What questions will you find answered in this article:

• How to ensure that all business processes in the enterprise are effective, but at the same time not to inflate the management apparatus?


• Why can't the sales department be combined with the marketing department?


• What does excessive caution lead to when developing a strategy?


• How to learn not to take on all the responsibility?

Despite the fact that a huge number of books on business management have appeared, managers do not stop making managerial mistakes. Even experienced general directors are not immune from them. In this article, I will analyze why this happens.

Mistake 1. Waiting strategy

Many entrepreneurs and leaders have now taken the following position: once the crisis (depression, recession...) is over, then we will start launching development projects, but now it is too early. When will the crisis end? In an era of change, this is a rhetorical question, because the crisis will never end. More precisely, one will be replaced by another, but in a different area. Each business has its own significant factors, and their influence determines the scenario in which events will develop. Examples of such factors are the expansion of Chinese manufacturers of consumer goods, Russia's accession to the WTO, rising energy prices, a growing shortage of personnel in the labor market, catastrophic depreciation of fixed assets, and innovative activity of competitors. Estimate how long these factors can continue and what the effect of these factors can lead to, and you will understand: if you do not immediately take the most decisive measures, then your business simply has no future.

Mistake 2. Complacency

Many people forget about competition. But during the crisis, it is exacerbated. While some companies wait, others actively act. Pay close attention to your competitors' moves. Conduct benchmarking (on your own), contact professionals on competitive intelligence. You will find that it turns out that life is in full swing everywhere. Some are slowly poaching your customers - after all, you have stopped fighting for them. Others have found a new niche for themselves and are actively exploring it while you are inactive. Still others go bankrupt, and their customers rush about in search of a new supplier, but you do nothing so that they come to you, and orders go to others.

Mistake 3. Disproportionate business to market demands

Everyone knows what an ecological system is. In nature, everything is balanced (or strives for balance). Please note: the size of an animal or plant of each species varies within a very limited range. The economy is also an "ecosystem". There is flora and fauna, and here are boutiques, restaurants, factories. Gigantomania ruins many entrepreneurs. You need to be very clear about your place in the market, your niche and your development limits. If you have free resources, it is better to create another business or transfer an existing one to other regions, but do not inflate it. Otherwise, you will be idle production capacity, and you have to maintain a large control apparatus, and this leads to an increase in cost and a decrease in profit.

Even worse is the lack of ambition. If your business is smaller than the market allows, then someone else will take the uncovered share. Competition will increase, which will sooner or later end up squeezing you out of the market. Therefore, the business must be of optimal size in terms of its place in economic system.

Mistake 4. Inattention to Organization Building

We must always remember that any business is an organism. Let's take the human body. Our normal life is provided by many functional systems: nervous, circulatory, digestive, thermoregulatory system, etc. The same is true at the enterprise. Usually the main functional systems of a company are sales, production, capacities, resources, personnel, motivation, economics, finance, management, Information Technology, security, economy (names are given by areas of responsibility; subsystems are not listed). The set is highly dependent on the industry.

All the necessary systems (taking into account the specifics of the business) must also function at your enterprise, and their work must be debugged to perfection. Managers who understand this often make another mistake: bloat the staff. Many believe that for each functional system you need to create a department or at least hire an employee. As a result, their ideal staff can quickly reach the size of the administrative apparatus, for example, Russian Railways(several thousand) and eat all the profits. This, of course, is absurd. What then do managers do? They simply abandon some systems, such as marketing (meaning systemic market research) or security systems. However, one should not think that an enterprise of five people is not viable. Even if you have a modest budget, a small staff, you can still ensure that all the necessary functions are performed in your company. How? You can reduce the volume of processes, involve outsourcing firms, combine responsibilities (here, however, there are limitations: you need to take into account the human potential, the abilities of each employee and, of course, not combine incompatible responsibilities), and take on a number of functions.

Mistake 5. Combining the functions of the marketing and sales department

Every company, whether manufacturing or trading, has a sales department. And if you have one, then you need a marketing department (or marketer). But the functions of these units should in no case be combined. The task of the sales department is to inform customers, competently conduct negotiations, draw up a contract, etc. But setting goals, determining sales volumes - these functions should under no circumstances fall within his competence. Otherwise, a conflict of interest arises: sales managers do not want to take on increased obligations, as they involve greater responsibility.

In order to make plans correctly (and not produce more products, relying in vain on an increase in demand, or, conversely, less than the market requires), systemic marketing research. The people who deal with them should not be interested in distorting the results (neither more nor less). In this case CEO who makes a responsible decision will be able to rely on absolutely objective information.

Mistake 6. Putting all the responsibility on yourself

If there are no responsible people in the enterprise besides you, only you will work, and all your staff can be equated to tables and computers. After all, your subordinates are performers, they act on orders, and if there are no orders, then there is no work. Of course, they love you, but at the same time they calmly watch how you overstrain, and on any issue they run to you. I had a friend - a young entrepreneur. Immediately after the institute, he began to trade in fish (small wholesale). He had 50 employees subordinate to him, whom he managed alone: ​​who and what to carry, where and what to pick up. Interestingly, he studied with a degree in management. Nevertheless, every morning for two or three hours a queue lined up for instructions. Then he went to resolve problems: no one solved anything, no one could and did not want to take responsibility. For three years of work without days off and holidays, he turned into an absolutely tortured, emotionally devastated person. Finally, he could not stand it, gave up everything and left somewhere.

Mistake 7. Exaggeration of the role of the human factor

We often hear the phrase from leaders: “If a person is good and can be trusted, then things are going well, but if they are bad, everything falls apart.” Sometimes they add to such a statement: “We have a specific business” - and they see the reason for disorganization and theft not in the fact that there is no effective system management, but that the wrong people are hired. Of course, a lot depends on the personal qualities of employees in business. But there is no need to tempt people with lack of control, arouse indignation at injustice, allow them to evade responsibility (for example, due to the lack of job descriptions). The question here is precisely in creating an effective management system (its components are research, planning, production preparation, organization and coordination of work, accounting and control, rewarding and punishment).

Mistake 8. Bet on the wrong people

Let's talk about building a management team. There are two extremes: some leaders rely on professionalism, others on personal loyalty. The truth is in the middle.

Unfortunately, in small and medium-sized businesses, professionalism assessment is rarely practiced and serious attention is rarely paid to development. management personnel. As a result, a person copes with solving current problems, but when a difficult situation arises, he either does not see the problem at all, or is lost, because he cannot reveal the reasons.

However, professionalism alone is not enough. A modern top manager does not always have the desire to solve complex problems. When an acute situation arises and in order to save the situation, it is necessary to work for days, take responsibility and act decisively, he retreats and says that he will not cope, although in fact he thinks to himself: “Why do I need this?”. Therefore, the CEO must select people for the team in the same way that people are selected for intelligence. Professionalism and reliability are equally important.

To assess the reliability of a person, you need to find out his target settings. It is one thing to know and be able, quite another to want. Is your future employee set to work in full force Does he have a need for development and self-realization? What does he want to achieve in life, what interests him and how does this relate to your company? All this is very important. Maybe he considers the work as temporary (to change the edge until better times)? Of course, he will not say this directly, but knowing his target settings, you will come to this conclusion yourself. On the other hand, you will see what you can cling to, how to tie a person to a company. For example, if a specialist wants to make a career as a manager, give him a chance: set difficult tasks, share experience - then you can count on his devotion in difficult times.

In addition, when hiring (or being promoted), you need to find out: for which tasks a person is ready to answer, how is he going to act, why is he sure of the result? Few people can intelligibly answer what he is ready to answer for in the workplace. Most want to be errands (run there, bring here), and receive a salary as leaders. But the front of responsibility - this is the true content employment contract employer with the head (deputy, head of the department). But, let's say the manager beats his chest and says that he undertakes to raise the level of sales to the level you set. It is quite easy to assess his ability to succeed: just ask the applicant what problems he may face, what he will have to overcome, what will be needed for this. Anyone who has never solved such problems will simply answer: “Yes, no problem!”

Mistakes of a manager when making a managerial decision can be conditionally divided into several groups Solnyshkov Yu.S. Justification of decisions: (Methodological issues). - M.: Economics, 2003. - 168 p.

• 1. Natural (inevitable) errors are errors in:
  • a) forecasting market trends, possible actions of competitors, demand, etc.;
  • b) assessments of the situation in the organization, product quality, employee abilities, etc.;
  • c) unforeseen events, consequences of one's own actions, etc.
• 2. Prejudice errors are:

rejection of the transition from the "order-execution" management model to the "coordination of interests" management model;

• b) the desire to coordinate all decisions until a “perfect” solution or maximum satisfaction of all key employees is obtained;
• c) dislike for behavioral technologies, for example, the use of rules, methods for conducting commercial negotiations, teamwork, conflict resolution, etc.;
• d) prejudice against qualitative methods of stimulation, evaluation of employees;
• e) attitude to work on the strategy as an absolutely impractical occupation;
• f) underestimation of the real potential of employees;
• g) fear of delegating responsibility to their subordinates.
• 3. Mistakes of ignorance - these include:
  • a) ignorance of the patterns of changing the stages of development of organizations;
  • b) methods for formulating job functions;
  • c) modern motivational systems;
  • d) methods of situation analysis;
  • e) management technologies.
• 4. The error of inability is the inability of the leader:
  • a) formulate the goals of his company;
  • b) bring company-wide goals to the goals of departments and employees;
  • c) calculate their decisions for feasibility;
  • d) plan multivariately;
  • e) ensure the actual implementation of decisions;
  • e) use individual characteristics workers.
• 5. Mistakes - dysfunctional tendencies are:
  • a) a tendency to self-centeredness;
  • b) demotivating leadership style, ie. emphasis on highlighting the shortcomings of employees, rather than assessing their achievements;
  • c) "information greed", i.e. the desire to know and control everything in the organization;
  • d) duplication of order, when managers give tasks that repeat job descriptions, regulations on departments, etc.;
  • e) the tendency to give tasks, to arrange proceedings "over the head of subordinate leaders";
  • f) overloading the best workers;
  • g) the habit of appointing unrealistic, i.e. "mobilization" deadlines for completing tasks;
  • h) haste in issuing tasks;
  • i) non-obligation to speak, disregard for commitments made, given promises and information, which destroys the reputation of the leader - his most valuable capital;
  • j) the tendency to succumb to manipulation by subordinates.
• 6. Mistakes - "managerial illusions" - these include:
  • a) faith in the infallibility of their decisions, the conviction that the main causes of failures in management are in low performance discipline, in external circumstances, and not in their own miscalculations;
  • b) the cult of material incentives, the reduction of all motivation to additional payments, bonuses, bonuses, the unwillingness to “turn on” more complex staff motivation.

So, we can conclude that conscious regulation of the process of making managerial decisions allows us to indirectly influence the quality of management in organizations and prevent errors in management activities.

about the role of errors in management activities

f.p. tarasenko

Tomsk State University [email protected]

The causes and consequences of making mistakes that can occur at different stages of the process of solving problems in the course of managing social systems are discussed.

general scheme management

Before talking about errors in management activities, let us briefly describe the management process itself.

Management is one of the types of behavior of subjects in the world around them. The world turned out to be very complex, unimaginably diverse in all its manifestations. In an effort to understand the structure of the universe, we have identified three general features of it. First, the world is material (and the concept of matter was formed), heterogeneous (which was reflected in the concept of objects) and structured (which led to the concepts of organization and system). Secondly, the world is changeable, and this has led to the concepts of motion, energy and time. Thirdly, it was found that the relationships and interactions between objects have not only the nature of the exchange of matter and energy, but also the nature of similarity, correspondence to each other, reflection, which gave rise to the concepts of signal, information, model, reflection and, in the end, consciousness. Objects that have consciousness are called subjects. For example, the subject can be not only an individual, but also a group of people united by some commonality. The peculiarity of the relationship of the subject to his environment lies in the fact that he is not only subordinate, like all objects, to the passive observance of the laws of nature, but also shows activity, goal-setting and purposefulness.

In the very general view the management process occurs as an interaction between three systems - the object of management, the subject

management and their environment. The very need for control arises in the subject when he has a problem, i.e. dissatisfaction with the current state of the object. The subject determines the desired (for him) state of the object - the ultimate goal. The process of solving the problem consists in transferring the system from the existing state (problem situation) to the final target state. This translation must first be designed - to develop and make a management decision, and then to implement in reality - to execute the decision.

Management activity is the organization of the process of solving a problem - the transition of the system from a problematic state to a target one. Each of the two stages of control consists of a certain sequence of operations, and during each operation, an error is possible. The cost of loss when making a mistake depends on how much it makes it difficult to achieve the goal, and on the stage at which it was made. Since at the stage of solution development the main work is carried out with information, and at the execution stage - mainly with material resources, we will talk about theoretical and practical errors, respectively.

concept of management goal. interaction of two types of errors

The modern understanding of the goal of management includes both a description of the desired final state (final goal) and a description of the entire trajectory of movement towards it, from the current unsatisfactory state (problem situation) through all the necessary intermediate states (intermediate goals, action plan, algorithm). Effective management is not only about achieving the ultimate goal, but also about moving towards it in the best (optimal) way. Intermediate goals are the means to achieve the final goal.

We can talk about the effectiveness of management at different stages of the transition from a problem situation to the final goal. AT English language there are even different words for it. The word effective means that the manager is successful in achieving the ultimate goal, no matter by what means, and the word efficient means that the manager effectively disposed of resources to move towards the goal. (In English-Russian dictionaries, both terms are translated in the same way as "effective", creating a false impression of their synonymy.) These two types of efficiency ("by goals" and "by means") can be independent (there are known extremes in political practice - " the end justifies the means", "the end is nothing, the movement

to her - everything"), but usually the presence of both is desirable. And in the implementation of each of them, mistakes are possible.

In determining the ultimate goal, a theoretical mistake can be made - the goal may contradict the nature of things; in this case, management will be directed to the implementation of unworthy or unattainable goal. When moving towards the goal, practical errors can also be made that deviate the trajectory from the optimal one; in this case, we control in the best way. Theoretical errors have more serious consequences. Ackoff put it aphoristically: "All of our social problems arise due to the fact that we are trying to do the wrong thing more and more correctly. The more efficient you are at doing the wrong thing, the worse things get. It is much better to do a good deed badly than to do a bad deed well! If you do a good job badly and correct mistakes, you become better (effective)!”

In determining management as a whole, the setting of the ultimate goal still plays a dominant role. It determines what means are needed to achieve it, what should be the composition and structure of the system, the actions of which should ensure the realization of the goal (this side of management is emphasized by one particular definition of the system as a means to achieve the goal). Therefore, it is so important not to make a mistake when determining the final goal. However, even with a given final goal, there remains the freedom to choose one of the possible trajectories of moving towards it, and with this choice, errors are also possible.

the role of simulation in management and theoretical errors

The activity of the subject, which distinguishes him from other objects, is manifested in all kinds of his behavioral acts aimed at achieving the set goals. The whole variety of types of behavior of the subject can be divided into two classes: cognitive activity and transformative activity. Cognitive activity is aimed at studying the environment by extracting information from natural contacts with it (observations) or artificially organized contacts (measurements) and subsequent processing of the obtained data in order to build the necessary (targeted!) description of reality. Transformative activity is aimed at changing the environment, transferring it from an existing state that does not satisfy the subject to a desirable (target!) state. This is the managerial, labor activity.

Both types of activity of the subject are based on modeling, impossible without modeling - modeling is an integral part of

the nature of any activity of the subject. In management, the ultimate goal is a description (model!) of what does not exist, but would like to have; intermediate goals - a plan, an algorithm, a desired trajectory - are a description (model!) of what needs to be consistently implemented.

A management decision is developed by preliminary modeling of a controlled system: based on knowledge about the system (i.e., its model), we predict the consequences of one or another impact on the controlled input (model), determine the impact leading to the desired result at the output (model), and then we execute this action at the input of the controlled system itself, hoping to get the same desired result at its output (in the environment).

Obviously, the similarity or difference between the actual response of the system and the desired one depends to a decisive extent on how completely, accurately, reliably - adequately - our model describes reality. The quality of control is directly related to the quality of the model of the controlled system. And the quality of the model depends on whether there are errors in it, which ones and how many. Unlike errors in the implementation of solutions (which were called practical above), errors in the design and use of models will be called theoretical. The manager’s special concern should be the maximum reduction in the content of errors in the baseline for working out management decisions models of the control object and its environment.

All our knowledge about anything is “packaged” in models. Models contain the information we have, and depending on its accuracy, can be represented in languages ​​of varying accuracy - from vague in the sense of spoken language, more specific professional languages ​​to the most clear mathematical language. The construction of models (packaging of information) is carried out by methods of analysis and / or synthesis, algorithmically described in a variety of sources (for example, in). There are only three types of models - the "black box" model (a list of essential inputs and outputs of the system), the composition model (the list of essential parts of the system), the structure model (the list of essential links between parts of the system) and their desired combinations. Depending on the needs of management, information is needed only about the state of the system at a certain fixed point in time (static models) or information about ongoing processes (dynamic models); The most developed system model (a combination of all particular models) is the description of its life cycle, i.e. description with necessary detail its history from the moment of origin (creation, birth) to the moment of death (death, destruction).

When building any model, mistakes can be made. To prevent them, it is useful to know their origin and varieties. The key point here is the term "essential" in the definition of all three types of models (see above). The bottom line is that one of the features of the real world, realized by us, is expressed by the law of dialectics about the universal interconnection and interdependence in nature. This is the source of the infinite complexity of everything that happens to us and around us. Somehow to cope with this infinity of objects and connections between them allows us (after the introduction of the concept of a system) that the connections of everything with everything differ in degree of expression - some connections are stronger, others are weaker in some respect, i.e. something can not be taken into account when planning management, but something must be taken into account. But what and how to take into account - it depends on our attitude to what is happening, i.e. from the goals of the subject in this particular management situation.

The ability of the subject to choose the right actions in the environment is based on his ability to evaluate his interactions with it. But this remarkable ability is accompanied by the inevitable possibility of making a mistake, giving an incorrect assessment. The true meaning of any evaluative word (good - bad, useful - harmful, right - wrong, etc.) is related to what criterion is used for evaluation.

It is because of the appraisal, relativity, subjectivity of the concept "essential in relation to the goal" that errors appear in our models. When building a model, the question arises of which elements to include in the model and which are not, what of the infinite reality in a given management situation is “essential” and what is not. This is where the possibility of error lies in wait for us. There are only four such possibilities, respectively, errors of the first, second, third and fourth kinds are distinguished.

A Type I error is that a non-essential element is evaluated as essential and included in the model. The losses from the presence of this error will be expressed in unnecessary costs of resources (for example, time and memory) when using the model in the management process. This may be acceptable, but it can become quite critical in a management environment with limited resources for modeling, such as limited time to make a decision. In addition, an extra parameter in the model can introduce additional random noise, and in the case of nonlinearities, systematic distortions, which will reduce the quality of solutions.

A Type II error occurs when an essential element is considered insignificant and is not included in the model. The consequence of such

error is that management will not be able to implement (fully or to the right extent) the goal. The failures of most reforms are associated precisely with this type of error: some essential aspects of the problem situation are not taken into account.

An error of the third kind can occur when the creator of the model does not even suspect the existence of some element of the situation. The question of whether or not to include information about something in the model arises only if it is known that it exists. If something essential for achieving the goal is unknown, then its absence in the model will manifest itself in the inefficiency of management.

Errors of the second and third kind when using the model in the control process manifest themselves in the same way, but they radically differ both in their origin and in the methods of their elimination if they are detected.

An error of the fourth kind occurs if an element recognized as significant is incorrectly interpreted in the model (for example, when the output of the system in the model is presented as an input or a probabilistic relationship in reality is presented in the model as a causal one). A typical example of an error of the fourth kind (incorrect interpretation of an element recognized as essential) can be a widespread erroneous interpretation of various relationships between parts of the system (objects, phenomena, processes).

When constructing a model of the structure of the system, the question arises which links between the parts of the system are considered essential and include them in the model, and which ones are not included as insignificant. The connections between any two entities are of a different nature, manifested in different degrees, with different strengths.

The mechanistic paradigm is aimed at identifying such links that uniquely determine the result of the interaction. This type of relationship is called causation. This means that the implementation of one element (“cause” A) is a necessary and sufficient condition for the implementation of another (“consequence” B): if A happened, then B will definitely happen, and vice versa, if B happened, then before that place A. This type of connection is so strong that it does not need to take into account the presence environment, other interacting with A and B entities. In nature, indeed, there are very strong connections, their description is called the laws of nature. But it should be borne in mind that this description is an abstraction, neglecting the "weak" influence of the environment. For example, the law of constancy of the acceleration of free fall of any bodies is abstracted from the influence of the atmosphere in which a weight and a feather fall from

different acceleration. When designing a crane, only the mass of all its parts and cargo (their interaction with the Earth) is taken into account, but not their mutual attraction to each other according to the law of universal gravitation. In the control systems of the Age of Machines, the structures for managing people are established precisely according to the administrative-command, causal principle, which does not imply any influence on the actions of a subordinate, except for the instructions of the boss.

In reality, the connections between two entities are due to the presence of their connections with other entities around them. We describe the variety of such situations in a simplified way, in the form of a variety of a finite number of their classes. The first type of connection is the connection of cause and effect, necessary and sufficient. For practical management purposes, it is useful to distinguish two more types of connections that describe reality more realistically.

The second type of connections is the connection necessary, but insufficient. An example is the connection between an acorn and an oak tree. An oak without an acorn will not grow, but an acorn is not the reason for the appearance of an oak - this requires the presence of many other factors: soil, moisture, air, light, heat, etc. The terminology here has not yet been established; different names for such a connection have been proposed - “non-single cause”, “directed connection”, “producer - product”. The essence of such a connection is that B without A is impossible, but the presence of only A is not enough.

The third type of connection is a connection that is sufficient, but not necessary. A typical example of such a connection is a random connection (probabilistic, stochastic, statistical). Often such a connection is quite strong, and then many regard it (wrongly!) as causal. A good example is the study of the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. Correlation between smokers and patients with lung cancer, calculated from statistical data 26 different countries, turned out to be so high that the US Department of Health considered smoking to be the cause of this disease and developed measures to combat the obviously (!) bad habit. Russell Ackoff took the same statistics about smokers and compared them with cholera. The correlation was even stronger, but negative. He sent an article to the same journal that published the cancer data stating that the cure for cholera was smoking. The editor was shocked and said it was a joke. Ackoff agreed with this, but pointed out that the cancer article was just as much of a joke. However, his article was never published. Taking probabilistic relationships as cause-and-effect relationships is a common mistake in management practice. For example, among residents of an industrial area

in a large city in the United States there was an increased percentage of tuberculosis cases. Factories heavily polluted the air, which, of course, was harmful to the respiratory system of people. Serious (and costly) measures have been taken to reduce emissions of harmful gases and soot into the atmosphere. A few years later, the composition of the atmosphere returned to normal, but the incidence of tuberculosis did not decrease. It turned out that the main condition for the disease was the poverty and low culture of the inhabitants of the area, who crowded together because of the cheapness of housing in this non-prestigious area.

the one who does nothing is not mistaken

So, success in achieving any goal depends largely on two circumstances: firstly, on how correct, complete, adequate our information is about the system that we intend to manage and on the basis of which we plan our actions to achieve the goal ( Let's call it systemic thinking); secondly, on how correctly we perform the planned actions aimed at achieving the goal (let's call this the systematic practice).

Failures in achieving the goal are associated with errors during the development of a management decision (introducing an incorrect operation into the algorithm) or during its execution (if there is a choice in some operation). It is possible to completely eliminate execution errors only if there is no undefined ™ in any of the operations, i.e. there is no need to make a choice based on a comparison of possible options for further action. But such a case in management practice (and even in automatic control) is a rare exception. The possibility of making an error lies in the probability of making incorrect assessments of the compared options, i.e. making not the best or even the wrong decision.

Thus, the complete elimination of errors in control is, in principle, impossible. One thing remains - to minimize losses from inevitable errors. This requires taking into account the characteristics of each error, since the possibilities for reducing losses from different errors vary greatly. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of possible errors at each stage of the development of a management decision and at each stage of its execution and work with each specific error, taking into account its features.

In some circumstances, the elimination of errors, although an unattainable ideal, requires and allows approximation to it, as in the case of safety in hazardous and hazardous industries. From the theories of noise immunity and reliability it follows that the only way to deal with stochastic uncertainties is

introduction of information redundancy. To reduce the likelihood of dangerous errors in social systems There are several possibilities to introduce redundancy. The main ones are to minimize the number of uncertain operations in technology production process, as well as to increase the vigilance and awareness of all participants in the process of possible errors in its implementation, their consequences and measures to prevent them. But it is also necessary to introduce redundancy into the management structure. Ensuring particularly enhanced organizational reliability may require moving away from ideally hierarchical management patterns. A rigid hierarchy has a specific vulnerability to errors. The upper levels, themselves subject to errors, perceiving information from the lower levels, may not recognize its fallacy. As a result, there can be a multiplication of errors, leading to aggravation of problems. On the other hand, in a rigid hierarchy, the lower levels are obliged to follow the instructions from above, even if it is clearly erroneous. To counter these features of the hierarchy, when creating organizations of especially increased reliability, it is necessary to introduce redundancy into the decision-making process itself, deviating from the principle of one-man command even in military structures. For example, on American aircraft carriers during a campaign, junior officers have the right not to follow the captain's order if its execution threatens the safety of the crew. A similar regulation exists at nuclear enterprises. However, the delegation of authority must be accompanied by increased feedback, which is the most important way to timely detect and correct errors in both plans and goals. With absence feedback the ability of the lower classes to choose options at their discretion can correct some of the mistakes of the upper classes, but it can also cause bad consequences, lead management to the “anarchy is the mother of order” type.

In other cases (as, for example, in training), errors are an indispensable source of useful information and should be encouraged and maximized. Between these extremes (try to eliminate mistakes and encourage them) - a lot of intermediate options.

mistakes in practice as a source of information

As noted above, before implementing a control action at the controlled input of the system, this action must be determined, found. This is done on the model of the managed system, which is available to the subject of management. Going through the possible influences on the model and evaluating their results, we find the one that leads (on the model!)

desired result, and then execute it at the input of the control object. The result at its output depends on how adequate our model is, which is expressed in how close the real response of the system is to the response predicted by the model. The degree of adequacy of the model can be different, which leads to a variety of types of management, from program control simple systems to trial and error to manage complex systems. In real management practice, there are also all types of management intermediate between them (regulation, reorganization, change of goals, management with a shortage of time and with different inertia of the object and subject of management and with the unknown end goal), each of which implements its own special algorithm of management actions. (Management when the ultimate goal is unknown is carried out by the transition from global to local management - the search for an unknown better state, presumably existing).

Social systems are particularly complex: the variety of their states far exceeds the variety of states of our models; Ashby's law of the required diversity (balance of the varieties of the object and subject of control, necessary for perfect control) is not fulfilled, and approaching it is possible in two ways - either by simplifying the system or by improving the model. Until the Second World War, management was dominated by an analytical paradigm, according to which social systems were forcibly simplified to the level of mechanical (as in the army or on a factory assembly line) or organismic (as in a bureaucracy) systems in which people are assigned only the roles of parts - performers of functions necessary system.

However, the changes that have taken place in recent decades - the complication of technology and the associated increase in the qualifications of workers, up to their exceeding the qualifications of their leaders, the shift in priorities in the production of goods from the transformation of substances and energy to the transformation of information - have made such management of people ineffective. It has become necessary in management activities to take into account not only the interests of the system, but also the personal goals and individual qualities of the performers (humanization) and the interests of large systems in which our system is a part (environmentalization). The analytical paradigm began to be supplanted by the synthetic paradigm; the Age of Machines is being replaced by the Age of Systems.

This happens slowly, with difficulty - the change in the mentality of society takes place at the pace of the change of generations. For example, a recent sociological survey of the management personnel of large Russian companies

ny showed that our managers for the most part and still can not move away from the administrative-command methods of management. And an extensive survey of one and a half thousand heads of industrial firms in America, Europe and Japan showed that today Western top managers for the most part consider the main challenge of our time to be the rapid increase in the complexity of management and realize that it is possible to ensure the readiness of their enterprises to overcome difficulties only by increasing the systematic thinking of managers of all levels.

A change in the way of thinking occurs as a result of learning, assimilation of new information, development of models that form the culture of the subject. R. Ackoff paid special attention to the role of errors in practical activities managers. His main thoughts on this matter can be summarized as follows.

You can't learn anything if you do it right, because we already know how to do it. Of course, in doing so, we get confirmation of what we know, and this has a certain value, but this is not learning: there is no new information in this. Only an unexpected event carries information, and this is what happens when a mistake is made. The wrong decision was made because there was not enough information in the model to make the right one. This model can be improved by including the information obtained (as a result of making an error!) In it, by correcting the model so that it reproduces the behavior of the system at the output for this input example. Thus, management can be improved by recognizing the error and using the information about the system obtained during its commission.

in practice - mistakes are punishable

Meanwhile, throughout the entire period of study, from kindergarten before university, mistakes are considered a bad thing. For them, we are punished by lowering grades. Moreover, nothing is done to find out if we have learned anything from the mistake we made. We are taught to do things right, but not taught how to learn it ourselves. Then, after graduation, we go to work in an organization that also makes it clear that mistakes are a bad thing and that they are punishable.

There are several reasons why many organizations do not use mistakes as an opportunity to continue learning on the job. One of them is an inadequate attitude to errors of different types. There are theoretical mistakes that are made when building models, which will cause failures when using a flawed model. There are practical mistakes made when making a decision and in the course of it.

implementation. Among the latter, two types of errors are of particular importance in managerial work - errors of action and errors of inaction. An action error occurs when a subject (an organization or an individual) does something that it should not have done. An inaction error occurs when an organization or individual does not do what it should have done. Of these two types of errors, omission errors are often more significant: they are usually irreparable. The degradation and failure of organizations almost always occur because they did not do something necessary (compare the actions of the Soviet and Chinese Communist Parties in recent decades, the actions of competing corporations producing cars from different countries, etc.).

And now for the key fact: Organizational management systems only account for action errors - the least important of the two types of errors! If errors of non-compliance (for example, imperfections of builders) are recorded in performance activities and measures are taken to eliminate them, then managerial errors of inaction are not even recorded, which is why they often go unnoticed, and if they are noticed, responsibility for them rarely occurs. Therefore, in an organization that frowns on mistakes and in which only errors of action are noticed, the manager only has to be careful not to do anything that should not be done. In such a situation, a manager who seeks to receive disapproval as rarely as possible should minimize his responsibility and punishability, either by minimizing the likelihood of errors in the action or hiding the facts of their implementation, or by shifting responsibility for his mistakes to others. In such circumstances, the best way to avoid punishment is to do nothing or do as little as possible. This is what Ackoff thinks main reason, according to which organizations do not perceive recommendations for systemic problem solving and do not make corresponding radical changes. He also sees this as the root cause of the existence of bureaucracy: he defines a bureaucrat as an official who is more likely to say "no" because he is afraid to say "yes".

how to benefit from practical mistakes

Organizations can overcome this shortcoming in a variety of ways. First, by changing the attitude of leaders to the mistakes of subordinates. An illustrative example is the policy of the leadership of the American corporation Anheuser-Busch. When August Bush was president of a corporation, he said at a meeting of his vice presidents: “If you haven’t made a single mistake in a year, you are most likely bad

did their job because they didn't try anything new. Making mistakes is common. But if you ever repeat the same mistake, you are unlikely to remain in your post for the next year. He made it clear: mistakes will be forgiven if we learn from them. Moreover, in the corporation, managers were awarded the prize "For the best mistake" every year! Such a mistake is the one from which they have learned the most lessons (of course, we are not talking about fatal mistakes).

Ackoff proposed a cardinal way to deal with practical errors in the management process. The problem is solved by creating a special information subsystem that ensures the detection and accounting of any errors, and the maximum use of the information contained in each committed error. It is appropriate to call such a subsystem a support system for learning and adaptation of an organization: learning is an increase in the effectiveness of actions based on past experience in constant conditions, adaptation is the preservation of efficiency in changing conditions. The main functions of the learning and adaptation support system can be defined as follows:

1. Record every important decision - whether to do something or not to do something. The register of decisions should include: a) the expected results of the implementation of the decision and the expected timing of their implementation; (b) the assumptions on which these expectations are based; c) the initial data used for the solution (information, knowledge, understanding); d) by whom and in what way the decision was made.

2. Monitor each decision to detect deviations of facts from expectations and assumptions. If a discrepancy is found, its cause should be found and corrective action taken.

3. The choice of corrective action is itself a decision, and should be handled in the same way as the original decision. This will allow you to learn how to correct mistakes, i.e. learning how to learn faster and more efficiently.

The implementation of such a system is possible in various versions ("manual" or computer), depending on the scale of the organization's workflow.

Note that the development trend information systems management support places a stronger emphasis not on learning, but on adaptation - due to the variability of the environment. As R. Ackoff put it, “past experience is NOT the best teacher, it is not even a good teacher. It is too slow, too inaccurate, very un-

unambiguous. Experiment, the experience of the present, is quicker, more precise, and less uncertain. We should design systems that are driven by constant experimentation, not past experience."

the choice of ideology is not a mistake, but the choice of a way of life

As noted above, it is important not to make mistakes in determining the final goal and in choosing the path to move towards the final goal. In this case, the question of the correctness or erroneousness of the decision rests on the evaluation criteria.

Correctness in social matters means compliance with the accepted ideology, and ideologies are different, which leads to different lines of behavior in the same situation. Therefore, the choice can be right from the standpoint of one ideology and wrong - on the other. In management, this is manifested in the presence of different approaches to the implementation of one goal - to how the problem should be solved.

Consider first the role of ideologies in choosing the ultimate goal in problem solving. If the diagnosis of a problem leads us to the need to solve the problem not by influencing the problem-bearing subject in order to change his subjective assessment of reality for the better, but by changing reality itself, which is a problematic situation for him, then we face the question: what interventions in reality are permissible, and which are not.

The fact is that in any real situation that is problematic for our subject, many other subjects are involved, each of which evaluates this situation in its own way. The solution to the problem consists in such a change in reality that will reduce the dissatisfaction of the subject-carrier of the problem. However, any change in the situation will be noticed by its other participants, and it is not at all a fact that what our subject regards positively will be liked by the rest. And those who are dissatisfied with this use all their possibilities to oppose us.

And what is the “right” way to do it? The answer is given by the ideology we have adopted - it is the ideology that determines what is right and what is not. But ideologies are different, each of which leads to the choice of different goals and ways of moving towards them (this is manifested in the presence of many parties in the political life of society). The question arises about the choice of a supporting ideology for solving the problem. In relation to management in social systems, the main difference between ideologies comes down to what attitude towards other subjects is considered correct, how different it is from the attitude towards the subject whose problem we are solving. And it all depends on what kind of subject it is. The subject can be a single person or any set of personalities united

common interests and common culture. In this regard, the diversity of ideologies can be represented by three of their types, depending on the proportion of the number of members of the target subject in the total number of participants in the problem situation.

The first type of ideology can be called the principle of the priority of the minority. At the same time, it is considered correct to change reality in such a way that it satisfies the interests of a narrow circle of people, regardless of how this will affect the other participants in the problematic (for the subject) situation. Examples of the implementation of such an ideology at different levels of society are: dictatorship, monarchy, hierarchical subordination (one-man management), selfishness, selfishness. The peculiarities of this ideology are that during its implementation, the appearance of dissatisfied people is inevitable, and therefore, force is needed to suppress the dissatisfied and the will to use this force.

The second type of ideology can be called the principle of group priority. This approach is based on the fact that in addition to the subject whose problem we are solving, there is a group of other participants in the situation who are no less important and valuable than him. Therefore, only such intervention in reality is considered correct, which, by solving the problem of the problem-bearing subject, improves or, at least, does not worsen the situation of the other members of the group.

Examples of the implementation of this ideology in the real life of society are: racism, nationalism, in general, the ideology of any group - a political party, a diaspora, a sports team, a criminal group, a clan, a family, etc. The ideology of the group has a number of features that ensure its high efficiency, but in some circumstances turn from advantages into disadvantages. main feature such an ideology is that it is based on a double morality: all subjects are divided into “us” and “them”, and the attitude towards them is different. Others are considered (and therefore are!) rivals, adversaries, and even enemies. This ideology is aggressive towards “outsiders”: they should be defeated, sometimes in a game form (sports), sometimes in a life-and-death struggle (“He who is not with us is against us!”, "If the enemy does not surrender, he is destroyed!" - the official slogans of the Soviet era). But hostility can extend to more than just strangers. The fact is that the organization of coordinated actions of group members requires the introduction of relations of power (ie, the implementation of the first ideology). As a result, the proclamation of "the equality of all of us" turns out to be hypocritical (double standard!) - "some are more equal than others." The elite ensures the preservation of its advantages and privileges with a lie (for example, mechanisms

minority victory, as a result of which, for example, in the Soviet Union, with “direct and secret” voting, the same people always ended up at the top), and a system of intimidation is introduced to neutralize discontent (as in Stalin’s times, when any “our” could be declared "not ours", an enemy of the people). Therefore, in democratic societies, inevitably consisting of various groups with specific interests and each practicing its own group ideology, instead of deceitful tricks, preventive prohibiting or punishing measures are openly taken against the creation and functioning of extremist and criminal groups.

The third type of ideology can be called the principle of priority for everyone. It is based on two simple principles. The first is simply the declaration of objective truth: All subjects are different. No subject is identical to another (even identical twins are different). The second provision expresses the ideological essence of this ideology: Despite any differences between them, all subjects are equal and equal.

The adoption of this ideology obliges to carry out only such interventions in the situation that, while solving the problem of one of the subjects, do not harm any of the other participants. It is considered wrong, immoral to solve the problems of some at the expense of others. There are examples of the proclamation of this ideology in real life. Some elements of this ideology are present in world religions (among Christians - "love your neighbor as yourself", among Muslims - "do not do to others what you do not want for yourself") and in the secular ideals of liberalism, democracy, justice, equality before the law, etc. .P. However, these elements are often intended only "for internal use": religions are intolerant of non-believers, democratic states do not hesitate to use military force. Most consistently, the third ideology is used by management in the methodology of interactive planning (idealized design) - the design and implementation of improving interventions are the subject of applied systems analysis technology.

Like any classification, the above typology is a simplified, coarsened representation of the diversity of reality. In reality, ideologically "ideally pure" systems do not exist. In strictly hierarchical structures (anthill, fascist society, army, bureaucracy, etc.), groups can be elements, groups usually have a hierarchy, a democratic state consists of groups and itself acts as a group in relations with other states. Moreover, any ideology is neither good nor bad in itself, its

qualities are manifested differently in different circumstances of the external environment. For example, dictatorial unity of command provides the greatest survival rate when delay or failure to make decisions threatens death (war, emergencies). For the implementation of collective goals, a group ideology is effective. With a systematic solution of managerial problems, the development of an improving intervention gives the best results. It is not the ideology itself that can be considered a mistake, but its use in an inappropriate environment. For example, the use of the analytical paradigm of the machine age in modern management acquires the features of an error: the effectiveness of management is falling.

A similar situation occurs when choosing a method for solving a problem. R. Ackoff distinguishes four styles of managers with problems - reactivism, inactivism, preactivism, and interactivism. Each of them practices his own, special technology for solving the problem, which R. Ackoff, with his inherent passion for the poetic description of systems, called resolution, absolution, solution and dissolution.

The reactive manager believes that it was better before and tries to return to the past state, for which he finds out the causes or sources of the problem, and then tries to eliminate or suppress them. This approach is adequate in the repair of mechanical systems, it is also typical for European medicine: the doctor tries to find the cause of the disease and eliminate it. In management, this approach is typical in case of a lack of resources to completely solve the problem, and then it comes down to a partial, incomplete solution of the problem - resolution (such as a limited one-time increase in payments to state employees against the backdrop of inflation). The failures of reactivism (including in medicine) are most often associated with the system feature that in non-mechanical systems, the elimination of the undesirable does not necessarily lead to the desired, more often this not only does not solve the problem, but creates new ones. Reactivism in the management of social systems has been compared to driving a train from the last car, looking out the back window.

Inactive managers are satisfied with the status quo, they don't want a return to the past, and they don't want any change. When a problem arises, they prefer non-intervention - absolution (a term in colloquial English for the actions of a priest who forgives sins and does not take any action). Doing nothing is adequate behavior in case of high losses from committing errors: in medicine (in cases where intervention can harm the patient), in sapper business (“the sapper makes only one mistake”). The punishability of errors of action is the cause of bureaucracy. In management, non-intervention is adequate if any intervention is worse

non-intervention (i.e., intervention will be an action error), but such situations are very rare, especially when the environment is volatile. Inactivity is typical for organizations whose existence does not depend on their performance (they include subsidized organizations, which explains the lower efficiency state enterprises compared to private). The inactivist begins to act only under pressure from outside and only trying to maintain the status quo.

The preactive manager is not satisfied with either the past or the present and seeks to implement improving changes. He believes that the future cannot be influenced, but it can be predicted. Foreseeable changes are an opportunity for him to take advantage of. With a predicted future, it is possible to design and implement the goal (if desired predictive state it is chosen as a goal, in case of its undesirability, its prevention becomes the goal) and the optimal plan for moving towards it. This plan minimizes foreseeable threats or maximizes foreseeable opportunities. At the same time, special attention is paid to the prevention of errors of inaction. This approach to management uses a rich arsenal of optimization methods, primarily - operations research; Ackoff suggested calling this way of solving problems the term solution (although in colloquial English this word does not mean optimal, but any solution).

The effectiveness of the optimization approach to control depends on the accuracy of the forecast, and this is determined by two circumstances. First, forecasting is based on extrapolation (continuation) of trends identified in the past, i.e. on the assumption that these trends will continue in the future. Secondly, the expected accuracy of the forecast depends on how complete, accurate, reliable information about the past of the predicted processes is. These assumptions are usually justified for many technical systems, which makes optimization so relevant in engineering, and in the consideration of well-formalized components of social systems. However, when moving to social systems as a whole, both assumptions turn out to be wrong. Therefore, attempts at "optimization" in social systems are either an inadequate application of formal mathematical methods to poorly formalized real-life system problems, or an optimization of a very limited formalizable problem (such as minimization budget spending for education or health).

The interactive manager is convinced that the future can be created by oneself. Most of what happens to the subject (individual, group, organization) in the future is a consequence of what he does himself, and not

what others do with it. Therefore, the goal of management should be to create the future as much as possible. This possibility is provided by the third ideology and technology of interactive planning. The first requires that the planning of management decisions be carried out jointly by those who will be affected by the execution of these decisions (in addition to guaranteeing that the interests of all those involved in the problem situation are taken into account, this, in particular, allows avoiding both errors of action and errors of inaction). The second consists in designing, not the future, but the desired present, and finding the means to approach it as closely as possible under present conditions. A tried and tested variant of this technology is Ackoff's idealized design. This approach to problem solving is called dissolution (“dissolution”) and differs from optimization in that some restrictions are weakened or removed, as a result of which previously impossible options for a complete solution (dissolution, disappearance) of the problem appear.

LITERATURE

1. Akoff R.L., Emery F.E. About purposeful systems. M.: Sov. radio, 1974.

2. Tarasenko F.P. Applied system analysis. M.: KnoRus, 2010.

3. Ashby W.R. Introduction to cybernetics. M.: IL, 1959.

4. Akoff R.L. The Second Industrial Revolution: Management in the System Age. Problems of management in social systems. Tomsk: TSU Publishing House, 2010. Vol. 2, no. 3.

5. What can and what can't Russian managers yet? // Personnel Management. M., 2010. No. 9 (235). pp. 34-35.

6. Tarasenko F.P. Culture and modeling // Culture as a subject of interdisciplinary research: Mater. International scientific conf. Tomsk: NTL Publishing House, 2009, pp. 164-174.

7. AckoffR.L. Transforming the Systems Movement // The Systems Thinker, 2004. Vol.15, No. 8.

8. Ackoff R.L. A Major Mistake that Managers Make. Bradford, England: Handbook of Business Strategies, 2006. P. 225-228.

9. Akoff R.L. Management in the XXI century. Corporation transformation. Tomsk: TGU Publishing House, 2006.

10. Ackoff R.L., Magidson J., Addison G.J. idealized design. Dnepropetrovsk: Publishing House Balance Business Books, 2007.

11. Capitalizing on Complexity // IBM Global CEO Survey. 2010.

12. Weck K.E., Sutcliffe K.M. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. Jossey; Bass, 2007.