circumstances, we only help the business to weaken.
Where can you encounter something like this? Every step of the way, when we mislead executives into not telling them the scale of the trouble, when we choose quick success over a long-term path, immediate gain over a sure but longer-term solution. It is the unwillingness to take responsibility that helps more and more “wizards” fool us with more and more illusions.
Until executives learn to take responsibility and inspire the team to do so, they will continue to be carried away by newfangled philosophies that appear every season, rushing from one entertainment to another.
Develop and encourage responsibility
Draw a thought line. Beneath the line are all the aforementioned making excuses, helpless stance, blaming circumstances or colleagues, illusions and made up stories. Above the line – reality, personal involvement, commitments, search for solutions and real actions.
A thin line separates success from failure, successful companies from the average . Below the line are the losers, explaining the reasons for their sacrificial position, above the line are the hard-working, committed ones. Under the line – the position of the victim, above the line – responsibility.
To get rid of the position of the victim and rise above the line, it is necessary to eradicate the following manifestations:
- The habit of waiting and observing.
- The habit of waiting only for specific instructions.
- Disclaimer: “That’s not my job.”
- Ignoring and denying facts.
- Tendency to point to others.
- Tendency to make up cover stories.
At whatever level it manifests itself, you need to get rid of it.
The following should be encouraged:
- Availability of information, openness, assistance in the perception of the real situation.
- Feeling of belonging.
- Making decisions.
There are no trifles
Not to ignore the little things is an important principle on the way to introducing a culture of responsibility . “At first gradually, and then everything happens in an instant” – this is how Ernest Hemingway described the ruin in the novel “Fiesta”.
Failure can start innocently and imperceptibly, in those moments when we lose our vigilance . Several years of successful sales – and the company’s managers relax. Small signs of slowing growth – but they are not paid attention to. Something like this begins the history of bankruptcy, it would seem, the strongest companies in the world. So, for example, overnight, Cisco shares lost 90% of their value.
To be ready for anything, to be Above the Line and not to look for the guilty – this is the best error prevention for a successful company.
To do this, you need to climb the Responsibility Levels:
- Awareness and acceptance of the real situation. (The most difficult step).
- Participation in the result and recognition of one’s responsibility.
- Search for a solution.
- Following the decisions made.
With these four steps, your common sense will take you Above The Line.
In order not to analyze the reasons for what happened, analyze the possible outcomes and prepare for the most pessimistic scenarios. Play the worst-case scenario more often .
Is it easy to rise above the line
If it seems to someone that just one decision is enough to move from the “Below the Line” state to the regime of personal responsibility, then this is not so. This is the path that every company must take.
Consider only markers that will indicate where you are relative to the Trait.
You have not risen above the line yet, if in your company, and from you, you can still hear such phrases:
- If only we had more resources.
- The schedule is too tight.
- Difficult economic situation.
- This is not my job.
- Nobody told me.
All of these phrases focus on why it’s not possible, not on “what else can I do.”
Indeed, we often become victims of manipulative leaders, dishonest competitors, economic disasters, liars, scammers, etc. Not everything can be controlled, we do not always deserve what happens to us. But there will be no way forward if we continue to remain in “victim mode” and blame circumstances for our situation.
Responsibility begins with the first attempt to control the situation, with the first question: “how can I help”, “what else can I do”.
Responsibility is a personal choice of a person in any circumstances to remain involved in what is happening and do everything necessary to achieve the desired results.
For companies, this is a series of events, the formation of a corporate culture based on the “Above the Line” principle, the introduction of a coaching culture and constant work. But if we don’t, we already know where it can lead.
The Best Ways to Reward Employees
Every company needs a strategic employee compensation system covering the following four areas: compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation. The problem with reward systems in many companies today is twofold: they lack one or more of these elements (usually recognition and/or appreciation), and the elements that are present are not properly aligned with the rest of the company’s corporate strategies.
The reward system should respond and encourage two types of employee activity – performance and behavior. Productivity is the easiest to work with because there is a direct relationship between the initial goals you set for your employees and the end results they achieve. For example, you can implement a motivation plan or reward your top salespeople for reaching periodic goals.
Rewarding specific behaviors that have impacted your company is harder than rewarding performance, but you can overcome this hurdle by asking yourself, “What am I paying my employees for?” and “What behavior do I want to encourage?” For example, do you pay employees to show up as early as possible and stay late, or to come up with new ideas to do their job more effectively and efficiently? In other words, are you compensating employees for innovation or for the amount of time they spend at their desk? Obviously, there is a big difference between these points.
The first step, of course, is to identify the behaviors that matter to your company. These behaviors may include improving customer relationships, tweaking critical processes, or helping employees expand their management skills.
When business owners think of a reward system, they usually put compensation at the top of the list. There is nothing wrong with that, as few people are willing or able to work for free. But the right strategy should also include an incentive compensation plan that is directly related to your company’s goals for this period. You may want to implement some long-term rewards for key employees in your organization. Historically, this has often resulted in some form of fractional ownership.
Benefits are another type of compensation in a strategic compensation system and your employees will definitely notice the benefits you provide. Companies that do not match the income of their competitors will have difficulty attracting and retaining the best employees. This is one of the reasons more and more businesses are turning to professional employers’ organizations like Administaff to access a wider range of benefits.
Recognition means singling out someone in front of colleagues for specific results achieved, actions taken or actions that are manifested in their behavior. Meanwhile, appreciation focuses on expressing gratitude to someone for his or her actions. Appreciating your employees by acknowledging excellent work and the behavior you want to encourage is best done in simple terms and statements. For example, you can send a private message or stop at an employee’s desk to show your appreciation. Another approach is to combine recognition and appreciation in the form of a public expression of gratitude in front of colleagues or the employee’s team, with specific examples of what they have done that has had a positive impact on the company.
Now that you know what it should include, it’s time to rethink your strategic reward system. Does it cover compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation? Does it align with your existing business strategies? Does it contribute to the correct behavior of your company, as well as the achievement of your production goals? If the reward system needs fixing, don’t wait. It can be the difference between the success and failure of your business.
What are the types of bonuses and employee benefits?
The types of bonuses for employees are quite diverse. However, apart from them, there are other ways of rewards. Consider how you can financially encourage employees.
Incentive payments (bonuses) as a form of payment for labor
The current labor legislation (Article 129 of the Labor Code) allows the employer to establish a system of remuneration for labor, consisting of several parts:
- payment for work performed in accordance with labor duties;
- compensatory payments, taking into account the conditions in which work is carried out;
- incentive payments designed to increase the employee’s interest in work.
By accepting such a remuneration system, the employer gets the opportunity to:
- to influence the employee’s interest in the results of their activities;
- regulate the amount of labor costs taken into account when calculating the income tax base.
The types of bonuses and remuneration used as additional incentive payments are reflected in the internal regulatory act developed by the employer (Article 135 of the Labor Code). This act establishes:
- list of types of applied incentives;
- conditions and frequency of their accrual;
- the circle of persons to whom each of the types of incentives applies;
- a list of indicators that allow the employee to qualify for the appropriate remuneration and deprive him of such an opportunity;
- a system for evaluating indicators that give the right to remuneration, the result of which will be the monetary value of remuneration;
- the procedure for reviewing the results of the assessment and contesting its results.
However, incentive payments, when included in the wage system, become mandatory for the employer if all conditions for the application of the incentive are met.
For information on how an internal regulatory act on bonuses can be drawn up, read the article “Regulations on the remuneration of employees – sample 2020-2021” .
Are there any differences between the concepts of “monetary reward” and “remuneration”
The term “money reward” can be applied to any payment made in cash, regardless of its purpose. That is, it can be both remuneration for work, and any other payment. Incentive bonuses made for the labor achievements of an employee are part of the salary and, if they are paid in cash, are regarded as a monetary reward issued as payment for work.
But in addition to payments related to labor achievements, the employer can use other additional payments that are not due to the employee’s labor functions. Usually they are of a one-time nature and are not regular in terms of accrual. An example of such additional payments are bonuses paid on anniversaries or holidays. They are quite consistent with the term “monetary remuneration not related to wages.”
What are the bonuses and how else can the employee’s encouragement be expressed
Incentives that serve the purpose of stimulating employees are divided into 2 main types:
- material (cash or in-kind), representing various types of additional payments;
- intangible, which can be expressed in the declaration of gratitude, placement on the board of honor, awarding an honorary title, awarding a diploma, medal or commemorative sign.
Among the material incentives, the leading role is given to bonuses. But there may be other types of cash payments, expressed, for example:
- in bonuses to salary or tariff rate established for a certain period;
- superannuation for years of service.
Among the premiums in relation to the regularity of their payment, 2 main groups are distinguished:
- Regular (systematic), accrued and paid with a certain frequency (month, quarter, year). All issues related to such bonuses are regulated by the employer’s internal regulation on incentive payments. Special instructions (decisions) for the calculation of such bonuses are not needed. When the conditions stipulated by the internal regulatory act on bonuses are met, they must be accrued without fail.
- Irregular (one-time), which can be named in the internal regulatory act on bonuses as included in the remuneration system, but for their accrual, additional information is required on indicators that are essential for bonuses. Therefore, for such bonuses, it is necessary to draw up a separate document justifying the employee’s right to bonuses, and to make a separate decision on this document by the head of the organization.
According to the sources from which bonuses are calculated, they can be divided:
- on those accounted for in expenses that reduce the base for income tax – this will include bonuses related to the labor achievements of the employee, both included in the remuneration system and not named in this system;
- attributable to net profit – such attribution concerns non-production bonuses paid not for labor achievements (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 04.24.2013 No. 03-03-06 / 1 / 14283).
Read about what bonuses are included in the calculation of average earnings in the material “Is the bonus taken into account when calculating vacation pay?” .
What are the differences between a bonus and a premium, a regular premium from a guaranteed one?
With regard to the words “premium” and “bonus”, dictionaries of financial terms give very similar interpretations, implying the same concept – “reward”. Therefore, they can be considered identical. Although some of the nuances of the explanations given in the dictionaries make it possible to consider the bonus as an unexpected payment (gift), which makes it closer in meaning to irregular (one-time) bonuses.
The regular types of bonuses for employees include bonuses included in the wage system (that is, that have become mandatory for the employer), accrued and paid at regular intervals. In certain circumstances, they may not be accrued (for example, in case of unsatisfactory financial and economic performance of the organization for the period or in relation to an employee deprived of a bonus in accordance with bonus rules), but this turns out to be the exception rather than the rule.
Guaranteed should be considered those regular bonuses that are set in a fixed amount and do not depend either on the results of the employee’s work or on the time actually worked by him.
How is the taxation of the premium for a professional holiday or anniversary in 2021
Bonuses paid for labor achievements are regarded as payment for labor and, like a regular salary, are subject to personal income tax and insurance premiums.
But incentive payments that are not related to labor achievements, such as an employee’s anniversary bonus or holiday bonus, are also employee income. And they, like salaries, must be subject to personal income tax and insurance premiums (Article 420, clause 1 of Article 20.1 of the law “On Compulsory Social Insurance against Accidents …” dated July 24 , 1998 No. 125-FZ ). Moreover, contributions, in contrast to the amount of such a bonus itself, can be taken into account in expenses when determining the income tax base (subparagraph 49, paragraph 1, article 264 of the Tax Code, letter of the Ministry of Finance dated 06/09/2014 No. 03-03-06 / 1 /27634).
How to issue an order if the employees of the company were given a bonus (sample)
To issue an order on bonuses, there are unified forms approved by the Decree of the State Statistics Committee of 01/05/2004 No. 1:
- T-11, issued upon bonus payment to one employee;
- T-11a, compiled with the encouragement of a group of workers.
However, these forms are not mandatory for use, and nothing prevents the employer from issuing such orders in a self-developed form.
The basis for issuing an order will be:
- the results of the distribution of regular (systematic) bonuses approved by the head of the organization;
- a memo having a positive resolution of the head of the organization on the presentation of the employee for an irregular (one-time) bonus.
Action & coordination
Actions as an element of the core of the strategy must be coordinated. In other words, the allocation of resources, organizational principles, working methods, and more need to be consistently coordinated. It is the strict regulation of all actions that is considered the main source of influence and provides the advantage of the strategy.
In a boxing match, the opponents’ simplest strategy is to coordinate movements in space and time – for example, make a fake dash to the left and land a decisive right punch. To expand production capacity or create new products, it is necessary to use the knowledge accumulated by sales and marketing specialists, in this case, the simplest business strategy is applied – the coordination of functions and knowledge bases. Even when the source of an organization’s advantage is simple and obvious—for example, low production costs—a careful analysis of the situation will inevitably reveal a certain set of interrelated and mutually reinforcing actions that keep costs low. Moreover, he will show that they are low only when producing products of a particular type, produced under specific conditions.
If policy measures are not aligned, they either conflict with each other or are taken to address unrelated issues. Consider the example of Ford Motor Company. Jacques Nasser, when he was CEO of Ford of Europe and VP of Product Development, once told me, “In the automotive industry, the brand is the key to profitability.” 6. Assuming the position of chairman of the board of directors of the corporation in 1999, he acted decisively and quickly and, above all, acquired Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin. At the same time, the main policy of the company – economies of scale, that is, economies through the growth of production – remained alive and kicked in a healthy way in response to innovations. I spoke to a Ford executive in 2000 who said, “In the automotive industry, if you don’t make at least a million cars on the same platform, you can forget about being competitive.” From what he said, it follows that the acquisition of Volvo and Jaguar was fully consistent with the idea of transferring these brands to a common platform. However, such a merger undoubtedly eroded the value of both brands and was perceived extremely negatively by the most loyal consumers, dealers and service centers. Volvo fans don’t want a safe Jaguar – they’re used to a car with a unique level of safety. Jaguar buyers who appreciate luxury are unlikely to be seduced by the sporty Volvo. From this point of view, these two concepts and the actions associated with them were clearly inconsistent and rather conflicted with each other.
Sometimes there are quite compatible, but not coordinated measures. For the company I consulted in 2003, the basic “strategy” was: first, close the plant in Akron and open a new one in Mexico; secondly, to invest more actively in advertising; third, establish a complete feedback loop. Probably, all the listed tasks individually were very successful, but they did not complement each other. They can be considered strategic only in the sense that each of them first of all required the approval of the top management of the company. I agree that such initiatives may well be the result of sound operational management, but that does not make them a strategy. The strategy coordinates actions in order to solve a specific problem, and it doesn’t matter at all what wage category the employee’s work is paid for,
The principle of coordination of actions as a source of advantage is extremely important. It is often underestimated, because people tend to mistake for coordination the usual mutual adjustments made to parts or objects involved in a particular process. But strategic coherence, or coordination, has nothing to do with highly specialized adjustments – its necessity is due to design and behavior. A plan is an organization of a clear connection between individual parts, an indication of how actions and resources will be combined in the future. (This approach to policy coherence is discussed in detail in Chapter 9, The Role of Planning.)
Another powerful way to coordinate action is to set an immediate goal. By it, I mean a state of affairs that is quite close to realistically feasible. If the goal is clear and achievable, it helps to coordinate both the process of solving the problem as a whole and direct actions. (You’ll learn more about this important tool in Chapter 7, “Refined Goals.”)
A strategy is a coordinated action imposed on a system. When I say “imposed” I mean a series of measures taken by the central government to overcome natural problems in the system. Such coordination is somewhat unnatural, because if it were not for the firm hand of strategy, it would not exist.
For a modern educated person, the idea of centralized control usually causes a negative reaction, even anxiety. In principle, it is not very clear why these games with the centralization of power are needed at all, if many decisions, as we know, are quite successfully implemented on a decentralized basis. One of the main lessons of the 20th century—the most dramatic controlled experiment in human history—is precisely that centrally controlled economies are highly inefficient. In countries with central planning regimes – the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao Zedong – more people died of starvation than died during the Second World War. In North Korea, people continue to die of hunger today. In developed modern economies, trillions of decentralized decisions are made every year, yielding very good results when it comes to the distribution of rather scarce resources. For example, when gasoline prices rise, people without any central planning begin to actively buy cars with fuel-efficient engines. Or in a region hit by a powerful hurricane, where additional labor is needed to rebuild and rebuild communities, wages are rising without special orders from above, actively attracting people to these areas.
However, a decentralized approach to decision-making is far from omnipotent. In particular, it does not work if the costs or benefits of the measures taken do not directly affect the decentralized actors of these actions. There may be a conflict between costs and benefits among different organizational units, or between the present and the future. Of course, centrally designed procedures and methods can also be ineffective if, say, the decision makers are not very smart, or trying to please several groups with different interests at once, or simply made the wrong choice.
Let’s look at a larger example. During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt coordinated the political, economic, and military power of the United States to defeat Nazi Germany. First of all, he actively used the country’s production capacity to support the USSR, which helped the Soviet Union seriously weaken the Nazi war machine and hold out until the Americans landed in Normandy. The next strategic aspect, which had very important consequences, was the concentration of a huge share of US resources on victory in Europe. And only then all the remaining resources were transferred in full to the fight against Japan. Roosevelt’s strategy is an exemplary model of complex long-term coordination of forces.
At the same time, the considerable potential benefits of coherence do not mean that central coordination is always needed and useful. Coordination requires significant costs, as it negates the benefits of specialization – the main economic advantage of any well-organized activity. Simply put, specialization means that all forces are thrown exclusively at one thing, that is, it implies the rejection of other tasks and directions – everything that interferes, from the plans and programs of all other people and organizational units. Anyone who has ever been on any steering committee knows that regulation eliminates specialization and prevents many people from realizing their ideas and plans.
Thus, a coherent policy should be resorted to only when the benefits from it are really very large. Coordination is bound to be costly, for it tyrannically brutalizes both the winning factors of specialization and other more limited business nuances. The main merit of a good organization is not that it guarantees the connection of every aspect of the activity with all the others. Such a path will only lead you to a frozen, incapable of adapting state, that is, stagnation. Good strategy and good organization mean specializing in the right activities and coordinating only where it is really needed.
Methods and forms of coordination
Merkulov V. M.
Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation (North-Western Institute of Management RANEPA), St. Petersburg, Russian Federation; firstname.lastname@example.org
The problem of coordination of behavior, actions and interactions of social subjects remains relevant in regulation and management. Methodological approaches to its solution in various branches of science and practice associate it with ensuring efficiency. Efficiency in management requires rationality based on the development of technology for solving management problems. The selection of classification criteria becomes the basis for solving coordination problems.
Keywords: tasks, methods and forms of coordination in management and public administration, rationality and determination of the tasks of managing objective and subjective factors, management technology
Coordination Methods and Forms
abstract of this section
The problem of behavior, action-reaction coordination remains its actuality for regulation and managing by social subjects. The decision by different methodology approaches in sciences and practice seeks its true efficiency proofing. Efficiency providing needs by management tasks technology rationality. Classifying measures became a ground coordination problem solution.
Keywordstasks, methods and forms in management and public administration, management tasks rationality and determination by objective and subjective factors, management technology
coordinationOrganization as a quality feature is provided by the organizational structure, which is a product of social regulation and management, and does not arise spontaneously. Consequently, the organizational structure, including the organizational structure of management, expresses a compromise of social interests: the interests of the founders and ordinary participants. Since the structure is a way of connecting the elements of management, solving the problems of the organization necessarily requires the identification and unambiguous definition of all the main elements of the organizational structure, which are the subject of management relations. The main elements of the organizational structure of management include, in particular, goals, functions, tasks and responsibilities. Through the latter, the requirements for the result, the composition of qualitative types and areas of activity to achieve the adopted goals (management functions), their content and scope in the form of tasks, including bodies and divisions, and the types of regular actions of managers and chief specialists to solve problems and maintain control mode. Perhaps it would not be worth dwelling on these well-known truths. However, it is the tasks that rarely become the subject of regulation of the organizational and legal status of bodies, divisions and officials of economic entities and government bodies in Russia. At the same time, the need objectively increases and the relevance of improving the quality and efficiency of the functioning of private and state-municipal organizations is subjectively recognized. That is, solving their problems.
In other words, the requirements for the rationality of regulation and management are becoming more relevant. Leaving beyond the scope of this publication the discussion of the possibility of achieving high levels of their rationality under the influence of various interests, we want to draw attention to the fairly simple, in comparison with this, the need and possibility of rationally defining tasks as an element of the organizational structure of management and their regulation. If the tasks of performing many other functions of regulation and management are described in educational and scientific literature and legal acts of management at least to a minimum extent, then the tasks of performing coordination work are described extremely rarely even in composition, not only in content. Meanwhile, the number of articles, legal acts and statements of officials, the subject of which in various respects is coordination, is not reduced in volume, which indicates not only the academic relevance of the topic [see, for example, 2; 5; 6:7; nine; ten; fifteen; sixteen; 21]. Rationality and efficiency in the performance of management tasks, including coordination, involves their identification, the development of technological (standard) methods for solving. It is clear that at the discretion and skill of the manager there will always be tasks of a situational type, which are not of a stable repetitive nature and do not involve standard solutions. Clarification of the content of coordination tasks, in our opinion, is an objective basis for identifying the essence and content of the function itself, the coordination activity itself, and should clarify their relationship with other basic functions and management tasks. Within the framework of this work, we propose to consider the formulation of the question of the grounds for classifying stable (functional) tasks of coordination and methods for their solution as essential elements of the technology of power activity.
The difference in the conditions (content) of coordination tasks manifests itself in the composition and nature of the action of variable factors. As part of the systematization of the ideas of various scientific approaches to the problem of coordination, we have already had to pay attention to the influence of objective differences in the tasks being solved on the choice of methods, forms and means of their solution [see. 8, p. 157–169; 13, p. 144–157; 14, p. 52–63]. A professional approach to management, as well as to other work, involves the standardization of tasks, the standardization of standard solutions to standard problems and the standardization of preparation for solving standard problems. Management specialists saw this as the basis of technology back in the ancient world (for example, in the military training of the first professional armies or the development of the first looms in Ancient China), and then in modern times (the organizers of the first machine factories in Europe).
The technology of public administration is one of the manifestations of managerial technology in the sphere of state power relations. However, special works on management do not give the issue of management technology the attention that it deserves objectively, due to the weight of its contribution to the result of management influence. There are several reasons for this situation. It is often assumed that specialists with sectoral training and management experience are allowed to work in civil service positions, and the technology of public administration is related to the technology of sectoral economic management. Authoritarian (totalitarian) state systems have a high level of arbitrariness of power, which determines a relatively low level of technologization of state administration. The study of public administration technology is associated with costs in the face of a shortage of resources and access to sensitive information that is significant for the interests of state security and the personal fate of government leaders. This is partly why studies of administration technology are not widely distributed, and the results of few studies are not available to the public, are the property of the customer. There are many other reasons why the technology of public administration is described randomly, often at a journalistic level, and not in scientific publications. To a large extent, this is facilitated by terminological laxity in management textbooks and educational disciplines. Often, those employed in economic management and government bodies cannot distinguish technology from politics, management methods from means, etc. Therefore, in order to understand the features of technological relations and processes in public administration, to standardize management tasks (and coordination, in particular), it is necessary to determine initial concepts in which the description and explanation of technology as an object of research is made. It is reasonable, in our opinion, to use some of the results of previous researchers of this problem.
The term “technology” owes its origin to the concept of “technology”, which is derived from the Greek. Techne – art, skill and means a way to achieve something, achieve, implement. Therefore, in its most general form, technology is a branch of knowledge about art and craftsmanship, means and methods of practical activity. The objective basis of our ideas about the methods and methods of activity are the relationships that are established between the elements of human practical activity. Their image in our consciousness and its rational expression depend on the nature of these objective relations and correlations. However, the way of seeing an object is different for representatives of certain branches of science and practice. Therefore, in the specialized literature there are different points of view on the essence and content of control technology, but its interpretation in the engineering sense is dominant, especially in descriptions of material production control technology.
Features of technological relations are objectively determined by:
a) the nature of the object of transformation, the nature of a particular subject of activity; b) a change in the nature of the final product of the labor process; c) the functional structure of the labor process; d) the level and nature of technical means of labor; e) a change in the “mechanism” of the connection between science and technology, depending on their level and nature of development; f) the abilities and capabilities of employees who are part of a working organization of technological relations; g) the nature of social relations that affect the nature of the change in these factors [19, p. eleven].
Management technology also involves the establishment of temporal, spatial and cause-and-effect relationships between the elements of activity. The content characteristics of management technology are usually associated with the main subject of management activity – information.
According to F. M. Rusinov, management technology should create and reproduce the relationship between the organizational structure of management, the structure of management work (management methods and techniques), but the formation and design of these relationships is not included in the content of management technology. It seems that the technology of management is determined by the requirements of the organizational structure of management to the regime of labor activity and its conditions, the content of methods and techniques of managerial influence. It would be logical to include knowledge of how to organize and implement a control action in the content of management technology. The most complete definition given by F. M. Rusinov, in our opinion, implies just such an interpretation of the content of the concept: transfer of information necessary for the preparation, adoption and implementation of decisions using technical means … Management technology includes a description of these methods and techniques in the form of instructions, graphs, drawings, information and organizational procedures, as well as the very processes of processing fixed and non-fixed information … Essence management technology is to establish an organizational order in the system and determine the rational sequence of management work” [19, p. 18, 35].
It is necessary, in our opinion, to agree with the allocation of these three elements of management technology: management methodology, its description in management documents, management processes. However, the limitation of the content of management technology lies in this definition in that the management processes here are reduced to the processing of information, and the processes of management influence, its translation, that is, the entire organizational side of management, remain “outside the brackets”. Without organizational and administrative, coordination, control, etc. activities, it is impossible to materialize the results of managerial influence, the transformation of the object. The processing of information must necessarily be accompanied by its transmission, including in the organizational impact. A similar definition of control technology is given in his article by E. A. Smirnov. He also identifies three necessary elements in management technology: “In the most general form, management technologies (UT) are a set of management methods and processes, as well as a scientific description of the methods of management activities, including the formation of management decisions to achieve the general and specific goals of the organization » [20, p. 95].
Establishing an organizational order and rationality in the sequence and methods of performing work involves solving several problems in various elements of the management system. Therefore, it is necessary to define the objects of technology. It should be noted that in different technologies and in different organizational conditions, not all of these elements or their various combinations may be the objects of such work. In principle, the objects of technologization can be: “1) The procedure for performing a separate management function or types of work; 2) Preparation and decision-making in the implementation of certain management tasks; 3) Information processes of data processing; 4) Labor activity of an individual employee of the department; 5) Processing of a document or a group of documents” [19, p. 35].
The technologization of management should lead to the definition of the composition of functions, tasks and the sequence of operations, since ultimately “the main element of the labor process from a technological point of view is a managerial labor operation” [12, p. 125]. Most authors, specialists in the field of management technologization, do not identify a management operation and a separate action of an employee of a management body. However, the definition of the content of the term is not always given by them (for example, LN Zudina, is limited to the description of individual groups of operations). Quite accurate, in our opinion, is the definition of a management operation given by F. M. Rusinov: “A management operation includes the whole range of actions related to the transfer of a managed object or its element from one state to another … A technological operation combines actions to form an indicator that gives a quantitative assessment of the managed object … Management operation is the basis for determining the type of work, methods for their implementation. It is an element of the technological process and serves as the basis for characterizing the structure of the labor process, i.e. composition of labor functions and methods for performing specific work” [19, p. fifteen].
At the same time, it should be noted that F. M. Rusinov, in this matter, continues to associate control technology only with the performance of actions for processing documented information. This follows from his clarification of the properties and content of the management operation: “The management operation is a homogeneous, logically indivisible part of the management process; this is the action of one executor on one or a group of documents from the moment they are received by him until the moment of transfer to another executor or to the place of storage of at least one of the documents. At the same time, any number of documents can enter one operation, and no more than one new document can come out” [19, p. 17].
We believe that the composition of managerial operations was more fully defined in the book “Organization of managerial work” by L. N. Zudina. She singled out three groups of operations, which, in turn, are divided into classes: 1. Organizational and administrative (service and communication, administrative, coordination, control and evaluation); 2. Analytical and constructive; 3. Information-technical (documentary, primary accounting and accounting, communication-technical, computational and formal-logical) [12, p. 126-136].
This grouping, as shown by L. N. Zudina, corresponds to the technological and job division of labor between managers, specialists and technical performers. The refusal to classify by individual management functions is explained by the fact that “all distinguished groups and classes of operations are found in the performance of work on any management function, representing integrity in the labor aspect.” It can also be noted that the differences in the above interpretations are obviously also related to the fact that F. M. Rusinov speaks of the individual operations of an official, while the classification of L. N. Zudina allows us to consider operations of a higher level – a subdivision and a management level , the entire organization. Obviously, the operations here are considered in the context of the scale and content of the tasks being solved.
In our opinion, manufacturability and efficiency will not be achieved enough if they do not cover the entire vertical of management and its industries, all its functions. Therefore, standardization and technologization of solutions to coordination problems by itself, without close connection with other management functions, can only give partial results of a local nature that have little effect on the final efficiency of the body, level and management system. In modern domestic specialized literature on management, it is difficult to find a description of the technology of public administration. It is clear that the differentiation of the totality of knowledge about public administration into separate segments of branch sciences does not help the systematization of technological information. But a big role in securing this situation is also played by the fact that knowledge about technology is in most cases not theoretical in nature. In the specialized literature, one can find descriptions of techniques, methods or means for solving individual problems, performing individual stages of implementing functions. But fundamentally, the problem of describing, explaining, systematizing and developing the technology of public administration on the path of accumulating knowledge about its elements is not solved. This situation is all the more paradoxical because management technologies are not formed spontaneously, like the development of a natural object. All of them are the result of a conscious highly organized activity of professionally trained people.
This means that entire technological control systems should be described and explained in the methodological and scientific literature. Techniques for the production of items due to being tied to equipment are described and explained in more detail and detail than control methods and techniques. However, even a classification of methods of managerial influence is not often given in special works. Much more often you can find a description of analytical methods and procedures related to the preparation of exposure. A large amount of work is devoted to automated systems and management technologies, which are used in the practice of social management on a limited scale. Of course, the most “fashionable” methods of management are reflected in special works: such as programming, target management. But such exceptions only testify to the poverty of the technological direction of literature. Its main volume is the literature of the “Taylorist” direction, which describes and analyzes the lower layer of technology – rules and procedures.
At the same time, some materials show that the possibilities of describing the management technology as a whole and its individual top-level components (methods, principles) exist and can be used. The publications of this series should include, for example, topics 9–11 of the textbook by G. V. Atamanchuk “Theory of Public Administration”, journal articles by V. Dudkin and Yu. E. A. Smirnova “Management technologies as an object of functional audit”, etc. [see. 4; eleven; 20]. The conscious choice and use of management technologies, in our opinion, presupposes knowledge of how these technologies differ from each other, what principles were laid down in their formation, how the technology was formed and how it should be reproduced and supported. Thus, the question of including a body of knowledge about its formation and development into the management technology is not abstract and idle, but affects the effective use of the technological potential of management.
Since the composition of the functions, tasks to be solved, operations performed in the work of each employee and each government body has a finite range and volume, value, being an expression of the limited management resources, so far as the rational sequence and composition of the work and actions of the employees of the administrative apparatus is also a finite set of combinations. This means that technologization, bringing to a rational justified form is a real feasible task. Actually, it is precisely such tasks that are not new for a long time and are the subject of organizational design.
The implementation of managerial influence presupposes that the subject — a governing body or an official — has knowledge about the possibilities and limits of influence, its forms and means. An important place in the structure of this information is occupied by knowledge of the methods of influencing the object in order to achieve the goal. Knowledge of methods of influence is not only awareness of the composition of available resources of influence, but also the availability of information verified by experience about the conditions for their use (including restrictions), potential results of use (including long-term and indirect, “side”). The use of management methods that have been tested in the experience of other organizations and management bodies implies a sufficient degree of certainty in the knowledge and understanding of the specifics of applying methods of influence. Last but not least, this requirement concerns the interpretation of the initial ideas about the essence and content of management methodology. However, in the domestic specialized literature, which the interested reader refers to, there are significant differences and inaccuracies even in the interpretation of the most general concepts. One such stumbling block is the concept of management method.
“Method (from the Greek. Methodos – path, research, tracking) – a way to achieve a specific goal, a set of techniques or operations of practical or theoretical development of reality”. It can be seen from the above definition that the essence of the method is uniquely associated with the interaction of the subject and the object. There is also an indication of the objective nature of the method. We also find confirmation of this opinion in other works: “A method is understood as a set of techniques and rules that regulate human activity and ensure its purposeful, orderly nature … The true method is always determined by the nature of the object and the corresponding system of subject knowledge … The method expresses the content of the object under study, its nature. In this sense, the method is objective, meaningful, “actual”… The method directly captures not what is in the objective world, but how a person should act in the process of cognition and practical action. The regularities of the object, expressed in the system of true knowledge, are transformed, rethought in the method into the rules of the subject’s action. Known patterns constitute the objective side of the method, and the rules that have arisen on their basis, the methods of studying and transforming phenomena, are subjective” [1, p. 228–231].
Already in the above judgments, however, there is an indication not only of the objective aspects of the content of the method, but also of the dialectic of the objective and the subjective in its formation. Furthermore. We consider the following remark by M.V. Mostepanenko important, in which attention is drawn to the presence of sensory knowledge in the method: “A method is a way of cognition based on a certain set of previously obtained general knowledge (principles)… which itself can often be unscientific, non-methodical, spontaneous” [17, p. eighteen]. The point is that a number of principles that make up “preliminary knowledge”, as it was defined by M. V. Mostepanenko, can have a sensual, intuitive, non-scientific nature. Probably, Aristotle spoke about the same in Nicomachean Ethics, where he also stated the different nature of the principles (beginnings): » [3, p. 12].
Remarks about the role of initial principles are directly related not only to the principles of research, but also to the principles of practice, and therefore are important for understanding the method, including the management method. We specifically focus on the noted circumstances, since in cases where the composition and content of methods are determined, along with objective determination, the role of the subjective is great. Moreover, the definition of the initial points of reasoning is not always accompanied by a justification for their choice. The original principles themselves play the role of selection criteria here, and the grounds for determining the principles can remain within the scope of intuitive, foreboding. Therefore, in the interpretation of various authors, we are faced with completely different sets of initial principles and secondary elements from them. In connection with the foregoing, we can only partially agree with the judgment of A. I. Rofe given below, since the subjective choice of principles and method determines the lower, closer to material reality, objective level of technology in the form of operations, techniques and methods of individual actions, processes labor: “The method of performing this or that work is basically determined by technology, which establishes the content and the necessary sequence of technological operations and production processes. But the success of the labor process … depends on the perfection of the methods and methods of labor used” [18, p. 76].
In the meaning of a subjectively determined method, we here understand the entire technological system, together with its principles of formation. This circumstance is especially important in the analysis of such a highly subjective (due to its derivative from the conscious activity of the subject) type of activity, which is management. The validity of such an extremely broad interpretation of the content of the concept of “management method” is confirmed by its extremely abstract definitions in the specialized literature. “Management methods are ways of influencing the subject of management on teams and individual workers to achieve the goal. There are methods of management and methods of the management process”.
To describe the system of methods used in public administration, we want to propose an open series of criteria designed to show both the generality and unity of the management methodology, and the differentiation of various ways of performing managerial actions. Already in the definition of management methods given in the “Explanatory Dictionary of Management”, an indication of their complex classification is implicitly indicated: “Management methods characterize the completed act of influencing the control object, only individual works are performed using the methods of the control process. There are methods of direct and indirect influence, formal and informal. The use of methods of direct influence implies a direct result of the influence; with the help of methods of indirect influence, conditions are created for achieving high results … Also, management methods are distinguished based on the objective laws inherent in production as an object of management, based on the specifics of the relations that develop in the process of joint work. On this basis, management methods are distinguished: organizational, economic, socio-psychological”. It follows from the context that the division into methods of management and methods of the management process is made according to their relation to the process of management influence.
In relation to the process of managerial impact , we will single out:
- • methods of preparing and assessing the impact (prognostic, statistical, economic-cybernetic, modeling, system analysis, mathematical programming, graphic design, etc.);
- • methods of implementation of influence (transformation of the control object).
The last group of methods is the management methods in the full sense of the word. The rest are analytical methods not used to transform the control object. By management functions:
- • forecasting methods,
- • planning methods,
- • organization methods,
- • motivation methods,
- • coordination methods,
- • decision-making methods, etc.
It is not possible to describe the full range of methods for implementing management functions, since their composition and number depend, firstly, on the scale (dimension) of the object, the level of differentiation of its elements and processes, secondly, on the objective necessity of the measure of specialization (differentiation) of management functions determined by them, thirdly, on the measure of resource endowment, which limits the possibilities of specialization in management (the amount of overhead costs for management, mainly for personnel). It’s no secret that some experts have more than 400 control functions. This limit is probably not the limit. Thus, as part of the preparation of the administrative reform in Russia, a joint working group of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation and the Office of the Government of the Russian Federation discovered 5,800 functions in the Government. Perhaps not all of them had the right to be called functions, rather powers, but the fact is indicative.
By the nature of the object of managerial influence:
- • methods of managing people (behavior in general, discipline, cohesion, etc.),
- • methods of managing processes (production, personnel mobility, financial turnover, etc.),
- • methods of managing individual indicators ( profitability, productivity, etc.),
- • methods of managing objects (material and technical resources of an organization, equipment, property, real property, etc.),
- • methods of managing organizations (legal entities, informal movements),
- • methods of managing spatial – territorial complexes (the Arctic zone of Russia, the Far East, a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, a city, a municipality, etc.),
- • methods of managing sectors of the economy,
- • methods of managing programs and projects, etc.
According to the intended purpose (nature of the intended result) impact:
- • methods of managing the functioning (in the mode of simple reproduction),
- • methods of managing the development eat.
According to the leading type of controlled relations:
- • methods of managing economic objects,
- • methods of managing the moral climate,
- • methods of managing political relations, etc.
By the content of managerial impact (determined by the choice of method):
- • methods of economic impact,
- • methods of organizational impact,
- • methods ideological impact.
By the nature of the impact (determined by the choice of dominant means within the framework of the method):
- • methods of coercion,
- • methods of coercion,
- • methods of inducement,
- • methods of punishment,
- • methods of punishment,
- • methods of encouragement.
The criteria for classifying methods used in management can be multiplied, as well as lists of methods by groups, although, of course, it will not be possible to compile a final list of methods. It is more important to understand that the multiplicity of individual groups and classes of methods used in management reflects the diversity of the management object and the diversity of needs of the subject of management influence. However, the differentiation of management methods from each other does not mean the existence of insurmountable differences between them. Rather, on the contrary, it is necessary to recognize the commonality and interpenetration of management methods, that they intersect with each other: each classification with each. And the classification is conditional, since in reality the control action is multidimensional in content and forms and is complex, complex in its consequences (not only the desired results, but also the effects of often unexpected properties). Therefore, management methods are simple only in one-dimensional classifications, while in reality a complex (multidimensional) effect is used. That is, a real control method has many properties that reflect the specifics of the nature of the object, goals, functions, tasks, status of the control body, resources for solving the problem, the method and nature of the impact, etc.
The fundamental commonality of control methods is derived from the essence of control as an impact process. We believe that it is not promising to oppose individual groups of management methods, as, for example, this is often done with methods of spiritual, ideological influence and methods of material (not only economic) influence on the object of management. In our opinion, it is necessary to distinguish between methods of domination, control and influence. Management methods differ from those indicated in that they are one of the forms of implementation of the relationship of administrative power, and are guaranteed, because of this, by material coercion. A feature of management methods is, as G. V. Atamanchuk rightly points out, that they are applied officially and in the prescribed manner [4, p. 246]. That is, the methods of governance in society are legitimate and sub-legislative in nature. It is the administrative attitude that gives them specificity.
The use of the whole variety of methods in management is determined by situational factors: the amount of power, economic feasibility, the nature of management goals, etc. But even the use of methods of spiritual influence in management is provided by material force. When it does not exist, it is not management that is carried out, but influence. As, for example, the upbringing of children in a family excludes relations of power, but necessarily implies authority. Management methods are always methods of influencing an object, guaranteed by the force of coercion. A separate problem is the identification of “administrative” methods and methods of organizational influence, which is widespread in the literature and everyday consciousness. Based on the above methodological remarks, we propose to classify the conditions of coordination tasks according to similar criteria.
The tasks of political coordination are solved mainly through the establishment and correction of political, economic and legal institutions, the rules of their interaction and functioning. These are the tasks of coordinating the formation and implementation of state policy, the subject of which is the coordination of the interests of large groups of the population, business entities and authorities at various levels. Therefore, it is natural that the largest rules fix:
• the commonality of the procedure for the adoption and content of the principles of organization (establishment) of government bodies in Russia (democracy, constitutionality, legality, federalism, separation of powers, a combination of centralization and decentralization, organizational isolation, etc.);
• common principles of internal organization (internal structure, structuring) (functional specialization, centralism, a combination of collegiality in the procedure for making decisions of a higher order and unity of command in organizing the execution of decisions, responsibility, etc.);
• principles of interaction.
These principles act as prerequisites for the compatibility of the main subjects of politics with the whole – the political system, and compatibility with each other. Fixed in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal and regional laws, by-laws, they act as the initial, largest organizational forms for coordinating their goals and interactions. Since the separation of the functions of regulation and management is a convention, the subjective result of the agreement of people representing the authorities, and not a separate and isolated existence of problems in the solution of which the functions are implemented, insofar as the coordination of actions and interactions is affected by the performance of all the functions of regulation and management (since they do not exist independently, without each other), as well as the quality of informal connections and relationships. In other words, the effectiveness of technologies, mechanisms and methods of coordination cannot be measured on its own, apart from the effectiveness of the functioning of technologies, mechanisms and methods for performing all other management functions. The mechanisms for the implementation of functions, including coordination, are subordinate to the mechanisms of interfunctional coordination, which represent a higher order of organization at the level of organization principles. In our opinion, this is a form of using the standardization method at the level of political regulation to create conditions for mutual agreement. It is clear that we are not talking about technical standards at the level of law enforcement.
At the political and administrative levels, the forms of solving coordination problems in terms of harmonizing interests are:
- • consultative and advisory bodies; collegiate – interdepartmental, departmental councils, meetings, collegiums, joint working groups; and individual, personified – special officials – representatives – with representative powers, mutual invitation to participate in meetings of management bodies of officials with information functions, i.e. receiving and transmitting information with the task of promptly explaining, notifying, warning, clarifying, demonstrating, alerting, etc.; individual consultations,
- • methodological instruction,
- • exchange of information on related and joint subjects of competence in print, electronic publications and oral form,
- • unification of document flow and creation of shared databases,
- • use of the powers of authorities of various budgetary levels in terms of influencing the formation of the budget , amendments to normative and normative-legal acts.
AT part of ensuring at the administrative level the coordination of the activities of various bodies and institutions in the performance of their functions, standardization remains of great importance through:
- • Regulations for standard interaction, performance of functions and officials; Maintenance;
- • Model provisions,
- • Model rules,
- • Standards and norms of legal, economic, technical and technological, sanitary, environmental, safety, ergonomics, etc.
Improving the quality of solving problems, including coordination tasks, involves the widespread use of standardization of qualifications through :
- • vocational training and retraining,
- • refresher courses,
- • training seminars and experience exchange seminars.
For a more accurate presentation of the expected results of the implementation of coordination tasks, it is desirable to develop and formulate indicators for measuring the performance of these tasks, which can also be indicators of productivity and efficiency.
- 1. Alekseev P.V. Subject, structure and functions of dialectical materialism. 2nd ed. M. : Publishing house Mosk. university 1983.
- 2. Andreev VK Corporate management as one of the ways to coordinate economic activity // Civil law. 2015. No. 4. P. 3–5.
- 3. Aristotle. Ethics. M. : Eksmo, 2018.
- 4. Atamanchuk GV Theory of public administration: a course of lectures. M. : Omega-L, 2014.
- 5. Buchwald E., Vilensky A. Possibilities of coordinating and advisory bodies in the development of small and medium-sized businesses // Society and Economics. 2011. No. 1. P. 160–176.
- 6. Buchakova M.A. Administrative and legal regulation of coordination as a function of public administration // Bulletin of the Omsk University: Law series. 2014. No. 2. P. 60–64.
- 7. Goncharov V.V. The role and place of the State Council of the Russian Federation and the plenipotentiaries of the President of Russia in the federal districts in coordinating the system of executive power in the country and overcoming centrifugal political tendencies // Legal World. All-Russian scientific and practical legal journal. 2008. No. 3. S. 23–27.
- eight. State policy and management [in 2 hours]. Part 2. Levels, technologies, foreign experience of state policy and management: textbook / ed. L. V. Smorgunova. M. : Yurayt, 2018.
- 9. Guterman A. E. Review of the round table “Problems of coordination of economic activity in the Russian legal space” // Civil Law. 2015. No. 3. P. 44–46.
- ten. Deryabina M. A. Horizontal communications and network coordination in the modern economy // Social sciences and modernity. 2014. No. 1. P. 65–76.
- eleven. Dudkin V., Petrov Yu. Indicative planning as a mechanism for coordinating the activities of state and non-state subjects of economic management // Russian Economic Journal. 1998. No. 7–8.
- 12. Zudina LN Organization of managerial work: textbook. allowance. Moscow: INFRA-M; Novosibirsk: NGAEiU, 1997.
- 13. Coordination in politics and management // State policy and management: textbook [in 2 hours]. Part II. Levels, technologies, foreign experience of state policy and management / ed. L. V. Smorgunova. M. : ROSPEN, 2007.
- 14. Coordination in political and administrative activities // Public service. Bulletin of the Coordinating Council for Personnel Issues, State Awards and Public Service under the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the North-Western Federal District. 2010. No. 2. S. 52–63.
- fifteen. Coordination of economic activity in the Russian legal state / A. V. Gabov,
- M. A. Egorova, S. D. Mogilevsky and others; resp. ed. M. A. Egorova. M. : Yustitsinform, 2015.
- 16. Mitrofanova I. V., Zhukov A. N. Organizational mechanism for managing federal targeted interregional programs // Economics of regional development: problems, searches, prospects. 2010. Issue. 11, pp. 144–159.
- 17. Mostepanenko MV Philosophy and methods of scientific knowledge. L. : Lenizdat, 1972.
- 18. Rofe A.I. Organization and rationing of labor: textbook. allowance. M. : Knorus, 2014.
- 19. Rusinov F. M. Technology of production management: (Fundamentals of designing management processes in socio-economic systems). Moscow: Moscow worker. 1976.
- 20. Smirnov EA Management technologies as an object of functional audit // Management in Russia and abroad. 1998. No. 6. S. 95–104.
- 21. Tambovtsev VL Rules as the basis of institutions // Social sciences and modernity. 2014. No. 3. P. 130–139.