True to say: to learn to manage, you need to be able to obey. The most forward-thinking among us try to master this: to follow orders and put our soul into the company. Let's not tell them about it, but if between us, everyone controls and everyone obeys. Society, in a global sense, is built on different models of managing the social system. Are you asking what it is? It is, no more, no less, your life. But let's start, as usual, vaguely - with theory, and analyze the sociological management models.
Concept
Social management is created, oddly enough, to control human resources. And we don't say "resources" for nothing. This type of management involves precisely the impact in order to obtain any benefit. I.econtrol is not due to concern about lest people accidentally get hurt or upset. No, social management is control, the effectiveness of which is measured by material, practical results.
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 is important, but the process of control itself. And here we immediately see the differences: soft, passive philosophy and hard, assertive sociology. Ethics is not included in today's topic; shown here is just an example of the differences between control types.
Social management is applied in models of socio-economic systems. That is, it is used in almost all spheres of public life: personnel control, workflow optimization, impact on the general public. As already mentioned, it is the result that is important, which means that different options for organizing the control process are provided. To do this, there are several models of social management and influence on the confrontation of information in society.
The concept of governance model
Model is a purely theoretical thing. She shows how it should be. This is especially evident in the mass production process. Let's take a wonderful car - "Lada Kalina". To produce this know-how, hundreds of engineers and designers did not sleep long nights. Years of work have paid off - the car is ready. Buthe is only one, but you need a lot. So this first copy will serve as a model for further copies.
About the management model is the model of our previous concept model 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, the ideal situation. But, as we know from the Lada Kalina example, reality is often very different from theory, and not for the better. Our today's topic is no exception, but let's not be unfounded and take a closer look at it. Let's start with three models of social management: subordination, coordination, coordination.
Subordination
Draw a vertical line and place labels on it in ascending order. This "schedule" will be the subordination. The point is that each part controls the one below it. That is, power increases as you move up.
There is control in both directions, each structure directly affects the others. That is, if the initiative comes from above, then it affects every part of the system until it descends to the lowest. The lower takes some action, and the initiative is sent back. Now, as you move "up", each structure exercises its 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" it was alreadyperformance being monitored.
Pros of subordination
The main advantage of subordination is the release of management from unnecessary responsibilities. For example, if management had to plan to solve all the problems on its own, then this would be extremely inefficient. Subordination, on the other hand, gives each structure responsibility for a limited range of duties, 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 needed. Control from higher structures, of course, slows down this process, but it will never be possible anywhere without it.
Disadvantages of subordination
The weak side of the subordinate model of social development management is unresolved problems. When seemingly insignificant questions are left without affection and attention, they begin to act up. They grow and grow until they become a major problem. And then, due to the dispersal of forces at different points, the ship of subordination leaks. Often at such moments, special committees or bodies are created to deal with a major problem. And such "cleaners" work according to the coordination system, which we will consider a little later.
Exampleschain of command
Due to its advantage, subordination is more often used in large systems involving a wide range of the same type of problems. For example, the executive branch. Without delving into it, we can distinguish 4 stages: executive authorities, administration, government, president. The decree comes from the president, the government accepts it and sends it to the administration, from where appropriate instructions are issued to the executive authorities. Control over execution is carried out from the side of each higher structure towards the lower one.
A more mundane example is military formations, the army. Subordination there occurs, as a rule, due to subordination. The lower ranks are subordinate to the higher ones. The institute is vast, so such a system works well. The order comes from above, the officers strain their vocal cords, the soldiers cross themselves and go to fulfill. At the same time, the general does not even know what the ordinary people live there - this is not his area. Officers are responsible for skinhead patriots. That is, each structure is limited in its responsibility and controlled by the higher one.
As soon as the executive branch takes certain measures, management is sent higher. The administration controls the quality of execution and "hands over" the government, which, in turn, controls the administration itself. According to this principle - subordination - the functioning of the apparatus of power takes place.
Coordination
Erase the vertical line - it won't work for us anymorecome in handy: now it's time for the horizontal. Place your palm perpendicular to the nose - get a line that explains the coordination system. All marks on this line are equivalent to each other. No hierarchy like in subordination, only equality, only hardcore.
Control in the coordination system is not needed, because all 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 stands side by side, holding hands in unison. Is that only "Unbreakable Union" is not sung.
Pros of coordination
The main advantage of such a system is the quick solution of problems. As soon as the insolent stands in front of a coordinated company, he is quickly eliminated. Fire is fired at one target at a time. Planned and systematic. A distinctive quality is the equality of each structure of the system. All have the same value, there are no chiefs, no subordinates; everyone needs each other and no one is more important than the other.
The most effective system of coordination in the face of large and small problems. Subordination hits the most urgent issues at the same time, slowing down the process of formation of difficulties. So it is effective when there are many problems and they cannot be crushed at the root - you only have to "press the enemy." Coordination appears in all its glory in solving major issues. If the problem has grown, then it is a great danger to the system. At such moments, coordination comes up to the receiver and hears: "Here you need to deal with someone." And all, in no timethe problem will be cut down to the very root.
Cons of coordination
The disadvantage of the coordination model of socio-economic development management lies in the lack of flexibility. The whole structure is "sharpened" for the joint solution of the same type of issues. As soon as problems begin to fall from all sides, uncertainty sets in. While one area is being solved, the second grows to an incredible size. Such a process is often triggered when a group of people grows and it becomes impossible to cover all the problems that come with it.
Examples of coordination
Coordination is used in the context of narrower systems that are responsible for specific issues of the same type. For example, the courts. Their tasks differ only in details, but the main goal is to follow the law and administer 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, within each of these structures there is a hierarchy, and hence subordination. For example, arbitration courts contain several parts: arbitration courts of subjects, arbitration courts of districts, federal arbitration courts and the supreme arbitration court. There is a hierarchy among them, at the top of which is the Supreme Arbitration Court. Each structure is subordinate to the one above.
A closer example to solid ground is communities,communes. Everyone works for the common good, everyone is equal among themselves. There are some respected members of the society, but they are more like advisers, not bosses: they are listened to, but they have no right to order. And for such small communities, the coordination system works remarkably well, because it is good precisely due to the small size of the commune. 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 "jump" due to the inability to have time to resolve all issues.
Reordination
Coordination is a bit more complicated. In fact, this is the same subordination, with only one important difference - subordination goes "from the bottom up". But then why not just turn the chain of command upside down and reinvent the wheel? Not so simple. Such submission is not directional. Reordination does not mean that each lower structure controls the higher one. No wonder such a system is called "resubordination". Submission seems to alternate.
The thing is that a certain hierarchy is still present: whoever is higher is 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 reordination, each higher authority depends on the lower one. The initiative comes not from above, "from the authorities", but from below - "from subordinates". For example, a proposal is put forward, an order for itnot issued from above. This proposal goes from bottom to top, passing through the stages of control at each point. As a result, he goes to the authorities.
Conclusion
All the systems described above have their pros and cons, one is objectively no better than the other, each one is just 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 are working, while others, who are responsible for a different area, are sitting idle. Such an irresponsible waste of human strength 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, then 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 such a scheme, the structure sooner or later collapses under the influence of external attacks.
Reordination models and methods of social management have not yet been studied in practice enough to talk about specific examples. However, the disadvantages here are similar to subordination. Supervisory authorities may not be competent enough in the matters they manage. Often, due to such a misunderstanding, the correct functioning of the system is disrupted. In general, reordination is a prime example of howmodel of social management does not exist in most modern organizations. However, the color on the screen did not immediately take root.
All these systems often alternate. The system of subordination carries in each individual structure the system of coordination, or vice versa. So they are rare in their pure form.
