As a formal management department ruined

Formal management - a necessary phenomenon in the management of large projects. It allows you to structure and organize work and relationships in the controlled team or organization. However, if a formal management, primarily in setting goals and objectives to himself and subordinate crosses a point of no return, he begins a destructive impact on the work and reduces efficiency. That is the story of a distorted excessive formalism performance objectives for the development of the part of management and I want to tell you.

Objectives: The classic. Improve the quality of work, efficiency, bring division to a new level altogether.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions h4> It's no secret that every new leader reshapes department, anyway, "by itself". So in this story, dear reader, we have suffered the same fate. Young and promising leader tore a piece of the two existing divisions within the department and created a third. The eternal question "why?" I have, perhaps, only one answer: to create narrowly focused specialists easier than generalists.
One can say with full confidence. Setting goals and selection methods, divorced from reality, there is a terrible thing that can happen to you. B> In general, there were two global objectives.

The purpose of the first. Bringing order h4> as the main tool of debugging workflow was chosen formal, I would say the book-formal type of management. I think anyone who has worked in more or less large team can confirm that a number of the working atmosphere and working order, there is the same business, in terms of management, chaos: morning coffee on the smoking room, group races over tea and cookies in the kitchen, baiting Head on business issues in the corridors, the solution of burning issues through personal communication with management, not related to work skype conference for dialogue, funny pictures and videos. If you have a young, active men's team, then, in fact, all of this is inevitable. How can streamline things happening chaos if he, in your opinion, undermines the effectiveness? Correctly formalize workflows and workflow.

Building a vertical h5> In large companies are very fond of the vertical, and it is clear. The huge flow of information in the form of challenges to the leaders need to somehow filter, and organize, otherwise they fill up at the very top, do not dig up. Primarily formed junior level management: mestyachkovye chiefs and senior shifts, in fact, organized group timlidy and their deputies.

Unfortunately, some managers may not take into account the fact that timlid and his assistant must not only be good performers and the horn of his will, but the spices and respected mother "fighters" of its sphere of activity. How not cool, but subordinates must respect their leadership and best compliments - a recognition of professionalism and experience. Timlid same, which is the only executor of the will of the head, but not a steep spices in the field of supervised them, turns to the team of "father and mentor" in nuisance. He needs to explain everything and chew three times. Due to lack of professional experience, such people will only slow down the decision of problems, because are constantly in doubt, whether they act professionally or not.

And here emerges the first devil coverts are known in detail. Vertical managers are organized in order to reduce the load from the head end, leaving him only a functional sighting and observation of work processes. At the same rigid formalization of work processes, and, above all, the processes solving the problems by means of the use of the "vertical of power" are additional links. If those links do not have sufficient expertise to make independent decisions, they only slow the process of decision-making, as output instead of sighting and surveillance supervisor receives only the "broken telephone".

Employees should be one timlid understand each and Head heard the third. As a result, we obtain a collapse, since, for the understanding of what is happening, to have almost the rally to collect (remember, we have formalized processes), and discuss the intimate trio worker timlid-head problem, if not wait for the general meeting of the department.

The closure of all processes on the manual h5> Each of us is faced with a situation where for the adoption of any decision must receive the blessing of the authorities. It is correct, as the ultimate responsibility lies squarely on the head. Here we have the second devil pops up Parts - scaling necessary to address the problems.

If management closes on itself all matters, at least minimally beyond the verge of statistical "norm", it paralyzes own work, simultaneously tying the hands of experts in the field. This situation forces resort to crooked running vertically. Remembering the effect of "broken telephone" in the end we get a huge lag, to a week, making decisions on business issues. In turn, a specialist on the spot could solve them, having delegated authority, for 10-15 minutes.

I understand that many recommend to know everything about everything, but the total "understanding" to all questions are provided solely to paralysis structure during peak loads. It's like the saying about sysadmin: good sysadmin at work can sleep, or do not appear for weeks, because it has everything always works and does not break. And with control. Head, use a properly built vertical and a system of delegation of authority may not be available for several weeks without the fear that without it all collapses. The system must be able to support itself.

Hard workflow h5> We have a hierarchy. We have closed all processes currently. It remains to write job descriptions on how to work correctly - it is the next step I have observed the formalization of the workflow.

The third devil is in the documents. The more instructions, manuals and other written for ordinary employees, the greater the difficulty of their execution. The problem is that the need to perform a huge list of rules reduces the speed of response and problem solving. Plus, the more documentation was written, the more difficult to maintain it up to date. But not even this is the main problem. With time to bring changes in the regulatory documentation to subordinates becomes harder and harder, because created in people's minds "stuffing" of relevant and irrelevant information. Against the background of strict compliance workflow to light falls more and more stocks, associated with its change.

Well, the most controversial in strict compliance workflow - it is his dominance over common sense. Sometimes there are situations in which decision should be guided by personal experience and common sense instead of direct job descriptions. However, workflow prevails over common sense and the need to follow him. Thus, to create a situation for which the mere fact of following workflow is the cause of any problems in the future.

As can be seen, the goal was set, and in his own successful. Vertical built, formalized processes, documentation prepared. However, no one took into account how to medium- and long-term negative effects of this will lead.

The purpose of the second. Team building and motivation of employees h4> any manager wants to maximize motivate their subordinates to feats of labor and 100% of the return operation. Eye rejoices when people work quickly, efficiently and consistently. But under the pressure of circumstances, many organizations can not afford to invest entirely in risky assets such as staff development.
Here you anything: natural staff turnover, sudden resignations, moving people to other positions in other departments, banal inability of some people to jump above their heads, etc. And then I watched the following, very controversial decision:

«We can not take the quality? Take a number! » I>

Nightmare recruiter h5> I am certainly not HR, but it is believed that his nightmare might look like this: Once a month or two to find 5-6 new people in the same department . i> Terms Recruiting: is not defined, a permanent set. i>

I do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that the quality of "human material" in the hiring process is reduced in proportion to relative count of employed people in the same position. Given that the department was very specific, I would say, by occupation was unique, people were hired on the basis of some basic sets of personal qualities and skills. In general, took all i>.

Here emerges our fourth devil parts: a general decline in the quality of work performed by the department. Judge for yourself. We have 10 people in a spherical vacuum of various levels of skill. Of these 1-2 hardened spices that can educate young. And here comes a time 3-4 people, which obkladyvaetsya as sacks, a leading specialist in order "directed and taught." According to the results of probation decision will be taken, these people will work or not. In fact, the period of training to a more or less acceptable level is 4 to 6 months.

In the end, we would like and fulfill its purpose of quantitative implementation indicators, but at the same time, the quality of work in some aspects is only tears. Objective indicators are set to increase, but to assess all the consequences of such a decision, using the constant recruitment of new people seem to have forgotten.

Staff motivation and team spirit h5> In this regard, I was confronted with a very, very strange practice. It is clear that the main purpose of it was to rally the team and instill a sense of "one for all and all for one." However, the method of "spreading" the responsibility for the mistake of one over the heads of all gave a very strange fruit.

A little eerie retreat.
I>

In 1938-39, the Nazis used the methods of psychological pressure on prisoners conc. camps. Then another "death camp" did not get his awesome spread across Europe and used to create a "working biomass", submissive and not able to resist. One of the points of the Nazi program to break the will of prisoners is the introduction of collective responsibility
The basic principle of collective responsibility: When «all guilty» , or when a particular person sees only as a representative of a stereotyped group, not as the voice of their own opinions.

Collective responsibility - one of the three basic postulates of breaking personality according to the method of the Nazis. Next, using three "shock", but I ran again, with only one of them: to get people to believe that anything from them is independent. I> blockquote>

Each employee, anyway, hoping for recognition of their merits and expected cash reward in the form of bonuses for good results. Guide confronts him purpose - it performs its quality.

Collective responsibility allows prioritize so that the employees fall into the following situation:
«You all did a great job this month, but the prize will not be back, because some of you nakosyachil» i> (blame all).

Such a position is enough to slowly but surely killing the human desire to change something. If need be, a team of 25-35 people there will always be "herd", for which it will be possible to leave without the extra money the entire department. It really works, to feel in their own skin. But not in the long run.

At some point, begins an accelerated outflow of personnel, particularly highly skilled professionals. People get tired "fight" with the system and looking for a place or in other departments or at other companies. Such policies only escalate over time the psychological tension within the team. With every month to listen to what you blame the mistakes of others is getting harder and harder.

This is the fifth devil. Responsibility for "neighbor", at first glance, was only to encourage more careful and thoughtful work, mutual assistance and help your neighbor. But after a series of months with no bonuses and constant pressure for over a year, it has led only to the creation of unhealthy atmosphere of hopelessness. The goal was failed due to incorrect implementation of the selected methods. We tried to unite and motivate, but only angered and killed the will to professional growth, meaning he had for us.

Conclusion h4> Unfortunately, about some changes for the better too early to say. Two years later, similar experiments was declared a reboot in managing all departments. Superiors reviewed the need of hiring managers by and returned to the practice of increasing the rank and file employees who know the work of the departments within. Also had to revise the structure of the vertical, to make it shorter. As far as I know now developed a system of individual incentives and bonuses to employees for good work.

How to estimate the loss of an incorrect choice of methods in the performance of the management objectives? I do not know. I think it will remain exclusively on the conscience of the performers.

With respect. Have you encountered similar situations in your practice?

Yes No collide, but partially tr > It seems more science fiction I have not worked in large companies, where it could be a Only registered users can vote in polls. Sign , please. 655 people have voted. Excused 130 people.

Source: habrahabr.ru/post/242235/