It is rightly said: in order to learn to manage, you must be able to obey. The most far-sighted of us are trying to master this: follow orders and put our soul into the company. We will not talk to them about this, but if between us, everyone controls and everyone obeys. Society, in a global sense, is built on different models of managing the social system. You ask what it is? This, no more no less - your life. But let's start, as usual, foggy - with theory, and analyze social management models.
The concept
Strange as it may seem, social management was created to control human resources. And we are not in vain saying "resources." This type of management involves precisely the impact in order to obtain any benefit. That is, control is not due to concern about how people accidentally get hurt or upset. No, social management is control, the effectiveness of which is evaluated by the material, practical result.
Ethics, for example, controls the moral manifestations of a person, monitors the "spirituality" of relationships. There are various teachings for this: what is good, what is bad, what is acceptable and what is ugly. For ethics, it is not the result that matters, but the control process itself. And here we immediately see the differences: soft, passive philosophy and solid, assertive sociology. Ethics is not included in today's topic; it is indicated here only as an example of the differences between the types of control.
Social management is applied in models of socio-economic systems. That is, it is used in almost all spheres of public life: personnel control, optimization of the work process, impact on the broad public masses. As already mentioned, it is the result that is important, which means that various options are provided for organizing the control process. For this, there are several models of social management and the impact on the confrontation of information in society.
Management model concept
A model is a purely theoretical thing. She shows how it should be. This is especially evident in the process of mass production. Take a wonderful car - “Lada Kalina”. To produce this know-how, hundreds of engineers and designers did not sleep long nights. Years of work yielded results - the car is ready. But he is only one, and you need a lot. So this first copy will serve as a model for further copies.
As for the management model, this is the model of our previous model of the concept of model. Well, don’t worry about building a chain. The management model is what the control process should theoretically look like. All its details, subtleties and sharp corners. In general, an ideal situation. But, as we know from the Lada Kalina example, often reality is very different from theory, and not for the better. Our topic today is not an exception, but we will not be unfounded and take a closer look at it. Let's start with three models of social management: subordination, coordination, and reordination.
Subordination
Draw a vertical line and place marks on it in ascending order. This "schedule" will be the subordination. The point is that each part controls the one below. That is, power increases as you move up.
There is control in both directions, each structure directly affects the rest. That is, if the initiative comes from above, then it affects every part of the system until it goes down to the lowest. The lowest takes any measures, and the initiative is sent back. Now, as you move up, each structure has its own control. That is, if on the way down it was something like an order, and each structure performed its part, then on the way up this is already execution, which is being monitored.
The advantages of subordination
The main advantage of subordination is the release of management from unnecessary responsibilities. For example, if management had to plan a solution to all problems on their own, then this would be extremely inefficient. Subordination, on the other hand, gives responsibility to each structure for a limited range of responsibilities, while control at every step of the system is carried out by a higher structure.
An equally important advantage is the flexibility of the system. Each part is responsible for a certain range of concerns, which means that diverse tasks are well solved. That is, all forces are not concentrated on one specific area, but are "scattered" as necessary. Control by higher structures, of course, slows down this process, but without it, it will never do anywhere.
Cons of subordination
The weak side of the subordination model of social development management is unresolved problems. When seemingly insignificant questions are left without affection and attention, they begin to act up. Grow and grow until they turn into a serious problem. And then, due to the dispersal of forces at different points, the ship of subordination gives a leak. Often at such moments special committees or bodies are created to deal with a major problem. And such "cleaners" work according to a coordination system, which we will consider a little later.
Examples of subordination
Due to its advantage, subordination is more often used in large systems involving an extensive range of similar problems. For example, the executive branch. Without delving, we can distinguish 4 steps: executive authorities, administration, government, president. The decree comes from the president, the government accepts it and sends it to the administration, from where relevant instructions are issued to executive authorities. Control over the implementation is carried out by each higher structure in the direction of the lower.
A more mundane example is military units, the army. Submission there occurs, as a rule, due to subordination. The lower ranks obey the higher. The institute is vast, so such a system works well. The order comes from above, the officers strain the vocal cords, the soldiers are baptized and go to fulfill. At the same time, the General does not even know what ordinary people live there - this is not his area. The officers are responsible for the skinhead patriots. That is, each structure is limited in its responsibility and controlled by a higher.
As soon as the executive takes certain measures, management is sent higher. The administration controls the quality of execution and “hands over the move” to the government, which, in turn, controls the administration itself. By this principle - subordination - the functioning of the apparatus of power takes place.
Coordination
Erase the vertical line - it will not be useful to us anymore: now the time has come for horizontal. Place your palm perpendicular to your nose to get a line that explains the coordination system. All marks on this line are equivalent to each other. No hierarchy, as in subordination, only equality, only hardcore.
Control in the coordination system is not needed, because all the forces are thrown in one direction. We look at the horizontal line that we drew, and we are convinced of this. There is no hierarchy, everyone is standing nearby, holding hands together. Unless only “Indestructible Union” is not sung.
The benefits of coordination
The main advantage of such a system is a quick solution to problems. As soon as the insolent confronts a coordinated company, it is quickly eliminated. Fire is fired at one target at a time. Systematically and systematically. A distinctive quality is the equality of each system structure. All have the same meaning, no principal, no subordinates; all need each other and no one is more important than the other.
The coordination system is most effective in conditions of large and small problems. Subordination hits the most pressing issues at the same time, slowing down the process of creating difficulties. So it is effective when there are a lot of problems and they cannot be crushed at the root - you only have to "crush the enemy." Coordination appears in all its glory in solving major issues. If the problem has expanded, it means a great danger to the system. At such moments, coordination comes to the handset and hears: "Here you need to deal with someone." And all, in the shortest possible time the problem will be cut down to the very root.
Cons coordination
The minus of the coordination model of managing socio-economic development lies in the lack of flexibility. The whole structure is “imprisoned” for a joint solution of the same issues. As soon as problems begin to fall from all sides, uncertainty sets in. While one area is being decided, the second is growing to incredible sizes. Such a process often starts when a group of people grows, and it becomes impossible to cover all the problems associated with it.
Coordination Examples
Coordination is used in the conditions of narrower systems that are responsible for specific questions of the same type. For example, the courts. Their tasks differ only in details, but the main goal is to follow the law and bring justice. Constitutional courts, courts of general jurisdiction, arbitration courts, etc. Their forces are directed towards the protection of human rights.
Important note! While the above courts operate on the principle of coordination, each of these structures has its own hierarchy, and therefore subordination. For example, arbitration courts contain several parts: the arbitration courts of the constituent entities, the arbitration courts of the districts, the federal arbitration courts and the highest arbitration court. Among them there is a hierarchy, at the top of which is the Supreme Arbitration Court. Each structure is subordinate to a superior.
A closer example to solid land is communities, communes. Everyone works for the common good, all are equal to each other. There are some respected members of society, but they are more like advisers, not bosses: they listen to them, but they have no right to order. And for such small communities, the coordination system works wonderfully, because it is good precisely because of the small number of communes. There are few problems, and they are quickly resolved. However, as soon as the community expands greatly, the problems increase in direct proportion to the growth, and the coordination system begins to "junk" because of the inability to manage to resolve all issues.
Reordination
With reordination, things are a little more complicated. In fact, this is the same subordination, with only one important difference - submission is from bottom to top. But why then just not turn the subordination upside down and not invent a bicycle? Not so simple. Such submission is not directional. Re-coordination does not mean that each subordinate structure controls the superior. No wonder such a system is called "reassignment." Submission seems to alternate.
The thing is that a certain hierarchy is still present: who is higher and more important, because our vertical line has returned to us. The main detail is the influence of each structure on another. In the context of re-ordination, each higher authority is dependent on the lower. The initiative does not come from above, "from the authorities", but from below - "from subordinates." For example, any proposal is put forward, no order was issued from above. This proposal goes from bottom to top, passing the control stage at each point. As a result, he goes to the authorities.
Output
All the systems described above have their pros and cons, one objectively is not better than the other, just each is created for certain conditions.
The subordination model of managing a social organization is useful for large entities with many diverse issues. If the community is small and problems arise only in a certain area, then subordination begins to harm the system. Some work, while others who are responsible for another area are sitting idle. Such an irresponsible waste of human power does not pass without a trace, destroying the structure from the inside.
Coordination often finds its application in small structures, where all problems are concentrated mainly in one area. When the community grows, the areas of problems begin to expand, and, due to the lack of flexibility, the system does not have time to cover them in time. With this scheme, the structure sooner or later collapses under the influence of external attacks.
The coordination models and methods of social management have not yet been studied in practice to speak of concrete examples. However, the disadvantages here are similar to subordination. Supervisory authorities may not be competent in matters that are managed. Often, due to such a misunderstanding, the correct functioning of the system is disrupted. In general, reordination is a prime example of which model of social management does not exist in most modern organizations. However, the color on the screen did not immediately take root.
All of these systems often alternate. The subordination system carries in each separate structure a coordination system or vice versa. So in their pure form they are rare.