Pros and cons of centralization of power. Decentralization - what is it? Centralization and decentralization of management. How to deal with personnel when centralizing the financial service

Which management model is better - centralized or decentralized? If someone points to one of them in response, he is poorly versed in management. Because there are no good or bad models in management. It all depends on the context and its competent analysis, which allows you to choose the optimal way to manage the company here and now. Centralized management is a great example of this. Let's figure out when this model works well and when it is unacceptable.

Concepts, powers, tasks

It's all about the division of labor and decisions: how to distribute tasks for each structural unit and at what level key decisions will be made. The distribution of labor and decision-making on a vertical basis will lead to the formation of a centralized management system. The hierarchy of subordination in such a company is strict, and the powers of employees are minimal and carefully defined.

Companies in which the authority to make key decisions belong to the chief executive and his immediate circle are called centralized. Companies with opposite management methods are called decentralized. In them, powers are distributed among departments and employees at different levels; even lower levels can make decisions on a fairly wide range of business issues.

Signs of a centralized management principle

There are few of them:

There are more administrative departments than needed.
Their functions are more important than those of production ones.
Research structures are localized in the central office of the leading company of the holding.
Control of product production, sales, marketing projects and all other functional units is carried out through the central administrative departments of the head office.

Centralization comes in different forms

In real life, there are no pure centralized control models (as well as decentralized ones). The difference between companies lies only in the degree of independence of decisions at different levels, that is, in the degree of delegation of powers and rights. If you look at it, any organization can be classified as centralized or decentralized when compared with other enterprises.

The criteria by which the degree of “centralization” can be assessed are as follows:

The relative share of decisions that are made and implemented at the middle and lower levels. If this share constitutes a minority of overall decisions, the organization will gravitate towards a centralized model.
Now about the quality of decisions at the middle and lower levels: if decisions regarding changes in directions of work or, for example, the distribution of significant resources can only be made by senior management, you have a centralized management model.
Breadth of mid-level and low-level solutions: if they cover only one function, you have a centralized company.
In centralized management, top management constantly monitors the day-to-day work and especially the decisions of subordinates. One might, of course, think that no company, in principle, can do without monitoring the work of subordinates. But in decentralized companies, they prefer to evaluate employee performance based on general criteria: profitability, for example.

These criteria are very relative. But you need to evaluate companies with their help only in comparison with others.

Advantages of the model

It is extremely important to free yourself from the unnecessary stereotype that has developed in connection with this concept. Very often it is associated with the “Soviet” style, which includes all administrative and command elements. In fact, the centralized management model has a different nature and serious advantages:

Minimize duplication of functions or activities.
The ability to quickly and clearly standardize operations and processes in the company.
Relative simplicity of effective control over the operation of systems and employees in general and in particular.
The ability to optimize the use of resources in the form of personnel, space, equipment, etc.

These are great opportunities to quickly mobilize your team. In a strict hierarchical system, the decisions of top management are binding on all units below. Therefore, such companies are able to mobilize all human resources to solve urgent and complex problems, i.e., where coordinated hard work of all structures is needed. The most striking and popular example is the reflection of external aggression. There is a lot of historical evidence of this, because countries with a centralized control system dealt best with external attacks: quickly and together.

Ability to effectively implement new business lines or structural changes to improve operational efficiency. Tough, sometimes unpopular, but necessary decisions are easier to make centrally.

Crisis management also involves quick and comprehensive decisions that need to be carried out not only without question, but also in a short time. Almost any critical situation in business is most effectively resolved by a centralized management method. understand this well.

When centralized management is useful and necessary

The advantages of this model allow it to be used widely. We must not forget that the centralized management principle can be used temporarily - for a certain period of time to perform very specific tasks.

When organizing and developing a new company in which different divisions grow at different speeds and success. In such a situation, centralized control is needed with direct directives that do not allow one to grow at the expense of others.
With staffing and management shortages occurring more often than we would like. To cover this shortfall, time will be required for two tasks: hiring suitable managers from outside and training in-house candidates for leadership positions. During this period, it will be useful for the first manager to take everything into his own hands so that the lack of professionals in local management does not affect the work.

The examples can be continued. The main thing is to have a good understanding of the current situation in the company and the tasks that you want to implement.

Can the centralized model be used permanently? Of course you can. Taking into account the size of the company, the qualifications of its personnel, the region of operation of the company, the personal qualities of the first manager, etc.

Steve Jobs and his autocracy

Steve Jobs is a typical example of a true crisis manager. There are many stereotypes associated with him. The classic explanation for his success lies in just one argument: “because he believed passionately.” There is no doubt that faith in success and the correctness of actions is an important factor. But faith alone will not get you far. It is necessary to make sure that subordinates not only believe, but also rush to carry out everything that will be entrusted to them.

Autocrats act like monarchs with full power to achieve their goals. This requires enormous willpower and, of course, faith. All this was fully present in Steve Jobs: “This is my way, this is the best way.” Employees called Jobs "His Majesty." He was not just an autocrat, he was an extreme autocrat.

Hybrid management model at McDonald's

An interesting example is shown by the famous McDonald's. It all depends on the nature and type of solutions. Middle management (some tenants and restaurant managers) have enormous power, even to the point of complete independence in making decisions about human resources, locating new restaurants, or purchasing food. There is a decentralized approach to management.

As for decisions on pricing policy or the release of new products, they are made within the framework of centralized management functions: by top management without any discussions with the departments below. A great example of a smart combination of different management approaches.

Disadvantages: paper mountains and more

Not a single management system is without shortcomings. The disadvantages of the centralized model are as follows:

Delay in decision making at the top. Don't let this point surprise you. Above, we mentioned the quick execution of management decisions, but not their quick adoption.
Sometimes there is a low quality of decisions at the top, because one person cannot know everything at once and about everything. This is due to the lack of information and ignorance of the real situation on the ground.
Mountains of paper, an increase in the number of documents, unjustified bureaucracy in the form of unnecessary cumbersome procedures.

Once you understand the benefits of centralized management structures, you can apply this model in the most effective way. This can be a temporary method, or partial for individual functions. The main thing is to believe in yourself and in your path. Like Steve Jobs.

Centralization and decentralization: advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages and disadvantages of centralized management.

Typically, centralization is generally understood as the concentration (concentration) of power functions for making management decisions at the upper hierarchical level of management of an organization. Centralization allows for more effective coordination and control of the activities of structural units to implement the strategic policy of the organization as a whole.

In addition, centralization of management allows for the effective use of technical, technological, material and human resources necessary to achieve the goals of the organization.

In addition to the above advantages, centralization of management also has its disadvantages. So, the disadvantages include:

Suppression of creative initiative of personnel in solving production problems of the organization;

Reduced management efficiency;

Reduced ability of personnel to adapt to new production and work conditions.

The purpose of decentralization of management is that the manager reduces the degree of his workload by transferring part of it to his employees and thereby develops creative initiative at the lower level of management. In a word, decentralization helps ensure efficiency and flexibility in making management decisions and moral satisfaction of subordinates.

In addition, decentralization ensures high adaptability of the organization to new conditions, reduces the volume of management tasks and simplifies their solution.

According to literary sources, decentralization is distinguished between federal and functional. Federative decentralization is understood as the transfer of certain powers to the structural divisions of an organization in the full scope of functions in various areas of its activities, while functional decentralization defines specific rights and responsibilities within the framework specified by the function.

The general disadvantages of the decentralization process include:

Weakening control and unity in action;

Manifestation of emergence properties;

The desire to isolate structural units.

42. Motivation in the system of management functions: essence and content

There are two approaches to the concept of personnel motivation in modern management theory:

· according to the first approach, motivation represents a set of actions of a leader that encourages people to do what he considers necessary;

· according to the second approach, motivation represents the establishment of relationships between team members, encouraging them to perform the work necessary, from the point of view of the manager.

Motivation is carried out through management methods, which can be divided into:

· administrative;

· economic;

· socio-psychological.

The manager’s actions to motivate staff can be based on quite a lot of behavioral (behaviouristic) theories, which can be divided into three groups

Pros of decentralization

A decentralized structure is the other extreme compared to a centralized one. Its advantages compared to the latter:

1. High adaptive abilities (structural flexibility).

In a decentralized system there is no clearly defined “most important” link (subsystem) and main connections. In other words, there is no "indisputable authority" or key element. Therefore, each subsystem decides independently how to change its connections. Hence, the system as a whole can relatively easily change its structure depending on the situation and its own criteria for correct behavior.

2. Relatively high operational reliability.

Since there is no main subsystem in the network, then problems in any subsystems cannot lead to the collapse of the system. The system is redundant to a certain extent - there will almost always be some kind of subsystem that will replace the one that has retired.

Consequence of the advantages of a network system:

2.1. Stability of the behavior of the system as a whole against the incompetence of one or a number of subsystems. Here, again, the point is that in the general case no one is an authority or a manager, therefore there is no need for other subsystems to react to anyone’s “wrong” actions.

Disadvantages of decentralization

Disadvantages of a decentralized system:

1. Low mobilization abilities.

2. In general, the system’s reaction time to external influences is long.

These “disadvantages” are easy to understand and are the inverse of the properties of a centralized system.

Taking into account the properties of the centralized system, which are the most attractive (speed of reaction, high mobilization abilities), it can be assumed that the centralized structure (CS) is most adequate to aggressive environments that require a quick response to external influences and the ability to mobilize significant (possibly all) system resources. That is why the CA is used during periods of war, difficult internal situations, and generally aggressive environments. In addition, the CS as a whole succeeds in major events (development of virgin lands, collectivization, industrialization, victories in war and in space, BAM, etc.), which, as a rule, arise precisely because of external threats (or which are perceived as such ). If the subsystems are cemented by an idea, the bearer of which is the Center, survival in an aggressive environment for such a system is almost guaranteed.

The opposite is also true: if a central system finds itself in a low-aggressive environment, then such a system needs to “invent” an enemy - external or internal (there are plenty of examples from our history) in order to justify its existence... If the period of passivity of the external environment drags on, then, in the end, , the centralization of the system becomes unnecessary, and in some part it is decentralized. This can also be represented as the fact that the absence of dominant properties of the external environment, as it were, “penetrates” inside the system (remember that it is the external environment that ultimately forms the structure of the system) and changes the degree of centralization, since the center is either not required to determine the nature of the system management system in general, or the center is simply losing authority.

Another type of situation where a CA is preferable to a network one. If the goal for the system is clearly set and the path to achieve it is clearly defined, then decentralization of management is even harmful (better to say, ineffective). Therefore, in production, when the technology is clearly defined, there is nothing to discuss, but only need to carry out a certain scheme of actions, there is always a rigid centralized control system. And such management exists only to coordinate work and concentrate some common functions (server) or perform functions necessary to present the system in the external environment.

It's the same in the troops; the received order must be carried out “accurately and on time,” and only one person can serve as the bearer of the goal, as well as knowledge of the way to achieve it - the commander, who concentrates responsibility to the supersystem and the powers delegated to him from there.

On the contrary, in conditions of weak certainty - when the goal is not clear (and there are values) or the path to achieving the goal is unknown (which needs to be found), the centralized system cannot show itself adequately, and in this case decentralization of management is needed. What is needed is an “injection” of a certain dose of democracy and the organization of a search for a way to achieve the goal by several “competing” subsystems, which for this period gain independence, i.e. management is being decentralized. The center’s task here is to observe and snatch an idea or solution that allows the center to organize the implementation of the found idea and, possibly, to mobilize all the resources of the system to achieve a newly defined goal. Thus, scientific research teams should not be too centralized; the role of authority in such work should be reduced, since they are searching for “that which I don’t know what”... (there may be centralized control within individual groups).

The latter suggests that a decentralized structure is better during times of unclear development paths. And, if, for example, the socialist economy developed as a centralized one (it arose in difficult conditions, always had real or imagined enemies), then the capitalist economy, on the contrary, initially developed from a network model; Everyone is independent and does what they want. The flexibility and ability to adapt the capitalist system played a role - capitalism developed more optimally over a long period of time.

However, extreme “networkism” is also not good enough: mobilization abilities are too small and there is no arbiter for emerging disputes. Therefore, capitalist society as a system developed from a network model to greater centralization, where the center initially acted as an organ of conceptual management and only then moved to greater centralization of management.

Socialist society, under the conditions of detente known to all of us, has lost its last “terrible enemy”, although some internal “enemies” remain (poor ecology, conversion problems, low standard of living, etc.). The degree of centralization of management due to the need to involve as many subjects in the state as possible in the search for solutions should have become and has become less. Thus, capitalism went from less to more centralization, and socialism from more to less centralization. This is roughly what Western theorists were talking about when they predicted the merger of two types of economies in a post-industrial society (convergence).

So, which structure is better - centralized or decentralized? Answer: looking for balance! Therefore, a few words about the “golden mean” - the skeletal structure.

b So, if the external sphere in which the product is to be developed, produced and sold is subject to intensive development, then entrepreneurship is required and divisional management is recommended. In other words, if external dynamism is stronger than functional dynamism and synergy, then divisional management should be chosen. Let us add to this that the smaller the effect of scale, the greater the freedom for unification.

Arguments against department management:

b If every customer buys all the products, then “multiple salespeople” are required, making it difficult to distribute across products within the sales organization. Therefore, it is often more profitable in such situations to have a unified sales apparatus than to have separate sales departments in divisions.

b Sales organizations cannot be divided according to different products because sales personnel need a good "knowledge" of their regions in addition to "knowledge" of their products.

b If market conditions are more dynamic than product renewal, then a central sales organization is necessary.

b If all products are the result of the functioning of a large production organization, then the use of departmental management for a production organization is impossible.

b If all products are produced locally and the creation of separate product units is not possible, then it is desirable that a central production organization perform the necessary product coordination.

b If R&D is characterized by a large volume of work associated with general technological advances, and if there are major problems regarding product development, then centralization of R&D is recommended. People who work on common technology or who use common and expensive equipment in their work must work together.

b If product know-how is based on general technology with little product specialization, then centralization of R&D is also recommended. In the case of patented know-how, this is an even stronger argument.

The greater the external dynamism in comparison with the functional dynamism, the greater the effect of synergy between functional departments in comparison with their internal synergy.

The greater the scope for applying unit management, the clearer the purpose of the business units, that is, their own strategic purpose.

The application of divisional management means that top management gives freedom to divisions to operate as they see fit (this requires strong rather than weak leadership).

Comprehensive managers (entrepreneurs) are emerging who are capable of leading departments.

A strong organizational culture is formed. Unit management can only flourish in an informal organization.

There needs to be clear agreement about which tasks should be performed centrally and which tasks should be performed decentralized.

Top management has a management control system that monitors but does not interfere with unit progress and turnover.

The most important rule for senior management that they should never forget is: don't overdo it. Instead of interfering in the affairs of departments, senior management should help them become independent. Business units should not be managed based on functional departments or regions. The formation of informal organization should be actively encouraged.

The transition of organizations with autonomous subsystems from a hierarchical management style to a coordinated and motivated one is closely related to the new concept of strategic management.

The benefits of successful divisional management are increased responsibility for profit, stronger market orientation, faster decision making, better agility and greater motivation. The disadvantages include - a decrease in efficiency due to partial containment of functional tasks, any synergy between departments may not be fully realized, public opinion about the company is less clear when considering a single section. Any of the listed advantages and disadvantages is not in itself a decisive factor. The choice for or against the application of divisional management is determined by the degree of importance of goal orientation and efficiency compared to the degree of functional or regional planning and synergy.

As a result of changing external circumstances, many companies are now in a transition from a technical orientation, centralized management and a closed culture to a market orientation, decentralized management and an open culture. An interest in business unit management coincides with an interest in strategic management and organizational culture. All three of these processes can be seen as reactions to radical advances occurring in the marketplace and technology. Therefore, a coherent policy for the transition is needed to ensure that structure, strategy and culture are precisely adapted to the requirements of the new era.

3. Management principles using the example of the MAGNIT chain of stores

3.1. Description of the development and management structure of the MAGNIT store chain

MAGNIT can rightfully be proud of its logistics.

With an assortment of 45,000, this retail chain's inventory levels are among the best in Russia and evoke sincere respect even from Western retailers. This is partly due to the fact that the centralized logistics network model was created with the participation of Western consultants, armed with the best practices of foreign companies. MAGNIT became the first retailer in Russia to build a distribution center - a central base for supplying all stores in the network with eight thousand of the most popular products. For seven years now, manufacturers have been bringing their products to the DC, which are sorted, repackaged and delivered to stores using MAGNITA’s own fleet of vehicles. Such an organization of business can significantly reduce the cost of delivering goods, and analysts see this as an important competitive advantage.

In recent years, the network has expanded rapidly. The number of stores has already exceeded one hundred. By trade turnover (revenue for last year -

$660 million) MAGNIT today ranks fourth among retailers in Russia, and is also the largest national supermarket chain.

However, rapid extensive growth and expansion of the product range created a serious problem for the company, known among experts as out-of-stock (which can be translated as “out of stock”). The shelves of MAGNIT stores really began to empty: goods ran out before they could be reordered. First of all, this affected essential products: dairy and meat gastronomy, confectionery, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, household chemicals, etc.

Rapid growth and expansion of the product range created a serious problem for MAGNITA. Store shelves really began to empty: goods were running out before they could be reordered.

They are the ones that bring the retailer the main income, but they were the first to disappear from the sales floors and warehouses.

Stores not stocking the items a customer wants can have disastrous consequences for the retailer. Weak control over the situation threatens losses exceeding 50/6 of potential sales - and there are such examples in world practice. The management of MAGNET realized in time the seriousness of the problem that had arisen and began to fight against empty shelves.

According to the American Grocery Manufacturers Association, only 25% of out-of-stock cases are caused by poor discipline and poor planning. And the main culprits for empty shelves (75%), and this is reflected by global statistics (see graph), are not suppliers, but the stores themselves with their imperfect system of ordering and displaying goods. But the head of the centralized inventory department of the MAGNIT trading house, Natalya Shadronova, believes that the retailer and the supplier share responsibility for empty shelves equally. Therefore, MAGNIT began to return goods to its shelves in close contact with suppliers.

Impact on suppliers

As a large retailer, MAGNIT could afford to conduct a dialogue with counterparties from a position of strength. With rare exceptions, any manufacturer today can find a replacement, and most of them are aware of this. But the manufacturers themselves do not cause retailers much trouble. Another thing is resellers. Today, almost all Russian retail chains are busy squeezing them out of supply chains, says Igor Podnebenny, project manager at Region 77 Agency. MAGNIT ensured that most of the products at the distribution center began to come directly from the manufacturer. This scheme allows chains not only to receive goods at a better price, but also to improve the quality of deliveries - their efficiency and predictability.

However, for a number of product groups, MAGNIT still has to work with distributors. “In case of supply disruptions, we impose fines on them: this is the only remedy,” explains Natalya Shadronova. The amount of penalties in the largest retail chains, according to Igor Podnebenny, is up to 10% of the delivery cost.

The impeccable work of the “silk” supplier, however, does not relieve the retailer of the need to keep a certain inventory of goods in case of unforeseen supply interruptions or sudden surges in demand. If suddenly, for one reason or another, the next delivery is disrupted, the so-called safety stock compensates for the shortage of goods. It also helps the retailer hold out until the next shipment: sometimes it has to be purchased from an alternative supplier.

Thanks to the creation of insurance reserves, MAGNIT reduced out-of-stock indicators several times. For example, for juices and waters this figure has halved to 10%. However, such backlogs always have a downside - a deterioration in turnover indicators. Vladimir Kiva, IT director of the MAGNIT network, considers finding the optimal safety stock norm the result of a subtle compromise: “Here we need a golden mean, and determining it with precision is a real art of trading.”

This year, MAGNIT tested the technology of centralized calculation of insurance claims. If you are reading this, it means that the student did not even bother to read the course. If you are a student, then good luck on passing;): “They use probabilistic analysis based on standard deviations,” says Kiva. “This method allows you to calculate the safety stock, taking into account possible shortfalls of goods.”

Typically, safety stocks are maintained for a week, with seasonal peaks in demand - 10 days. The trading house forms them mainly for quickly moving goods (group A) - eight thousand items passing through the distribution center. This is about a third of the chain's assortment. The remaining 70% are perishable food products. The suppliers themselves deliver them to stores. Not surprisingly, out-of-stock performance for goods passing through a distribution center looks much better than for those that stores order directly from suppliers.

When stores are left alone with suppliers (without the support of strong distribution center logistics), weaknesses in store management processes become immediately apparent. It is the staff of retail outlets, according to the project manager of Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, Georgiy Babilashvili, who are responsible for empty shelves. First of all, we are talking about the imperfection of procedures for maintaining the current assortment. As a rule, managers either forget to order something or realize it too late.

Everything is aggravated by the fact that perishable products have to be ordered daily - and sometimes more than once. MAGNET decided that only a machine can put an end to the forgetfulness of store buyers. An automatic reordering system was introduced there. Periodically, it issues signal bars - reminders of the need to place an order or start an inventory if there is any confusion with the product. “Normal managers kept their calendars on pieces of paper, but some only realized it when the goods ran out,” recalls Vladimir Kiva. “Now system_A controls everything: it plans dates for ordering goods, maintains a calendar of orders and deliveries. Based on this information, automatic proposals are made regarding the composition and quantity of the goods to be ordered. And when the store staff responsible for the order comes to work in the morning, they see on the screen a ready-made list compiled by the system overnight.”

However, automation of the process in the trading house was considered a half-measure. They decided to go even further - in principle, to free stores from the ordering function. In one of them, according to Vladimir Kiva, a pilot project has already been launched to manage the alcohol assortment from the central office. Positive results from the experiment may subsequently lead to a complete reorganization of the procurement process. They will be carried out not locally, but in the center.

It's not just late orders that can lead to empty shelves. Sometimes this happens due to the fault of employees who did not bring the goods from the back room on time. Another reason for assortment imbalance is errors in the placement of goods on shelves. In many cases, they are caused by the lack of clear standards regarding what, where and in what quantity to exhibit. The MAGNIT trading house understands the importance of sales floor management processes. And they have already found a way to improve them. For example, according to Vladimir Kiva, uniform standards for the display (planogram) of goods on shelves were recently approved for the entire trading house. They record the place and rate of display for each group, taking into account turnover and the terms of the contract with the supplier. This was significant progress compared to previous, very vague recommendations.

In general, MAGNIT's IT director sums up, empty shelves are a complex problem that cannot be solved in any one way. We have to take into account all the diversity of factors and at the same time “pull up all directions.” As they say in the USA, retail is detail. A retail operator's performance depends on its attention to detail.

3.2. Pros and cons of centralized management structures

Pros of centralization

The most important advantages of a system with a centralized structure are the following:

1. High mobilization abilities.

Since in a centralized system a decision made at a high level is binding on all lower-level subsystems, the system can mobilize all its resources to solve complex problems that require a powerful response, for example, to repel aggression or solve in the shortest possible time such tasks that require tension and concerted action. work of a gigantic number of subsystems.

2. Relatively short reaction time to influences (internal or external).

This is mainly determined by the fact that in a centralized structure the “distance” from the lower-level subsystem to the center that makes decisions that are mandatory for all subsystems is relatively small. True, the above is not true for any centralized systems. If the number of levels is large, then, firstly, the path traversed by information towards the center is considerable, and, secondly, at each level the subsystems introduce their own “noise” and the information is distorted, at least in a small part. Therefore, the information that reaches the central management level may not correspond to the actual state of affairs and, accordingly, the center may make decisions that are inadequate to the situation and that can harm the entire system due to the issuance of inappropriate or simply stupid commands. We can say that hierarchical structures with more than five to seven levels are unstable precisely because there is too much distortion of information when transmitting it through the levels. For organizational systems, it is possible to reduce the level of noise introduced by using computer information systems. Then the centralized management structure has the opportunity to grow for some time. The goal of preserving the centralized administrative system in our country was to be served by the attempt, which failed in the 70s, due to the general disorder, to create a unified automated control system covering all levels of management. Those. this attempt was then late and could not be realized precisely because of the already expanded multi-level system of government.

3. In a centralized system, it is quite simple to implement processes of information interaction (coordination of lower-level actions)

In a hierarchical system, a fundamental possibility is created for global optimization of control of the system as a whole.

Indeed, mastery of the entire picture of affairs in the system allows the center to organize without any particular difficulties (who can object to it?) management that is optimal from the point of view of the entire system as a whole. In this case, the center may allow the functioning of any subsystems not in an optimal mode (with subsidies), and in some cases even go to the elimination of subsystems for the sake of the existence of the system as a whole. (All this, however, is good if decisions are made by a competent and informed center.) Unfortunately, a centralized system does not, in general, contribute to getting a competent leader into the center. To do this, you need to create rules for promoting the smartest ones to the top. However, there is still a certain “scheme” - democracy in a developed society.

From the given basic properties, you can form a fairly large number of private advantages of centralized structures, which you can apply in your life and activities:

1.1 For a developing organizational structure with rapid growth of the system, different subsystems grow at different rates, strong and competent centralized management may not allow some subsystems to develop at the expense of others or to the detriment of the goals of the organization as a whole.

1.2. Centralized management in conditions of a shortage of qualified personnel in the field of management makes it possible to more effectively use the knowledge and experience of those professionals who are available, installing them at the top of the management hierarchy.

Disadvantages of centralization

Relative disadvantages of centralized structures:

1. In general, the adaptive capabilities (inflexibility) of the system are insufficiently high.

In order to reorganize the system, subsystems need to “convince” the central link of the system of this need, which often believes that it is they who have complete information and understanding of the problems. Considering that in a “large” centralized system the levels introduce their own information noise, and the center may not receive objective information about the state of the subsystems, such a belief may not be successful. In organizational systems, for example, such as our former socialist state, perestroika became possible only in 1985, when the prerequisites for changing the system of managing the national economy were ripe (and even overripe), and leaders, infected with the relative freedom of the “thaw”, had grown to the age of power. » 60s. Until this year, all attempts to change the management structure were unsuccessful.

2. Relatively low system reliability.

Since the center is ultimately in charge of everything, and it is also the most informed, the destruction of the center, overload or breakdown leads to disorganization and even destruction of the system as a whole. A definite solution to the problem can be considered increased protection of the center from external aggressive influences and an increase in redundancy in the means of communication.

3. Strong dependence of the behavior of the entire system on the behavioral characteristics of the center.

Since the center makes decisions that are binding on all subsystems, the behavior of the system decisively depends on the “literacy” of the central link or the nature of the idea implemented by the central body. One can even say that a centralized system has the character of an object that is at the center of control of the system (in socio-economic systems, remember Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev. - So the psychology of a particular political figure significantly changed the character of the state and its behavior in the international arena) .

In natural centralized systems, the core always carries the most important behavioral “genes”, determining the “rules of the game” of other subsystems in the internal environment of the system as a whole. There are many examples.

3.3. Pros and cons of decentralized governance structures

Pros of decentralization

A decentralized structure is the other extreme compared to a centralized one. Its advantages compared to the latter:

1. High adaptive abilities (structural flexibility).

2. Relatively high operational reliability.

Consequence of the advantages of a network system:

Disadvantages of decentralization

Disadvantages of a decentralized system:

1. Low mobilization abilities.

2. In general, the system’s reaction time to external influences is long.

These “disadvantages” are easy to understand and are the inverse of the properties of a centralized system.

So, which structure is better - centralized or decentralized? Answer: looking for balance! Therefore, a few words about the “golden mean” - the skeletal structure.

Conclusion

The skeletal structure is an intermediate type between centralized and decentralized structures. Accordingly, the properties of this type of structure are not so “extreme”. Often skeletal structures are the most optimal for most environments.

In the skeletal structure, the role of a “collective center” is played by several subsystems of equal size with more significant powers than others. Such an organization does not allow any one of the main subsystems to carry out a frankly stupid operation or one that is “outside the rules.” Naturally, in such systems, it becomes very important to develop the rules of the game, which are followed by all participants in the skeleton (framework) of the system.

Many democracies have a skeletal structure, where the role of the center is played by the president, parliament and constitutional court, and the rules of the game for them are the constitution. And only a major problem that has arisen - unrest, war, severe limitation of free resources, a crisis situation - leads to the centralization of management, for example, presidential rule, which is quite natural, given the properties of the centralized structure. Such centralization of control in times of war is spelled out in all democratic constitutions.

List of used literature

1. Clausewitz K. “Management in enterprises.” M., 2004

2. Lem S. Mask. Not just fantasy. M.: Nauka, 20020, “Weapon systems of the twenty-first century”

3. M. Meskon "Organizational structure". M: 2003

4. Anisimov O.S. Strategy and strategic thinking (methodological and acmeological aspects). M., 2003

5. Management in Russia and abroad No. 4 / 2002

6. Company secret No. 33 / 09/05/2005

7. V.A. Goncharuk. Enterprise development. M.: Delo, 2003

8. Independent Military Review, 03/21/03

Similar documents

The concept, tasks and essence of centralization and decentralization. Indicators used to assess the degree of centralization and decentralization. The concept and essence of the skeletal management structure. Optimal level of centralization and decentralization of management.

course work, added 05/18/2015

Creation of mechanistic and organic enterprise management structures. Principles of forming a competitive organizational structure, distribution of tasks between departments and powers between managers, boundaries of the effectiveness of decentralization.

thesis, added 10/09/2010

course work, added 12/18/2012

The essence, functions and principles of the management process of business entities. Methods of managing enterprise activities. Organizational structures of enterprise management. Higher government bodies of enterprises and organizations.

abstract, added 10/15/2010

Concept, principles of construction and forecasting of organizational management structure, classification and characteristics of its types and types. Analysis and assessment of the existing organizational structure of enterprise management, recommendations for its improvement.

thesis, added 04/20/2011

Matrix management structure. Efficiency and configuration of organizational structure. Formal, mechanistic, bureaucratic, traditional, classical organizational management structures. Analysis of the facts of integration of corporate structures.

course work, added 11/20/2013

Theoretical aspects of the effectiveness of a trading enterprise management system. Scientific and methodological approaches to management efficiency. Methods for studying the effectiveness of a management system. Analysis of the competitiveness of the enterprise management system.

course work, added 03/18/2012

Theoretical concepts of management structures. Principles for designing management structures. Analysis of the enterprise management structure. Personnel analysis. Analysis of management structure and functions. Proposals for improving the management structure.

thesis, added 10/20/2004

Organizational structures, functions, methods and styles of management of a hospitality enterprise. Analysis of the organizational structure of the hotel and restaurant complex "Russian Yard". Development of recommendations for improving management at the Russian Dvorik Group of Companies.

thesis, added 06/05/2011

Hierarchical and organic type of enterprise management structures. Efficiency of management organization at OJSC Machine-Building Company "Vityaz". Principles of construction and definition of organizational structure. Evaluating the effectiveness of capital investments.

Against the backdrop of recent news about possible regional defaults, a decline in industrial production, rising unemployment and other horrors, the results released by the Ministry of Finance for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the first quarter of this year became a real bomb. While the federal budget showed a deficit of 4.5 percent of GDP, the consolidated regional budgets unexpectedly showed a surplus of 2.4 percent of GDP! What is this - a game of numbers, a random influence of market conditions, or a radical economic change for the better? Do these numbers mean that the regions today finally have incentives for development? How to consolidate the surplus trend? Is the center interested in strong regions? Vladimir Klimanov, director of the Institute for Public Finance Reform, leading researcher at the Institute of System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the department of state regulation of economics at RANEPA, answered these questions live on the site.

Is it time to reconsider the relationship between the center and the regions in Russia?

— A huge number of Russian residents strive for the Moscow region and St. Petersburg. After all in many regions there are no jobs or the pay is so low that there is practically nothing to live on or it is very difficult to live. And at the beginning of the year it became known that the regions themselves have nothing to live on - a number of entities are in a pre-default state. Why has this situation developed and the trend of shifting the burden and responsibility from the center to the localities continues?

— I agree with you that the differentiation of Russian regions has very great significance, indicators, and differs significantly from the situation that has developed in many developed countries. Such imbalances between the capital and the province are typical for countries in the developing world. There are certain regions and cities there that are already heading towards some kind of post-industrial future, but most territories are still in the most backward stage of development.

In developed countries, differences between regions tend to disappear. They are significantly lower than in our country. The structure of our economy is largely tied to the extraction of a very limited range of natural resources, which are capitalized and provide national income. The main part of it settles, naturally, in the capital region, where decisions are made, or in the production regions. Therefore, indeed, a situation is emerging in which, if there is work in other regions, it is not comparable in terms of pay to the capital and individual oil-producing entities. This is where the natural migration of the population comes from. Everyone wants to move to Moscow, the Moscow region or St. Petersburg.

The reason is also in some historically formed institutions, including market transformations, in rules, principles, and various kinds of structures. This situation did not arise in recent years; it existed before. But another thing is that during the development of market relations, it actually received an additional impetus and became more painful. Something needs to be done, to change the situation. But what exactly needs to be done - there are still more questions than answers. Because it is not possible to find adequate tools to decentralize, say, financial resources across the territory.

It turns out that we will either have to come to terms with the fact that we will have such internal Klondikes who live happily ever after, or leave the system in which resources are largely centralized and then distributed locally. Typically, whenever there is a greater dependence of a country's welfare on a limited range of resources, concentration increases. As soon as a state diversifies its economy and becomes less dependent, for example, on oil and gas, the differences between regions are smoothed out.

During the Soviet years, there was a fairly targeted flow of migration. It was regulated by the creation of all-Union Komsomol construction projects, some kind of mass resettlement, and stimulation of resettlement to the virgin lands, to Siberia and the Far East. Therefore, a distribution of people was more justified by the interests of the national economy. That is, it was not due to natural reasons. Planned economy played a significant role. Under the influence of market conditions, everything went by itself.

— Why now, in market conditions, can’t we use separate planning mechanisms, incentive tools like Komsomol construction projects? Is this impossible?

- Well, that's less realistic. Because, after all, the actions of various types of economic entities are practically unpredictable and are subject to completely different laws. Now not everything depends on the state.

— In the 90s, the regions had more powers and had more finances at their disposal. Then this system was replaced by a more centralized one. What caused the need for this replacement?

— Indeed, then the tax distribution scheme was different. It has changed largely due to the emergence of the new Tax Code and Budget Code, which came into force in 2000. Now, each level of the budget system - federal, regional, several local - has certain revenue sources assigned on a long-term basis. It so happens that most of these sweet revenue sources go to the federal budget. Our main type of taxes is value added tax. In addition, the federal budget receives a large portion of the mineral extraction tax. Of course, various types of customs payments are also received.

There really isn't much left for regions and municipalities. The region receives primarily income tax, most of which goes to regional budgets. And personal income tax. Local budgets receive land tax, property tax for individuals, and part of the income from small businesses. Taken together, all taxes that go to regional and local budgets amount to only about 30 percent of state revenues.

In the first edition of the Budget Code there was Article 48, which laid down the “fifty-fifty” principle. It was recognized by analysts and politicians as the true principle of building a federal state. At least half of the state's revenues should go to the regions and municipalities. But in fact, there has never been such a proportion in our country; anyway, there has always been a higher share of centralized revenues. But in recent years the level of centralization has increased. At the same time, we cannot certainly say that this is bad and destroys some foundations.

There are both pros and cons here. The main disadvantage is that regions and especially municipalities are left without a worthy financial basis for economic development. Therefore, such centralization is likely to harm the economic development of the country and does not stimulate the pursuit of a more responsible economic policy. Those who advocate decentralization of financial resources cite examples of different countries with already stable federal systems. But there the state is not responsible to its citizens on a whole range of issues. And we, moreover, especially recently, need to pay great attention to ensuring defense capability.

But the main advantage of centralizing financial resources is that many of our income sources are highly localized in origin. That is, they are tied either to the place where natural resources are extracted, or to the location of the company's headquarters, where the final decision on the formation of added value is already made. Therefore, there is already a struggle between regions for the location of the main offices of large companies. And the concentration of taxes from them in the center makes it possible to somewhat smooth out the imbalance.

Indeed, there is a lot of fair criticism of this system, which, rather, nevertheless introduced negative aspects for many budgets, although it also served as a positive for some. But objectively, the centralization of income makes it possible to obtain benefits from these incomes not only in a separate territory, but immediately throughout the country as a whole. It is through revenues from oil and gas that we generate federal budget expenditures, which go towards education, housing and communal services, and investment projects...

— Now, after all, the government is reviewing its course and intends to diversify the economy. In order to awaken initiative and stimulate regional and local authorities to develop production, isn’t it time to redistribute taxes? N Is it time to swing the pendulum in the other direction?

— I don’t think that our tax system is bad. She is quite stable. It will naturally change, for example, when the volume of production of the same oil and gas resources changes. It seems to me that efforts need to be made, rather, not in terms of changing the taxation system, but in changing the very structure of the economy. That is, we definitely need to increase labor productivity and bring a number of industries to innovative forms of production. In the context of economic sanctions, it is necessary to massively stimulate import substitution, to find new niches that will provide tax returns locally.

In the current conditions, the regions of agricultural production and the south of Russia will most likely benefit. Unfortunately, old industrial areas, especially highly specialized regions, and the defense sector of production will suffer. But in the country as a whole, we need to look for some new forms of production, new niches where economic entities need to enter. This is without a doubt. It is necessary to increase labor productivity, primarily in non-resource sectors of the economy.