Management system by goals (results). Implementation of a management system by goals in Russian conditions Implementation of a management system by goals

Development 04.06.2020

Development

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Introduction

The whole spectrum modern methods management can be placed between two limits: reactive management - target management.

Reactive management is a very common approach to management, a feature of which is that planning is carried out immediately before the start of actions or already in their process. Plans change frequently, either because there hasn't been time to consider alternatives, or because there haven't been set goals. Management is reduced to a reaction to current events. Its effectiveness is measured by the manager's vigorous activity and by the strength of his pressure on subordinates, and not by the final results of his efforts.

Application efficiency this method management in conditions of instability of the internal and external environment of the organization and the growth of the level of competition is significantly reduced.

The method of management by objectives comes to the fore. The method of management by objectives (target management) is most often used when there are drastic changes in the company's activities and it finds itself in a crisis (or, perhaps, on the contrary, is faced with the need to quickly and in the best way use the opportunities that have arisen), and from the entire management team you need to subordinate your work to the achievement of the main goals. In such a situation, the company's management one way or another comes to a special management regime, defined in world practice as "management by objectives".

The relevance of this issue is increasing due to the negative consequences of the global financial crisis, when the efficiency of functioning is significantly reduced.

In Russia, the introduction of management by objectives is still in its infancy: and although some companies have made some attempts to use the principles of management by objectives, it is still far from the full functioning of management by objectives.

Based on the foregoing, the purpose of this work is to develop measures for the implementation of a management system for goals in the enterprise.

To achieve this goal, a number of tasks were formulated:

Determine the essence of the management method by goals (results);

To study the main stages of management by goals (results);

Provide general characteristics OOO "KUM";

Develop measures for the implementation of the management system by goals (results) of KUM LLC.

The object of study of this work is the enterprise KUM LLC, the main activity of which is wholesale0 retail.

The subject of analysis is the management model.

Theoretical aspects of management by goals (results)

The essence of the method of management by objectives (results)

The technology of "Management by objectives" - MBO (Management by objective) was proposed by Peter Drucker in the 50s of the twentieth century. According to his formula, efficient operation enterprise requires that every job is subject to common goals. In particular, the efforts of managers should be aimed at ensuring the success of the enterprise as a whole.

The essence of the concept of management by objectives, also called management by results, is to focus on the final result. Purpose and result in this approach are inseparable. Managing the work to achieve the goal, you should constantly take into account the results achieved.

Goals are a specification of the mission of the organization in a form accessible to manage the process of their implementation. Management Fundamentals: Tutorial for universities / Ed. Radugina A.A. - M.: Center, 2006. - 432 p.

The main task that the Management By Objectives system was supposed to solve was to increase the agility of a business organization.

There are many definitions of management by objectives.

Goal management is an organization management system (or a system of management methods) that simultaneously connects both the goals and objectives of planning, as well as all the activities of the organization. Economics of the enterprise (firm): Textbook / Ed. prof. O.I. Volkova and Assoc. O.V. Devyatkin. - M.: INFRA - M, 2007. - 601s.

Management by objectives is a systematic and organized approach that allows management to focus on achieving goals and achieve the best result with the resources available. Meskon M.Kh., Albert M., Hedouri F. Fundamentals of management: Per. from English - M .: "Delo LTD", 2006 - 702s.

Management by objectives is the work of management in formulating the goals of the organization, communicating them to employees, providing them with the necessary resources, as well as assigning roles and responsibilities for achieving the goals. Drucker P.F. Tasks of management in the XXI century.: Per. from English: Textbook. M.: Publishing House "Williams", 2007. - 620 p.

Methods target management assume that the manager is obliged to determine in advance the final results of his actions and develop work programs to achieve them. This approach to management is characterized by the presence of a plan for solving problems, even if it will be such unexpected events as machine breakdowns, product design changes, interruption in receipt necessary materials etc. The style that prevails in this zone of the spectrum of management does not require the constant presence of the manager at his workplace. Whatever problem arises, there is always a plan in place to determine the course of action and methods to the best way solving a specific problem.

The use of management by objectives (results) systematizes the management process, improves the performance of the enterprise, is an effective tool for setting and maintaining a quality management system at the enterprise, maintaining quality at all levels of the enterprise.

Management by objectives (results) presents high requirements to the staff. The better the employee understands the goals set for him and the more closely the latter correspond to his internal aspirations, the more likely such goals will be achieved.

The functioning of the management system by goals (results) is based on three basic principles: decomposition of tasks "top down", feedback "bottom up" and "intra-company labor market". Let's dwell on them in more detail.

The principle of decomposition of tasks "from top to bottom". The work of the MBO system is based on the decomposition of the tasks facing the organization according to the existing management hierarchy in the company. The tasks of the company - they are set before the general manager by the business owners or the general manager formulates them himself - the general manager decomposes them into subtasks, which he then distributes among his subordinates (top managers). At the same time, subtasks are singled out in such a way that their solution ensures the solution of the original task that was set for the general manager and, accordingly, for the company as a whole. Exactly the same procedure for decomposing tasks into subtasks is repeated at lower levels of the management hierarchy: top managers form subtasks for their direct subordinates based on their tasks, and so on.

Principle feedback"down up". In the process of coordinating the task by the manager who formulated it - and his subordinates, before whom the task is set, the content of the task, its level of priority or deadlines can be adjusted. Adjustment of the task is an important and generally positive process. On the one hand, during joint discussion and the exchange of arguments, the same understanding of the formulations of the tasks is achieved, and the task itself can be transformed into a more accurate and correct content. On the other hand, the coordination process ensures the necessary balance between the desired results and the resources available in the company. How “objective” is this kind of resource assessment? Isn't there a danger here that subordinates will underestimate their "real" capabilities? It must be borne in mind here: the main resource in this case may not be money, not production capacity, not the number of working people, but first of all the subordinate himself. Together with the money, capacities, employees at his disposal. And together with their ability or inability, desire or unwillingness to achieve the desired result with the available means. This is all the more true the higher official position subordinate. The manager's main resource is in his mastery of managing other resources. It follows from this: the higher the hierarchical level at which the task is coordinated, the greater value has a discussion and voluntary, responsible acceptance of the task based on a realistic self-assessment of the capabilities of the performer. Vesnin V.R. Fundamentals of management. M.: Triada-LTD, 2007. - 384 p.

In the course of coordination, the manager can and should prompt the subordinate manager for solutions that he could not see. He can and should convince and inspire him. It is important, however, to stay on the edge, beyond which pressure on a subordinate becomes tantamount to orders coming down from above, which are “not discussed”. It is worth crossing this line - and the consent of the performers will turn into a formal ritual. In such situations, the likelihood of obtaining results, especially if it requires non-standard moves and exceptional efforts, will decrease sharply: without internal acceptance of tasks, neither initiative nor a breakthrough beyond what is being done and has been done in the company so far is impossible.

The principle of "intra-company labor market". Unlike functional duties, the tasks (planned tasks) in the results-based management system are unique each time and cannot be predetermined in standard contracts concluded upon employment. In a sense, planning targets are additional work that was not covered by the original terms of employment. It is precisely because of this circumstance that the relations of voluntariness and equality of the parties in the process of coordinating tasks are so important. In fact, agreement is a kind of "bargaining" between the parties, and the agreement reached is a kind of "micro-contract". The terms of such a local contract include the task itself, the deadlines for its completion, additional resources provided to the contractor, as well as the form and amount of remuneration / bonus deduction depending on the achievement of the final result.

Despite a lot of advantages, the goal management system also has a number of disadvantages (Table 1). Pereverzev M.P., Shaidenko N.A., Basovsky L.E. Management. - M.: INFRA-M, 2009. - 420s.

Table 1

Advantages and disadvantages of the concept of management by objectives (results)

Advantages	Flaws
Increasing the efficiency of work due to the fact that each manager has a clear idea of both his own goals and the goals of the organization as a whole	Not applicable to the management of an organization, where it is customary to set goals only by top management, without involving managers at all levels in this process.
Increased motivation to work, because in these conditions everyone feels a personal interest in achieving goals	Difficult to use in the absence of personal motivation
Visibility of achieving the final result, because the time frame for its achievement is clearly articulated	The attention of managers is focused on achieving current and short-term goals (results), i.e. to the detriment of strategic long-term goals
Improving relationships between managers and subordinates due to transparency and alignment of goals	A labor-intensive, complex and lengthy process, it gives a result only when and where the leader himself chooses a model of action (behavior)
Improving the system for monitoring and evaluating the work of each member of the organization (in accordance with the results achieved)	The presence of a weak information management system (its availability) gives an unsatisfactory organization of control

The value of the results of management by goals increases when management methods allow you to program actions, taking into account real time and cost constraints. Obviously, value decreases when work is started before programming is completed - this inevitably leads to costly adjustments.

Different levels of management should be distinguished according to the results:

1) definition of results; 2) management according to the situation; 3) control over the results.

The process of defining results begins with a deep analysis of the aspirations, on the basis of which the desired results for various levels are determined. Such results are called key; they require an annual review. There are the following types of key results: a) business results;

b) functional activities; c) support.

The results of commercial activity include the turnover of an enterprise (firm, organization), covering costs, profitability, use of capital (investments, working capital), variable and fixed costs. Functional results and goals are the quantity and quality of products, the efficiency of energy and raw materials, the degree of utilization of production capacities. Support results, in turn, contribute to the achievement of business and functional results. The external results of support include the characteristics of the enterprise, the product group and each separate species products, relations with external related groups (Table 2). The results of support within the organization can be established in relation to the motivation of the staff, the atmosphere of the organization, the use of working time and means of communication, i.e. the speed of information passing. Once the key results have been identified, they move on to identifying the means by which they will be achieved.

The results definition process ends with the definition of the direction of the activity and the commercial ideas for its implementation. Results that are consistent with the aspirations of the organization are expressed in the form of specific goals (and they must be specific, achievable and measurable), strategies, key results and intermediate goals. Results that are consistent with the aspirations of management are manifested in the form of key results, goals and calendar plans use of working time. The aspirations of each individual member of the organization are expressed by plans for promotion through the ranks and in life in general (Fig. 4).

Rice. 4 Results-Based Management Process

The process of managing by situation is managing by day. Its basis is the organization of affairs, the activities of people and the environment in such a way that plans are embodied in the desired results. A feature of this stage of the results-based management process is that personnel management and interaction with the external environment cannot be presented with all the details. Therefore, managers must have the ability to analyze and take into account external and internal situational factors. It is also necessary to master different styles of leadership and influence in order to use them in accordance with the requirements of the current situation. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the assertiveness and creativity of both the leader and the subordinate. The main content of the management process according to the situation can be represented in following form: in the foreground are the sources of influence of the leader, to which the Finnish school pays special attention. These sources have changed significantly over the past decades. Even 10-20 years ago, the following were effective:

formal position (status) in the hierarchy of the organization;
formal competence, which was based mainly on the education received;
ownership;
practical experience in the field;
the right to make decisions;
the right to hire and fire staff;
clear rules;
fear of the boss;
opportunity to influence decisions wages;
family relationships.

For these sources, it was characteristic that they emphasized the formal position of the leader in the organization, that is, they clearly defined who and over whom was the boss and who should be subordinated. In the 90s, the Finnish school recommended the following effective sources of influence:

interest and creativity;
planning;
general leadership;
the ability to cooperate and manage people;
the art of motivation and strategic management;
willingness to take risks;
responsibility for jobs;
ability to adapt to changes and use them;
Willingness to collaborate and lead a group.

So, in the future, the importance of such sources of influence of leaders as their personal ability to manage and authority based on suitability for management will increase, and the importance of the formal position of the head will gradually decrease.

An important role at the stage of the management process according to the situation is also played by planning, which is divided into the following main types: strategic; annual; work schedule planning.

Strategic planning begins with the recognition of the idea of an effective approach to the activities of the organization, an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the internal organizational aspects and external conditions. Then a forecast is developed for 10-15 years and goals for 3-5 years are determined, which correspond to the capabilities of the organization.

On this basis, a management strategy is formed (for example, methods for increasing competitiveness, the main ways to achieve goals).

Annually, on the basis of a situational analysis, plans for the effective activities of groups and individuals are advertised, i.e., a temporary budget is determined, the necessary machinery and equipment, labor resources, investments, as well as charts.

At the level of the individual, it is planned to use time for long, repetitive and one-time work; at the same time, the plan is drawn up only for 50-60% of the working time. At the organizational level, results planning is carried out so that in the spring the results to be achieved in the coming year are planned, and in the autumn the conditions necessary to achieve the expected results are considered.

The final step in results-based management is the process of monitoring results. Control is carried out in order to assess the final and intermediate results, the level of implementation of the measures provided for by the plan, and situational management.

The achievement of each key result and task is evaluated separately, on the basis of which conclusions are drawn that have great importance for future planning and action. Conclusions are divided by deadlines necessary activities: immediately, after some clarifications, next year. At the same time, events that are postponed must be realistically assessed.

With this management system, results talks are held twice a year at all levels of the organizational structure. Leader or members working group evaluate how reasonably the key tasks were set in the past period, whether they contribute to the achievement of the goals set. Then the compliance of the set tasks with the required level is assessed (overestimation or underestimation), the achieved results are checked. When the team has formed a common opinion about the results achieved, the issue of what prevented the achievement of success (for example, the lack of the necessary equipment, authority, skills) is considered, and the actions that contribute to achieving success in the future are specified. Then the results to be achieved in the subsequent period are determined.

So, in results-based management, the emphasis on results is essential. Organizational capabilities are used to

activity plans extended from their strategic level to plans for the individual use of working time by individual workers.

In results-based management, along with planning, execution of plans and control are highly valued. Assertiveness, creativity and commitment to the implementation of plans are the hallmarks of this management system. An important factor who directs the activities of the organization, consider also a satisfactory attitude towards contingencies and planned expected results; a balanced development of the organization and the content of the life of its employees is carried out.

The theory and practice of management by results (Management By Objectives) arose about fifty years ago as a business response to those management problems that almost all countries with developed market economies faced after the Second World War. The main task that the Management By Objectives system was supposed to solve was to increase the agility of a business organization. In the post-war world, the problem of business agility has become one of the key issues due to the intensification of social and technological change, resulting in a sharp acceleration of market dynamics. The companies that were active in the market of that time, for the most part, were formed in the era of a stable business environment. They were efficient and profitable in stable conditions, when once built and launched a "business machine" could work for decades. But the era of stability is over - and businesses were forced to part with such a legacy of pre-war times as bureaucratization, sluggishness, inability to reorganize and quickly respond to market changes. Management System By Objectives (MBO) brought with it a new philosophy, a new outlook on business, a new management principle. What was this innovation?

The traditional business organization of the pre-war type is a company with a stable specialization in certain goods or services, with a constant range of customers and suppliers, with an unchanged structure, established technologies and ways of working. Somewhat exaggerating, we can say: in essence, such an organization is a machine that repeats the same operations cyclically from year to year . Accordingly, the main task of business management is to monitor the correct operation of the machine, notice problems in time and fix them. The new approach to business brought to the fore changeable, non-repetitive content in the life and work of the company. Business began to be comprehended as a certain way, as a sequence of non-repetitive, unique tactical and strategic objectives that the company has solved throughout its history . Problems of this kind arose now constantly. Priorities, guidelines, ways of working - all this had to be changed depending on the changes. market situation, as well as with the emergence of new technical and technological capabilities, for the speed of development and use of which there was a tough competitive fight. Such an understanding of the essence of business radically changed the concept of management: from a “supervisory and adjustment” function, management turned into the art of making forecasts, setting goals and ensuring their implementation.

The Russian translation of the term Management By Objectives as “management by results” accurately conveys the main meaning of this management system: we are talking about managing the movement (of the company as a whole, division or individual employee) to those business results that the company has for it at this stage of development paramount importance. By analogy, business management in the traditional, "machine" paradigm - could be called "management by deviations", since control intervention is required here only when a deviation is found in the work of a particular unit or employee - from the established performance standards, from accepted ways of working, etc. Deviation management provides proper functioning of all parts of the functional structure of the organization without providing either an adequate response to the external situation, or adequate changes in the functional structure itself.

Over the past half century, results-based management has proven to be effective and has become widespread throughout the world. However, if at the level of theory and ideology MVO and “management by deviations” were sharply opposed, then in real management practice both approaches turned out to be necessary and complementary. Any business is characterized not only by the processes of change, but also by the processes of reproduction “wired” into the functional structure of the company. Companies that could do without a "management by deviations" system, in which unique tasks are solved daily, and stably reproduced functions are absent - more exotic than general rule. The meaning of the management revolution of the post-war period was, therefore, not in changing the type of management of organizations, but in the formation of an additional type and additional contour of management. MVO, as an evolutionarily later acquisition, did not replace the deviation control system, but, as it were, “built on top” of it.

Basic principles of a results-based management system

The results-based management system is based on three basic principles: top-down task decomposition, bottom-up feedback, and the “intra-company labor market”. Let's dwell on them in more detail.

The principle of decomposition of tasks "from top to bottom". The work of the MBO system is based on the decomposition of the tasks facing the organization according to the existing management hierarchy in the company. The tasks of the company - they are set before the general manager by the business owners or the general manager formulates them himself - the general manager decomposes them into subtasks, which he then distributes among his subordinates (top managers). At the same time, subtasks are singled out in such a way that their solution ensures the solution of the original task that was set for the general manager and, accordingly, for the company as a whole. Exactly the same procedure for decomposing tasks into subtasks is repeated at lower levels of the management hierarchy: top managers form subtasks for their direct subordinates based on their tasks, and so on.

The bottom-up feedback principle. In the process of coordinating the task by the manager who formulated it - and his subordinates, before whom the task is set, the content of the task, its level of priority or deadlines can be adjusted. Adjustment of the task is an important and generally positive process. On the one hand, in the course of a joint discussion and exchange of arguments, an identical understanding of the formulations of tasks is achieved, and the task itself can be transformed into a more accurate and correct content. On the other hand, the coordination process ensures the necessary balance between the desired results and the resources available in the company. How “objective” is this kind of resource assessment? Isn't there a danger here that subordinates will underestimate their "real" capabilities? It must be borne in mind here: the main resource in this case may not be money, not production capacities, not the number of working people, but, first of all, the subordinate himself. Together with the money, capacities, employees at his disposal. And together with their ability or inability, desire or unwillingness to achieve the desired result with the available means. This is all the more true, the higher the position of the subordinate. The manager's main resource is in his mastery of managing other resources. It follows from this: the higher the hierarchical level at which the task is coordinated, the more important is the discussion and voluntary, responsible acceptance of the task based on a realistic self-assessment of the performer's capabilities.

The principle of "intra-company labor market". Unlike functional duties, the tasks (planned tasks) in the results-based management system are unique each time and cannot be predetermined in standard contracts concluded upon employment. In a sense, planning targets are additional work that was not covered by the original terms of employment. It is precisely because of this circumstance that the relations of voluntariness and equality of the parties in the process of coordinating tasks are so important. In fact, agreement is a kind of "bargaining" between the parties, and the agreement reached is a kind of "micro-contract". The terms of such a local contract include the task itself, the deadlines for its completion, additional resources provided to the contractor, as well as the form and amount of remuneration / bonus deduction depending on the achievement of the final result.

2. MVO in Russian business organizations

On the boundaries of Russian business

In the first years of the transition to a market economy, the Russian economy was struck by the extensive breakdown of technological ties between industries, which quickly led to the collapse of the industries themselves. The most viable under these conditions were industries that were either at the very beginning (mining natural resources), or at the end (retail trade) of technological chains. In the first case, stability and independence from the internal Russian situation was ensured by well-established export channels. In the second, the previous technological stages of creating products within the country were gradually replaced by imports of goods from abroad. During this period, two main vectors of economic development were determined. Large and highly profitable industries of the fuel and raw materials complex moved in one direction, for privatization and participation in the income of which a fierce struggle unfolded. For others, an army of "former researchers" who, at their own peril and risk, started their entrepreneurial activity. As a result, today the private sector of the Russian economy is represented by two absolutely different spheres that live according to different laws. The life and development of "big" business is determined mainly by political factors and the political situation in the country, while small and medium business- live in a market environment and are forced to solve problems that are typical for business organizations around the world. Discussing the topic “MBO in Russian business organizations”, under the sphere of business and business organizations, we will mean, first of all, the circle economic entities related to small and medium businesses.

The evolution of the primary centers of entrepreneurship and the problem of organization management

In 1998, the concept of the phased development of business organizations was formulated, the basic ideas of which are still used in the practical work of the STEP Consulting Center. It is based on the idea of an evolutionary ladder, along the steps of which the majority of Russian business organizations created “from scratch” have passed and are still passing. The evolutionary concept summarizes the history of the first decade of the market economy and contains accurate, detailed portraits of those primary centers of entrepreneurship, on the basis of which small and medium-sized businesses were formed. These original forms of doing business were not organizations in the proper sense of the word: they were business teams, cemented not so much by organizational mechanisms as by personal relationships and connections. “In the field of small business, the first companies not only formed on an “informal” basis, but then continued to live an equally “informal” life for quite a long time. What did the business look like from the inside? People work in a close team, literally shoulder to shoulder. Everyone is worried about the success of the company, everyone is more or less aware of current affairs, and everyone is more or less clear what needs to be done at one time or another and in this or that case. Somewhat sharpening and exaggerating the situation, we can say: everyone can do everything and everyone actually does everything .... This is a natural, and sometimes the only possible form of organization for a small "business special forces" of a dozen people. .

The primary business collectives were nimble, efficient, precise in their market behavior. The unity and effectiveness of actions were achieved through solidarity, people, their high awareness, responsibility of each for the business as a whole. As long as the teams remained small, and business operations were simple, as long as there were specific conditions for motivating and involving people, there was no need for organizational mechanisms for managing joint activities.

However, the growth of the scale of the business required the inclusion of new employees, and the increase in their number required a change in the basic principles teamwork. In growing companies, two interrelated processes took place: on the one hand, the specialization of employees in unlimited functions and areas of work, on the other hand, the alienation of people from business and the formation of employee-employer relationships. The more numerous a company becomes, the less it can manage with the old ways of self-regulating activities. Starting from some critical point, businesses can no longer function and develop normally without objectified management mechanisms alienated from people. Necessary condition maintaining manageability becomes the allocation of management as a special activity (regular management), systematically carried out by managers with a management function assigned to them. The content of managerial activity is planning, setting tasks and their distribution among performers, coordinating the work of individual team members, monitoring the progress and results of tasks, motivational effects on performers. Starting from the second half of the 90s, the owners of growing businesses began to feel the need for internal order, the introduction of rules and principles for joint work, and the creation of mechanisms organizational management. In other words, the need for regular management.

Russian business organizations arose at a historical break, in conditions of deep destabilization of the economy and all public institutions. Our business - a child of risk, chaos and heroic efforts - has lived and continues to live in conditions of low predictability, rapid changes in the layout of the markets, constant changes in the rules of the game with the state from its very birth. Even today, in the era of relative stabilization of the business environment, the pace of its changes is much higher than those that took place during the post-war unfreezing of the US economies and Western Europe when the MBO management technology appeared. For these reasons, Russian businessmen - especially those who managed to overcome the crisis of 1998 - were initially characterized by sensitivity to what is happening around them, the desire to predict events, and a quick and accurate reaction to changes. The experience of consulting work with business organizations shows that the majority of business owners and managers perceived and perceive the idea of MVO as close and understandable, and in the management procedures of MVO they see an organic and useful tool, meeting the challenges of managing growing companies. At the same time, the idea of a business as a cyclically functioning machine, in which "every sneeze is regulated" - as a whole turned out to be less close and attractive to the founders and leaders of Russian companies.

The order of setting control systems

The transformation of primary business teams into organizations equipped with management systems and tools is a natural process that began in the mid-1990s and continues to this day. Some go through this path more slowly, others faster, some use the services of consulting companies - others prefer to act independently. The owners have long realized that a long "stuck" on primary forms running a business threatens to lose positions in the market, and sometimes the loss of the business itself. They are actively implementing management tools, and the results-based management system is one of the most effective.

Comparing the ongoing development of the MVO system in Russia today with similar processes of the 50s, one cannot fail to notice that Russian business organizations are characterized by the reverse order of setting management technologies. In most cases, the MVO system is not built on top of the already established mechanisms of functioning and “management by deviations”, but is developed and implemented either in parallel or even before control over the current functioning is established.

The "reverse" order of building management systems in companies is a consequence of two circumstances. First, there was a greater willingness to MVO on the part of business owners, whose entrepreneurial experience is in many respects consonant with the principles of this system. As already noted, many Russian businessmen are distrustful of the prospect of functionalization, formalization and "bureaucratization", and the more dynamic the company operates in, the more such fears. If, along with the construction of a functional structure, the implementation of the MBO takes place, then this allows balancing and compensating for such threats of splitting the company into functional cells as bureaucratization, poor accessibility of significant information about the company, delaying decision-making, slipping the meaning of work from business goals to maintaining permanent procedures. Supplementing the creation of an organizational structure with an MBO system (or KPI, or BSC) does not allow the team to become isolated on internal procedures, it focuses it on the implementation of strategic tasks, on the achievement of real business results.

There is another reason why in organizations with no articulated management, MBO becomes the starting point for setting up regular management: it is the MBO cycle, even if carried out in a truncated form and only for the general manager, that turns out to be the only possible first step from which to systematically, without postponing to an indefinite future, the design, coordination and implementation of the elements of the functional structure, i.e. deviation control systems.

Summarizing the experience of consulting projects, an essential part of which was the establishment of regular management in business organizations, it can be argued that measures to improve manageability give the best results in cases where the establishment of an MVO and the introduction of a functional structure (a management system for deviations) are carried out in a complex manner, as a single bidirectional process.

In order for “management by deviations” to become possible and work at least at the level of divisions, it is necessary to structure the company, establish the boundaries, functions and composition of its divisions. This in itself is a large-scale task, the solution of which is within the competence of the general manager and logically becomes one of the points of his planned assignment when setting up the MVO. However, in order for the MVO to work in full force, for a significant number of managers and specialists to be involved in it, for the company as a whole to be mobilized to solve key tasks, it is necessary to have a sufficiently deep structuring of the company “from top to bottom” and delimitation of areas of competence at all levels, from a top manager to an ordinary employee. In companies with a vague structure and undistributed responsibility, a reasonable decomposition of the manager's tasks into subtasks of subordinates often becomes impossible, and MVO is applicable only at the highest hierarchical level. Thus, the most effective way to establish regular management in Russian companies- this is a parallel implementation of the MVO and the functional structure of the company, in which the results obtained in one of the directions become a condition for moving in the other direction.

Mechanism of strategic management or managerial frame of a consulting project?

By its nature and purpose, the MBO is the main tool of strategic management, which allows annually or at other intervals to mobilize and “retarget” the entire company to tasks that are adequate to the current situation, current market opportunities, and the current state of the business. Accordingly, the task of setting management based on results largely coincides with the task of setting a strategic management system. The only difference is that in addition to the MVO, the strategic management system includes such a component as long-term strategic planning.

At the same time, many consulting projects - in cases where they are associated with the reorganization of the company, changes in basic processes and other equally large-scale innovations and involve the participation of consultants not only in the design, but also in the implementation of changes - often include setting MVO regardless of the presence or absence of a request for staging strategic planning. A completely different problem comes to the fore here, namely the problem of the status of an external consultant in an organization.

The fact is that if the forms of involving consultants in the design of organizational changes are well developed and usually do not raise questions, then with their involvement in implementation work, everything is far from being so simple. On what basis can an external consultant participate in the implementation and take some responsibility for its results? Should he take on some of the functions of full-time managers? If not, how is it possible for him to interfere in the work of the organization? If so, on what legal grounds? And how to avoid his conflicts with full-time managers, which are often simply inevitable due to the mismatch of positions and interests?

It is this problem that is being solved by means of MVO - the most powerful of all known ways of involving consultants in the real activities of the company, in the daily work of managers and specialists. This is achieved due to the fact that the goals of the consulting project are duplicated in the planned task of the general manager and then, according to the “top-down” hierarchy, are decomposed into subtasks of specialists and managers of a lower rank. As soon as it is possible to complete the first cycle of planning and coordinating tasks, the consultant automatically acquires in the eyes of the manager both value and a quite definite status: the consultant turns into ... a resource for solving an important task, for the results of which he, the manager, is personally responsible. This positioning of the consultant in relation to the manager subsequently becomes a solid basis for their productive and conflict-free collaboration. MVO, therefore, can be used not only as a permanent mechanism for solving new tasks for the company, but also as a tool created for a specific one-time task, to assist in the solution of which consultants are invited. In fairness, it should be noted that even in cases where the task of building a strategic management system was not originally set, owners and general managers almost always recognize the value of MVO as a “one-time” tool and begin to use it in subsequent activities, that is, already as a permanent management mechanism. .

Implementation of the MVO as a "management school"

In many Russian companies with which we had to work, the introduction of MVO served not only as a start, but also as the main lever for establishing management as such. The fact is that a really working management system, the real manageability of a company is not just a procedural scheme or management principle. Equally important is the availability of specific managerial skills that are often in demand and significant for solving a variety of management tasks and within a variety of management paradigms. Usually, the process of implementing the MBO became a real “management school” and gave the heads of departments the opportunity to master universal, basic managerial skills - such as planning, realistic assessment of the timing of achieving results, setting tasks for subordinates, organizing the execution of these tasks, correlating tasks and required resources, correlating tasks and necessary powers, control of execution, determination of motivational measures depending on the achievement of results.

A powerful learning effect took place primarily due to the fact that in the theory and practice of MVO great attention is given to the procedural aspects of this method. MVO procedures are detailed and described in the literature; Considerable time is devoted to the development of procedures when organizing joint implementation work of consultants and managers. In contrast to the spontaneous practice of everyday management, when introducing the MVO, managers assimilate “advanced” models of managerial actions that meet the standards business administration: correct setting of tasks, precise formulations and performance criteria, comprehensive assessment of resources, etc. As a result, the manager's successive passage of all the steps of the MVO cycle is accompanied by their thorough, deep development.

Difficulties obstacles in the implementation of MVO

Summarizing the experience of setting up an MBO system in several dozen domestic businesses, we list the most typical difficulties, problems and mistakes that a company may encounter when implementing results-based management.

The business owner and general manager lack clear strategic business goals and sufficient will to mobilize themselves and company managers to achieve them. In this situation, any implementation attempts, as a rule, are doomed to failure. The introduction of MVO is a complex and time-consuming task, associated with a change in the usual ways of working, often causing misunderstanding and resistance among some of the staff. The tasks of such a plan are never solved in the absence of a powerful "engine" commensurate with their scale.
The company has not established a relatively "accident-free" course of life important processes routine functioning. For any employee and manager, it is natural to concentrate efforts primarily on unresolved current problems, and only secondarily on solving new problems. The presence of constant "hands on work" in the current functioning makes the setting of a large amount of new tasks not only difficult psychologically, but also dangerous for the existence of the company itself. In companies where confusion and dysfunction are so deep, the first step in setting up management should be to introduce not an MBO, but an elementary distribution of functions and responsibility for the results of various links in the main business processes.
The unwillingness of the company's management to comply with the developed and agreed conditions (for example, with a sharp increase in the productivity of execution - a predetermined remuneration may be reduced retroactively). Cases of gross violation of the "rules of the game" by leaders lead to the discrediting of the MVO as a management tool. Sometimes such violations can be caused not by the arbitrariness of the leadership, but by objective circumstances. In this case, one of the possible directions of prevention is a thorough study of the motivational part of the MVO, its correlation with the financial capabilities and plans of the company, consideration of different scenarios and taking measures to manage the corresponding risks.
The unwillingness of general managers to delegate responsibility for solving assigned tasks, as well as the unwillingness of their subordinates to accept this responsibility. The problem is usually solved through significant personnel changes in the company, but to some extent it can be promoted through “educational” influences on the part of the business owner and consultants.
The unpreparedness of the owner and senior managers for personnel changes, as a result of which the leading managers in the management system, as a result, are people who are unable to work in the appropriate management style. In this case, the chances of a successful implementation of the MBO are usually small.
Lack of sufficient information openness and transparency in the company. The awareness of MBO participants about strategic goals, about the current situation in the company and on the market is of fundamental importance for the success of the entire system. The main purpose of the MBO is to increase business agility. What will happen if, with insufficient awareness, the adjustment of goals, the “checking of hours” between the manager and subordinates will take place strictly according to the regulations and only at the moments of intermediate control? First, the actions of individual employees given as assignments to various parts of their manager's task will become inflexible and uncoordinated. Everyone will concentrate on their task without being tied to the terrain, not focusing on the meaning and place of this task in the general movement of the company. As a result, the actions of individuals will lose coherence, and the vector of the company's movement towards its goals will begin to blur. Secondly, such a situation makes employees blind and deaf not only to each other, but also to the external environment. Accordingly, the company's activity in the market will also lose its flexibility and become like a flight of an unguided projectile: the company will not be able to respond to changes and events that are significant for the business if they occur in the intervals between “checkpoints”. Information openness is the most important prerequisite effective work MVO, when the compliance of the work of the entire company and each of its employees with the set business goals can increase by an order of magnitude.
The lack of a clear link between results and rewards - for example, when the manager either reserves the assessment of the quality of the task, without formulating unambiguous and understandable criteria for the subordinate. Or when the manager arbitrarily sets the amount of remuneration, indicating fairly wide limits in the planned target.
Insufficient amount of remuneration to motivate staff (for example, $ 10 for an increase in sales by 30-50%), or unwillingness to individually approach the determination of remuneration for a particular contractor.
Unrealistic tasks, their inconsistency with the capabilities and resources of the company. To prevent errors of this kind in the practice of implementing MVO, much attention is paid to the careful development of strategic goals for the year and their comprehensive verification for compliance. real opportunities and constraints, both internal and external.
The inability of leaders to move from an authoritarian way of setting tasks to a subordinate to coordinating tasks, necessary resources and deadlines with him. A direct consequence of this inability is often a "game of coordination" and the formal acceptance of the task by subordinates. One of the ways to solve the problem is the mediation work of a consultant who can act as a link between the leader and his subordinate in the process of coordination.
The inability of the general and other managers to systematically monitor the implementation of planned targets by their subordinates. The MVO system requires systematic, "iron" control, with strict observance of previously established deadlines. Control, especially intermediate, in this case performs not only a “mobilization” function, but also allows the leader to correct the actions of subordinates in time in accordance with current situation. Strange as it may seem, in many Russian companies there is no regular control by managers (especially top managers) of the work of subordinates. One possible, although not always working, way to solve the problem is to assign technical aspects control over the secretariat, senior management assistants or administrative unit.
Unwillingness of the head to provide the necessary resources, for example, to achieve good work of related services that affect the results of the work of the performer, devoid of any levers of influence on these services.
Decomposition errors: incomplete or distorted reflection of the tasks of a superior manager in the tasks of his subordinates.
Errors in determining the resources and permissions required to complete a task. Errors of this kind are easily corrected during intermediate control, when both the manager and his subordinate begin to see more fully and clearly the real picture of all the conditions on which the achievement of the result depends.
Non-distinguishing between the MVO participants of the tasks of the current functioning and the tasks of the design type, which constitute the specific content of the MVO. This is manifested, in particular, in the fact that tasks begin to be included in the planned tasks, most of which are the functional duties of the performer. This error is not critical for implementation, but it can distort the motivation system, provoke mutual misunderstanding and conflicts, and lead to unjustified time wasted, including additional paperwork.

The above list of "pitfalls" of the MVO - far from complete, but nevertheless impressive - suggests the following obvious conclusion. Ill-considered attempts to implement a results-based management system, lack of flexibility and a sufficiently deep understanding of the real situation in the company - can lead to insurmountable resistance from staff, disruptions in work, the loss of valuable employees and a significant deterioration in organizational culture.

The main parameters of the MVO and the processes of its implementation

The history of the formation of Russian business organizations, their internal organization, features of the market environment surrounding them - all this leaves a stamp of originality and causes many differences between our companies and their counterparts in countries where the history of business has more than one century. Let us give a small comparison of the empirically established parameters of the “MVO in Russian” with those prescribed by the “classical” ideas about the MVO (see table).

Table

MVO parameter		Optimum for Russian companies	Main reasons for differences
*scheduling horizon*	1 year	Combination of annual tasks and tasks for half a year: those that are less dependent on the external environment and more voluminous are set for a year, and those that meet the general strategic goals and obvious only in the near future - for 6 months.	1. High dynamism Russian markets, due to which the tasks set at the beginning of the year may lose their relevance in the second half of the year 2. Insufficient experience and level of development of planning skills among managers
Number of tasks in the planned task	6-8	12-25 per year for top managers Up to 15 per year for specialists and field managers	1. A large number of strategic tasks in the face of growing markets and increased competition 2. A large number of internal tasks of the actual organizational building associated with the formulation of regular management
*Frequency of control*	In accordance with the planned deadlines for completing tasks and receiving meaningful results	Monthly or at least quarterly. In order for the control to be meaningful, any task already in the course of planning must be divided into successive stages and the intermediate results of the month / quarter should be highlighted.	Insufficient rooted culture of regular management, insufficient development of control and self-control skills The need for a gradual transition to the independence required by the MHE system on the part of executors and readiness for delegation on the part of task managers. The need to form a setting for the inevitability of control among task managers and performers

In the translated literature on MVO, the issue of such an MVO parameter as penetration depth. What is the optimal scope for this system to cover the hierarchical levels of the organization? Should all employees of the company go through elementary results-based management cycles and have planned targets?

The experience of working with Russian companies shows that there are clear restrictions on the “depth” of MVO immersion in the organizational hierarchy. Two factors are decisive here. Firstly, the more hierarchical levels of management in the company, the more time is required to develop and agree on plan targets. IN large companies, even if they have been using the MBO for more than a year, the limit is indicated when trying to bring the decomposition and coordination of tasks to the third level under the general manager. It is here that the time for setting and coordinating tasks becomes commensurate with the required deadlines for their implementation, which deprives the MVO system of the advantages of flexibility and efficiency. Secondly, starting from a certain level of task decomposition, their further fragmentation may turn out to be either inappropriate or impossible. Why try to decompose the task “into molecules” in advance, if a reasonable way of such decomposition can be found only in the very process of its implementation? What is the point of a separate reward for completing tasks if their scale, content, volume do not go beyond the limits of current assignments, which already fit into functional responsibilities employee?

It should also be taken into account that the very content of the current strategic tasks of the company at one stage or another does not always require a large-scale, commensurate with the MBO procedures, participation in their solution by all managers and specialists without exception.

It should be noted that the above features of the use of MVO in Russian companies are more technical details and do not affect the essence and basic principles of this management system. As for the precedents and results of the implementation of MVO in domestic business organizations, they turned out to be very impressive. Many of the companies that have tried to implement MVO have been able to make a quick breakthrough in their development due to this, or to get out of serious crises with minimal losses.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.P. Drakker"Management for Results", translated from English, M., 1994.

2.Santalainen T., Voutilainen E., Porenne P., Nissinen J. H., p/r Laimann J. A."Management by results", translated from Finnish, M., "PROGRESS", 1993

4. Borrowing foreign experience in public administration: mechanisms, problems and prospects.

5. The evolution of the form of government in the Russian Federation and the problem of constitutional reform

6. Forms of government: general overview, specifics of Russia

Additionally (on the issue of employment)

54. The formation of the system of state administration in the Muscovite state in the 15-16 centuries. The influence of this historical stage of development on the features of the modern model of Russian statehood.

55. The evolution of Russian statehood in the 17th century. The influence of this historical stage of development on the features of the modern model of Russian statehood.

56. Formation and evolution of the control system of the Russian Empire in the 18th century. The influence of this historical stage of development on the features of the modern model of Russian statehood.

57. Bourgeois reforms of the second half of the 19th century: role in the development of Russian statehood

58. Features of the Soviet system of recruiting managerial personnel, and its impact on the crisis and the collapse of the USSR.

59. The influence of the features of the historical development of Russian statehood on the modern model of public administration

60. Problems of training and retraining of personnel for public authorities and local self-government.

61. Organization of work to comply with the requirements for official behavior and the settlement of conflicts of interest in public authorities.

62. The problem of creating objective and transparent mechanisms for the competitive selection of candidates for the state (municipal) service.

63. Business assessment of the activities of state (municipal) employees.

64. Management by results: improving the system of motivation and incentives for civil servants, taking into account the effectiveness of their work.

65. Formation of a personnel reserve and a reserve of managerial personnel in public authorities. Reserve efficiency.

66. Career management of state (municipal) employees.

67. Personnel policy and mechanisms for its implementation.

68. The concept of an electronic document. Problems of using electronic documents in the activities of state authorities and local governments.

69. Structure, principles of organization, directions of reforming the budgetary system of Russia.

70.Content, principles of organization and innovations in the reform of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation.

Additionally

71. Forms of financial support for the provision of state and municipal services.

72. Tax powers of public law entities; elements; anchoring criteria; reform innovations.

73. The main directions and instruments of state regional policy in modern Russia

74. Problem regions: concept, types and mechanisms of rehabilitation

75. Strategic priorities for regional socio-economic development

76. The role of organizational culture in the functioning and development of state and municipal bodies

77. Management by results in state and municipal organizations. Basic elements and problems of implementation.

78. The main problems of documentary support of public administration, the practice of their solution.

79. Types of decisions in executive government bodies and technologies for their development

80. Strategic plans of municipalities: composition and role

81. Program-target planning in state and municipal government

82. The effectiveness of the activities of public authorities and local self-government. Regulatory Framework, Criteria and Assessment Practices

83. The administration of the municipality as an organization: mission, resources, organizational management structures, performance results.

84. Features of nepotism in Russian public administration.

85. State and municipal socio-economic programs.

86. Prospects and problems of Russia's accession to the WTO. Opportunities and threats for the Russian Federation associated with accession to the WTO.

87. State policy in the field of defense: problems and prospects.

88. Prospects for constitutional reform in modern Russia.

89. Reforming the Russian bureaucracy: legal basis, implementation, problems.

90. The main problems of pr in the system of activities of public authorities and local self-government. Perspectives for their resolution.

77. Management by results in government and municipal organizations. Basic elements and problems of implementation.

results management- this is a special approach to management tasks that arose with the complication of the content and interrelations of processes carried out within organizations, with the variety of their forms, intensity, in connection with which there was a need for their maximum structuring and the use of formalized assessments.

Management by results is more relevant the more complex the state apparatus is and the public sector in general, the more varied the tasks, the higher the risks of uncontrollability and bureaucratic arbitrariness

Like business organizations, government agencies produce products and services - therefore, the effectiveness of their activities is measurable.

Idea:State organization A country that is able to clearly define its products can achieve a high level of production, which in turn improves its efficiency and effectiveness and gives legitimacy to the activities of the state. Therefore: The results of the work of public authorities are often difficult to assess due to the versatility of their activities.

A dilemma arises: 1- it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of work when it is the result of joint activities ;2 - when there is a significant time lag between the action and the result. 3 -On the one side, government agencies are increasingly required to quantify the results of their work; on the other side However, the effectiveness of these institutions can only be measured up to a certain limit.

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 25, 2005 No. 1789-r “On the Concept of Administrative Reform in the Russian Federation 2006-2010”, in which the UPR, among other measures, is in the first place from the list and involves the introduction of a program-targeted budgeting, i.e. performance-based budgeting (RBB).

results management- this is a technology applicable at all levels of management, based on the adoption of management decisions, formed on the basis of the results of assessing the activities of the subject of management and including subsystems for planning, analyzing, evaluating and adjusting the changing states of the observed object based on specified criteria and indicators.

The purpose of this direction is the implementation of results-based management methods and procedures, and project management in government at all levels.

The introduction of results-oriented management mechanisms will improve the efficiency of resource use and the responsibility of authorities for the results of work and the achievement of targets.

Key elements of results-based management in G&M organizations:

Creation and implementation of an integrated system of departmental and interdepartmental planning and project management according to the goals and results of activities, competitive distribution of resources between departments and control over the achievement of the results of their activities;

Development of key measurable indicators of the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities of executive authorities in the main areas of their activities in accordance with the strategic goals of the state;

Implementation of goal-setting technologies and procedures that ensure the binding of goals to specific performers, the development of indicators that allow to adequately assess the degree of achievement of the set goals and the actions of the performers taken to achieve these goals;

Development and implementation of management accounting, which allows allocating resources for the tasks set, as well as ensuring control over the achievement of results and determining the personal responsibility of managers and officials for the solution of these tasks;

Development and implementation of an internal audit system that allows evaluating the effectiveness of the activities of structural units and officials responsible for solving the tasks set, as well as assessing the effectiveness of budget expenditures;

Implementation of a system of regular assessment of risks that impede the achievement of the intended goals;

Implementation of management mechanisms for organizations subordinate to executive authorities.

Problems, hindering the formation of a results-oriented management system.

There are no methods for calculating performance indicators for a number of the most important areas of activity of federal executive bodies.

A system for collecting and processing information necessary to form a sufficient set of target values of performance indicators, and a system for monitoring their achievement have not been created.

Government employees do not necessary knowledge and skills for such work, as well as motivation for its implementation.

lack of a methodology for calculating indicators for a number of key areas of activity;

Problems:

Organizational and methodological problems (lack of routine procedures)

There is no high-quality and timely information and analytical support for all procedures

lack of correlation between the amount of allocated appropriations and activities aimed at achieving socially significant results;

The introduction of results-based management entails a significant change in the behavior of the staff, which causes strong resistance. Disadvantages of the personnel motivation system. To overcome it, resources, political support and infrastructure adequate to the task being solved are required.

Inconsistency between objectives and budgetary funding in the report on results and main lines of action (DROND).

The need to synchronize the Main provisions of the state policy in the field of culture with the strategic plans of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, regional targeted programs in the field of culture (goals, strategies, management systems).

Federal executive authorities live by annual plans/reports that are not linked to results-based management.

Problems of estimated indicators and the system of state reporting.

Difficulties in coordinating the implementation of results-based management with other stakeholders (FOIV, constituent entities of the Russian Federation, etc.).

Existing automated information systems do not support results-based management.

The public administration reform has not affected the organizational culture and is rather cosmetic.

Conclusion: Without solving the issues of informatization, financial and personnel issues, the creation of a result-oriented management system is impossible.

We recommend reading

How to make real money online without investment

Earnings on the Internet without investment and deception. Websites where you can really...

Business for a million rubles Business if there is a million

In the event that you want to open your own business, but do not have ...

Franchise - what is it, types of franchises and how they work

A franchise is a right to sell granted to an individual or group of individuals...