Introduction

Chapter 1. Strategic changes in the company

1.1 Essence strategic changes

1.2 Areas of strategic change in the company

1.3 Types of strategies for implementing changes in an organization

Chapter 2. Managing strategic changes in the company

2.1 Managing the implementation of strategic changes

2.2 Challenges of implementing strategic change

2.3 Methods for overcoming resistance to change

Chapter 3. Implementation of strategic changes in the Rosbytkhim company

Conclusion

List of used literature

Annex 1

22. Markova V.D., Kuznetsova S.A. Strategic management: Course of lectures. – M.: INFRA-M; Novosibirsk: Siberian Agreement, 1999. – P. 203-204.

23. Meskon M. Fundamentals of management. M.: Delo, 199224. Popov S. A. Strategic management: Vision is more important than knowledge. - Moscow: “Delo”, 2003

25. Popov S.A. Strategic management: 17-module program for managers “Managing Organizational Development”. Module 4. – M.: “INFRA-M”, 1999. – P. 202.

26. Radugin A.A. Fundamentals of management. M., 199727. Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 200428. Samygin S.I., Stolyarenko L.D. etc. Personnel management. Rostov n/d., 200129. Stolyarenko L.D. Fundamentals of Psychology: Ed. 2nd, add. and processing – Rostov n/d: “Phoenix”, 200130. Sukhov A.N. Social Psychology– M.: Academy, 200231. Thompson A., Strickland J. “Strategic Management”. M.: "Banks and Exchanges", 2001.

Annex 1

Types of change strategies

Appendix 2

Methods for overcoming resistance to change

Implementation of the strategy involves carrying out the necessary changes, without which even the most well-developed strategy can fail. Therefore, we can confidently say that strategic change is the key to strategy execution.

Carrying out strategic change in an organization is a very difficult task. The difficulties in solving this problem are primarily due to the fact that any change is met resistance, which can sometimes be so strong that it cannot be overcome by those making changes. Therefore, in order to make changes, it is necessary, at a minimum, to do the following:

Reveal, analyze and predict what resistance the planned change may encounter;

Reduce this resistance (potential and real) to the minimum possible;

Establish the status quo of a new state.

The bearers of resistance, as well as the bearers of change, are people. In principle, people are not afraid of change, they are afraid of being changed. People are afraid that changes in the organization will affect their work, their position in the organization, i.e. the existing status quo. Therefore, they strive to prevent changes in order not to find themselves in a new situation that is not entirely clear to them, in which they will have to do things differently than they are already used to doing, and do something different from what they did before.

Attitude to change can be considered as a combination of states of two factors: 1) acceptance or non-acceptance of change; 2) open or hidden demonstration of attitude towards change (Fig. 5.3).

Fig 5 3 Matrix “change - resistance”

The management of the organization, based on conversations, interviews, questionnaires and other forms of information collection, should try to find out what type of reaction to changes will be observed in the organization, which of the organization's employees will take the position of supporters of the changes, and who will end up in one of the three remaining positions. This type of forecast is especially relevant in large organizations and in organizations that have existed without change for a fairly long period of time, since in these organizations resistance to change can be quite strong and widespread.

Reducing resistance to change plays a key role in implementing change. Analysis of potential forces of resistance allows us to reveal those individual members of the organization or those groups in the organization who will resist change, and to understand the motives for not accepting the change. In order to reduce potential resistance, it is useful to unite people into creative groups that will facilitate the change, involve a wide range of employees in the development of the change program, and carry out extensive explanatory work among the organization’s employees aimed at convincing them of the need to carry out the change. changes to solve the problems facing the organization.

The success of a change depends on how management implements it. Managers must remember that when making changes they must demonstrate high level confidence in its rightness and necessity and try to be, if possible, consistent in implementing the change program. At the same time, they must always remember that people's positions may change as the change is carried out. Therefore, they should not pay attention to slight resistance to change and treat normally people who initially resisted change and then stopped this resistance.

The degree to which management manages to eliminate resistance to change has a major influence on style carrying out the change. A leader can be tough and inflexible in eliminating resistance, or he can be flexible. It is believed that the autocratic style can only be useful in very specific situations that require the immediate elimination of resistance to very important changes. In most cases, a style in which management reduces resistance to change by winning over those who were initially opposed to change is considered more acceptable. Participative leadership style, in which many members of the organization are involved in resolving issues, is very successful in this regard.

When resolved conflicts, that may arise in an organization during change, managers may use different leadership styles. The most pronounced styles are the following:

competitive style, emphasizing strength, based on perseverance, assertion of one’s rights, based on the fact that conflict resolution presupposes the presence of a winner and a loser;

withdrawal style manifested in the fact that management demonstrates low persistence and at the same time does not strive to find ways to cooperate with dissenting members of the organization;

style of compromise implying moderate insistence by management on the implementation of its approaches to resolving the conflict and at the same time moderate desire by management to cooperate with those who resist;

fixture style, expressed in the desire of management to establish cooperation in resolving the conflict while at the same time weakly insisting on the adoption of the decisions it proposes;

collaboration style, characterized by the fact that management strives both to implement its approaches to change and to establish cooperative relationships with dissenting members of the organization.

It is impossible to say unequivocally that any of the five styles mentioned above is more acceptable for conflict resolution, and some less. It all depends on the situation, what change is being made, what problems are being solved and what forces are resisting. It is also important to consider the nature of the conflict. It is completely wrong to assume that conflicts always have only a negative, destructive nature. Any conflict contains both negative and positive principles. If the negative principle predominates, then the conflict is destructive in nature, and in this case, any style that can effectively prevent the destructive consequences of the conflict is applicable. If the conflict leads to positive results, such as, for example, bringing people out of an indifferent state, creating new communication channels or increasing the level of awareness of organization members about the processes taking place in it, then it is important to use this style of resolving conflicts arising in connection with changes, that would promote the widest possible range of positive outcomes from the change.

The change must be completed establishing new status quo in the organization. It is very important not only to eliminate resistance to change, but also to ensure that the new state of affairs in the organization is not just formally established, but is accepted by members of the organization and becomes a reality. Therefore, management should not be mistaken and confuse reality with formally established new structures or norms of relations. If the actions to implement the change did not lead to the emergence of a new stable status quo, then the change cannot be considered complete and work on its implementation should continue until the old situation is replaced with a new one in the organization.

Strategic changes, if carried out correctly, are systemic in nature. As such, they affect all aspects of the organization. However, two main directions can be distinguished when carrying out strategic changes - the first is organizational structure, and the second is organizational culture. Here it is necessary to touch upon such an important area of ​​modern management as the problem of the relationship between strategy and structure. An organization's strategy is seen as the most important factor determining its structure. At the same time, the structure, in turn, is a tool for achieving the company’s goals, i.e. implementation of its strategy. This view of the relationship between strategy and structure is characteristic of A. Chandler’s school.

Some American authors (for example, R. Ackoff) also emphasize feedback - the influence of structure on strategy. Most often, this influence is negative; the existing organizational structure prevents changes in strategy and the adoption of new decisions. There must be a dynamic interaction between strategy, structure and the environment in which the firm operates. One of the main mistakes many firms make is to simply impose a new strategy on top of the firm's existing structure. The inability or lack of commitment to recognize the importance of structure in the management process has doomed many effective and well-conceived strategies to failure.

Analysis organizational structure from the perspective of the strategy execution process, it is aimed at obtaining an answer to the following two questions. The first is the extent to which the existing structure can facilitate or hinder the implementation of the chosen strategy, and the second is what levels in the structure should be assigned to resolve certain tasks in the process of implementing the strategy.

The choice of one or another organizational structure depends on a number of factors. The most significant in importance are the following: the size of the organization and the degree of diversity of its activities; geographical location of the organization; technology; attitude towards the organization of managers and employees; dynamism of the external environment; strategy implemented by the organization. Let's look at these factors in more detail.

The organizational structure should be appropriate to the size of the company and not be more complex than necessary for the existing size. Typically, the influence of firm size on its structure manifests itself in the form of an increase in the number of levels of the management hierarchy. Depending on the size of the company and other characteristics, an appropriate structure may be used (these issues are discussed in detail in the course “Fundamentals of Management”).

The geographical location of the organization, if the regions are sufficiently isolated, leads to the delegation of certain rights in decision-making to regional divisions and, accordingly, to the appearance of regional divisions in the structure. If the rights are not very large, then this leads to an increase in the number of cells in the functional structure. If territorial divisions are given the status of relative independence, then a transition to a divisional structure occurs.

The influence of technology on organizational structure is manifested in the following. Firstly, the organizational structure is tied to the technology that is used in the organization. The number of structural units and their relative position depend on what technology is used in the organization. Secondly, the organizational structure must be built in such a way that it allows for technological upgrades.

Organizational structure depends to a large extent on how managers feel about its choice, what type of structure they prefer, and how willing they are to implement it. non-traditional forms building an organization. Often managers are inclined to choose the traditional functional form of the structure, since it is clearer and more familiar to them. Also, what kind of organizational structure is formed in the organization is influenced by the disposition and attitude towards work that are characteristic of the organization’s employees. Highly qualified workers, as well as workers whose work is creative, prefer an organizational structure that gives them more freedom and independence. Workers performing routine operations are focused on simple and traditional organizational structures.

The dynamism of the external environment is a significant factor when choosing an organizational structure. If the external environment is stable, then minor changes are observed in the structure. In the same case. If the environment is very dynamic, the organizational structure must be flexible and able to quickly respond to external changes. In particular, such a structure should imply a high level of decentralization and the presence of greater rights for structural units in decision-making.

Strategy has a great influence on the choice of organizational structure. However, it is not necessary to change the structure every time the organization moves to implement a new strategy. But it is absolutely necessary to establish how the existing structure corresponds to the strategy, and only then, if necessary, make appropriate changes.

To survive, an organization must remain resilient to outside pressure. To achieve this, the organization develops and maintains its structure and culture. However, solving structural problems alone is not sufficient. If the organizational structure, by establishing the boundaries of structural units and defining formal connections between them, acts as a kind of “skeleton” of the organization, then the organizational culture is a kind of “soul” of the organization. Employees of an organization express their individuality to varying degrees in the process of performing work. As a result, not only do different styles emerge in performing the same work, but also different patterns of relationships between people in the organization appear. Over time, such patterns become typified, and from them grow traditions that determine the nature and direction of how people interact in an organization.

Traditions of this kind cannot be identified and considered only from the position of formal organizational relations enshrined in the structure of the organization. Therefore, in order to understand the nature of informal relationships, traditions, and culture that surround the structure of an organization, it is also necessary to study the dynamics of the system, that is, the processes that occur during the interaction of people. Typically, in an organization, organizational culture manifests itself in the form of values, norms of behavior, etc. shared by members of the organization. It is believed that organizational culture consists of the following six components:

• - philosophy that gives meaning to the existence of the organization and its attitude towards employees and clients;
• - the values ​​on which the organization is based and which relate to the goals of its existence, or to the means of achieving these goals;
• - norms shared by employees of the organization and defining the principles of relationships in the organization;
• - the rules by which the “game” is played in the organization;
• - the climate that exists in the organization and is manifested in what kind of atmosphere exists in the organization and how members of the organization interact with outsiders;
• - behavioral rituals expressed in the organization of certain ceremonies, in the use of certain expressions, signs, etc.

Organizational culture is formed in response to two sets of problems that an organization faces. The first group consists of problems of integrating internal resources and efforts. These include the following problems: creating a common language and common terminology that is understandable to everyone; establishing group boundaries and principles of inclusion and exclusion from the group; creating a mechanism for vesting power and depriving rights, as well as assigning a certain status to individual members of the organization; establishing norms governing informal relationships; developing assessments regarding what is desirable and what is not desirable in employee behavior.

The second group includes those problems that an organization has to solve in the process of interaction with external environment. This is a wide range of problems related to the development of a mission, goals and means of achieving them.

The formation and change of organizational culture occurs under the influence of many factors. One of the recognized experts in the field of organizational culture, E. Schein, in his book “Organizational Culture and Leadership,” believes that there are five primary and five secondary factors that determine the formation of organizational culture. In accordance with his concept, the primary factors include:

• - points of concentration for top management;
• - management’s reaction to critical situations arising in the organization;
• - attitude to work and behavior style of managers;
• - criterial base for employee incentives;
• - criterial basis for selection, appointment, promotion and dismissal from the organization.

The group of secondary factors includes:

• - structure of the organization;
• - information transmission system and organizational procedures;
• - external and internal design and decoration of the premises in which the organization is located;
• - myths and stories about important events and persons who have played and are playing a key role in the life of the organization;
• - formalized statements about the philosophy and meaning of the organization’s existence.

Each of the above ten factors in the formation of organizational culture requires the use of certain techniques to achieve success in the conscious formation and change of organizational culture. During the strategy execution stage, significant effort is devoted to aligning the organizational culture with the chosen strategy. However, if the organizational structure can be changed relatively easily, then changing the organizational culture is a very difficult and sometimes impossible task. Therefore, at the stage of determining the strategy, it is necessary, if possible, to take into account as much as possible what difficulties with changing the culture may arise when implementing the strategy, and try, if possible, to choose a strategy that will not require obviously impossible actions to change the organizational culture.

Executing a strategy involves making the necessary changes, without which even the most well-developed strategy can fail. Therefore, it can be argued that strategic change is the key to strategy execution.

Making strategic change is a very difficult task. The difficulties in solving this problem are primarily due to the fact that any change encounters resistance, which can sometimes be so strong that those who carry out the changes cannot overcome it. Therefore, in order to make changes, it is necessary, at a minimum, to do the following:

• - reveal, analyze and predict: what resistance the planned change may encounter;
• - reduce this resistance (potential and real) to the minimum possible;
• - establish the status quo of a new state.

The bearers of resistance, as well as the bearers of change, are people. They are afraid that changes in the organization will affect their work, their position in the organization. Therefore, they strive to prevent changes in order to find themselves in a new situation that is not entirely clear to them, in which they will have to do many things differently from what they are already used to, and do something different from what they did before. -

Attitude towards change can be considered as a combination of states of two factors: acceptance or non-acceptance of change; open or hidden demonstration of attitude towards change. All this can be represented in the form of the following matrix (Fig. 4.2.).

Rice. 4.2.

The management of the organization, based on conversations, interviews, questionnaires and other forms of information collection, should try to find out what type of reaction to changes will be observed in the organization, which of the organization’s employees will take the position of supporters and who will not. These kinds of forecasts are of particular relevance in large organizations that have existed without changes for quite a long time, since in these organizations resistance to change can be quite strong and widespread.

Reducing resistance to change plays a key role in implementing change. Analysis of potential forces of resistance allows us to identify those members of the organization who will resist the change and to understand the motives for not accepting the change. In order to reduce potential resistance, it is useful to unite people into creative groups that will facilitate the change, involve a wide range of employees in the development of the change program, and conduct explanatory work aimed at convincing employees of the need for change to solve challenges facing the organization.

The success of a change depends on how management implements it. Managers must remember that when implementing change, they must demonstrate a high level of confidence in the need for it and try to be as consistent as possible in implementing the change program. At the same time, they must always remember that people's positions may change as the change is carried out. Therefore, they should not pay attention to slight resistance to change and treat normally people who initially resisted change and then stopped this resistance.

The style of implementing the change has a major influence on the extent to which management can eliminate resistance to change. A leader can be tough and inflexible in eliminating resistance, or he can be flexible. It is believed that the autocratic style can only be useful in very specific situations that require the immediate elimination of resistance to very important changes. In most cases, a more acceptable style is one in which management reduces resistance to change by winning over those who were initially opposed to change. Successful in this regard is a participative leadership style, in which many members of the organization are involved in resolving issues.

When resolving conflicts that may arise in an organization during change, managers may use different leadership styles. The most pronounced styles are the following:

• - compromise, which involves moderate insistence by management on the implementation of its approaches to conflict resolution and, at the same time, moderate desire by management to cooperate with those who resist;
• - competitive, emphasizing strength, based on perseverance, assertion of one’s rights, based on the fact that conflict resolution presupposes the presence of a winner and a loser;
• - self-withdrawal, which manifests itself in the fact that management demonstrates low persistence and at the same time does not strive to find ways to cooperate with dissenting members of the organization;
• - adaptation, expressed in the desire of management to eliminate cooperation in resolving the conflict while at the same time weakly insisting on the adoption of the decisions it proposes;
• - cooperation, characterized by the fact that management strives both to implement its approaches to change and to establish cooperative relationships with dissenting members of the organization.

It is impossible to say unequivocally that any of these five styles is more acceptable for resolving conflicts. It all depends on the situation, what change is being made, what problems are being solved and what forces are resisting. It is also important to consider the nature of the conflict. Any conflict contains both negative and positive principles. If the negative principle dominates, then the conflict is destructive, and in this case, any style that can effectively prevent the destructive consequences of the conflict is applicable. If the conflict leads to positive results, such as bringing people out of an indifferent state, creating new communication channels or increasing the level of awareness of organizational members about the processes taking place in it, then it is important to use a style of resolving conflicts arising in connection with changes that would contribute to the widest possible range of positive outcomes of the change.

The change must result in the establishment of a new status quo in the organization. It is very important not only to eliminate resistance to change, but also to ensure that the new state of affairs in the organization is not just formally established, but is accepted by members of the organization and becomes a reality. Therefore, management should not be mistaken and confuse reality with formally established new structures or norms of relations. If the actions to implement the change did not lead to the emergence of a new stable status quo, then the change cannot be considered complete and work on its implementation should continue until the old situation is replaced with a new one in the organization.

The implementation process is the strategy itself, and not a certain sequence of actions that characterizes the implementation of a particular activity, which is due to the following characteristics:

• 1) a long-term systemic process affecting the entire organization and the interests of many people;
• 2) choosing an option from various alternatives;
• 3) operating procedures for mild, uncertain problems.

The implementation of the organization's strategy is aimed at solving three tasks:

• 1. Establishing priorities among administrative tasks so that their relative importance corresponds to the strategy that the organization will pursue. This applies to tasks such as resource allocation, establishing organizational relationships, creating support systems, etc.
• 2. Establishing a correspondence between the chosen strategy and internal organizational processes in order to orient the organization’s activities towards the implementation of the chosen strategy. Compliance must be achieved according to the following characteristics organizations: structure, motivation and incentive system, norms and rules of behavior, values ​​and beliefs, convictions, qualifications of employees and managers, etc.
• 3. Selecting and aligning the leadership style and approach to managing the organization with the strategy being implemented.

The listed tasks are solved with the help of change, which is actually the basis for implementing the strategy. That is why the change that is carried out in the process of executing a strategy is called strategic change.

There is no single, universal strategy for change, although we often hear about the successes of Russian managers, working both in business and in public administration, who quickly implement large-scale changes (for example, privatization) without taking into account knowledge and experience and even the work of people affected by such changes. This approach can be useful for a very short time, and prolonging it for a longer period often leads to significant costs rather than positive changes that improve the efficiency of organizational processes. When defining a change strategy, it is important to remember that the manager has a choice. The main parameter used when choosing a strategy is the speed of change. This approach to choosing a strategy is called the “strategic continuum.” It will be discussed below. Ideally, effective strategic change management should be implemented as part of an overall change strategy.

The whole variety of change strategies can be combined into five groups (of course, some intermediate, hybrid forms of strategies are possible). In table 7 next to each strategy briefly describes the approach used and the ways in which this change can be implemented.

Table 7 - Strategies organizational changes(according to K. Thorley and H. Wirdenius)

When using directive strategy decision-making remains with the manager (project leader), who implements the changes without deviating from the originally developed plan, and the people involved in the changes are forced to come to terms with the fact of its implementation. Changes in this case must be carried out in a short time: this reduces the efficiency of using any other resources. This type of strategy for its implementation requires high authority of the leader, developed leadership qualities, focus on the task, availability of all the necessary information and the ability to overcome and suppress resistance to change. The application is advisable in conditions of crisis and the threat of bankruptcy, when the organization is in a situation of hopelessness, and its managers have severely limited opportunities for maneuver and alternatives to choosing a course of action.

Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kantor offers the following humorous rules for a manager who uses a directive strategy. But the humorous tone does not hide the seriousness of the problem. Unfortunately, there are many managers who consider the directive strategy to be the only possible one and use it even when routine changes are necessary.

“Rules” for making changes(rules of action to stop innovation):

• Consider any new idea from below with suspicion - because it is new, and because this is a view from below. You must insist that people who need your support to implement their ideas first go through several other levels of management to collect signatures from them. Encourage departmental or individual employees to critique each other's proposals. This will save you from having to make the decision yourself. You will simply choose the one who survived the given criticism.
• Be open with criticism and don't be too quick to praise. This will make people tiptoe around. Let them know that you can fire them at any time.
• Treat the discovery of problems as a failure to discourage people from letting you know that something is wrong with them.
• Monitor everything carefully. Make sure employees count everything they can count.
• Make decisions about reorganization or changes in policy direction in secret and also inform employees about it in secret. This will make them tiptoe around.
• Make sure that requests for information are always justified and that it is not easily obtained by managers. You don't want the information to fall into the wrong hands, do you?
• Make lower-level managers, under the banner of delegation and participation in decision-making, responsible for demoting, firing, reassigning, and other threatening decisions you make, and make them do it very quickly.

And most importantly, never forget that you are the most important and know everything important about the matter.

These rules arose from R. Kantor's detailed study of 115 innovations carried out by, in her words, “masters of change” - major corporations with a high reputation for progressive human resource policies, such as General Electric, General Motors, Honeywell, Polaroid and Wang Laboratories.

Applying negotiation strategy The manager is still the initiator of the change, but is now willing to negotiate with other groups to implement the change and, if necessary, make concessions. Negotiation strategies take extra time to implement - the outcome of negotiations with other stakeholders is difficult to predict because it is difficult to fully determine in advance what concessions will need to be made.

Using normative strategy (“hearts and minds”) An attempt is made to expand the scope of normal change activities, namely, in addition to obtaining the consent of employees for certain changes, to obtain in them a sense of responsibility for implementing changes and achieving the overall goals of the organization. This is why this strategy is sometimes called “hearts and minds.”

Application analytical strategy involves bringing in technical experts to study a specific change problem. For this purpose, a team of specialists is formed, including experts from leading departments or external consultants, working under strict guidance. Typically the approach is implemented under the strict guidance of a manager. The result is obtaining optimal solutions from a technical point of view, while the problems of employees are not particularly taken into account.

Action-oriented strategies, in its content is close to the analytical strategy and differs from it in two ways: the problem is not so precisely defined; the employees involved in the changes form a group over which the manager does not have strong influence. Such a group tests a range of approaches to solving a problem and learns from its mistakes.

There is a group of factors that influence the choice of strategy:

• The degree and type of expected resistance. The greater the resistance exhibited, the more difficult it will be to overcome it and the more the manager will have to “move” to the right of the continuum to find ways to reduce resistance.
• The breadth of powers of the change initiator. The less power the initiator has in relation to others, the more the change initiator manager needs to move to the right along the continuum, and vice versa.
• The amount of information required. If planning and implementing change requires a significant amount of information and a responsible attitude of employees, the initiator of change should move to the right when choosing a strategy.
• Risk factors. The greater the real likelihood of risk to the functioning of the organization and its survival (assuming that this situation does not change), the more it is necessary to “move” along the continuum to the left.

Let's look at five basic principles for managing change:

• 1. Change methods and processes must be aligned with the organization's normal activities and management processes. A struggle for limited resources is likely: the activities of individual employees can be directed both to planning changes and to carrying out current affairs. This problem becomes especially acute and sensitive in organizations where major changes, for example in mass production, when the transition to a new product or technology requires a significant reorganization of production processes and workshops, and the first question is how to achieve this without significant losses in production and productivity.
• 2. Management should determine which specific activities, to what extent and in what form it should directly participate. The main criterion is the complexity of the actions performed and their importance for the organization. IN large organizations Senior managers cannot be involved in all changes themselves, but they must lead some of them personally or find an appropriate way, explicit or symbolic, to provide and demonstrate management support. Messages of encouragement from management are an important motivator for change.
• 3. Need to agree with each other various processes restructuring of the organization. This may be easy in a small or simple organization, but in a large and complex one it can be quite difficult. Often different departments work on similar issues (for example, implementation new technology information processing). They may come up with proposals that do not fit into management's overall policies and standard practices, or they may make excessive demands on resources. It may also happen that one of the departments has developed important proposals and the others must be persuaded to accept them, and for this to be abandoned existing system or your suggestions. In such situations, senior management must intervene with tact.
• 4. Change management includes various aspects- technological, structural, methodological, human, psychological, political, financial and others. This is perhaps the biggest challenge to management's responsibilities, as the process involves specialists who often try to impose their limited view on a complex and multifaceted problem.
• 5. Change management includes decisions about application. different approaches and interventions to help you get started, get things done systematically, manage resistance, gain support, and make needed changes.

In organizational practice, in order to rebuild, it is necessary to revise the organizational structure for a number of specific reasons:

• - the usual organizational structure can be completely focused on the current management of business and is not designed for any additional tasks for technical reasons or due to high workload;
• - the existing structure, very importantly, may have deep-seated inflexibility, conservatism and resistance to change, and it will be unrealistic to expect it to be able to initiate and manage change;
• - in some cases it is desirable to implement changes in stages or to test them on a limited scale before making a final decision;
• - change may begin spontaneously in one part of the organization, and management may decide to support it but expand it gradually.

There are several forms of systems for implementing change in an organization:

• - special projects and assignments;
• - target and working groups;
• - experiment;
• - demonstration projects;
• - new organizational units;
• - new forms of labor organization.

Special projects and assignments are a very common form of change. An individual or unit within an existing structure is given an additional special assignment of a temporary nature. Additional resources are allocated for this, but basically it is necessary to use what is already in the existing structure. To mobilize resources and make decisions that go beyond his competence, the project manager or coordinator must, of course, contact the general manager who appointed him. This is actually a transitional system between a regular and a special structure.

Often used as temporary structures target groups. They are used either at one stage of the process or throughout the process to plan and coordinate it.

The selection of temporary team members is extremely important. They must have the ability and desire to do something about the problem at the center of change, and have the time to participate in the group. Task forces often fail because they are made up of extremely busy people who prioritize current affairs over planning for future changes.

The duration of the group must also be specific. You can use a “sunset calendar,” that is, determine the point in time when it will cease to exist unless management decides to extend it. This will prevent the group from slowly disintegrating as more and more members fail to attend meetings.

The group may have one member who schedules and prepares meetings. This is not the leader of the group, he only starts its work. The group may decide that they do not need a permanent leader, and the function we are talking about may move from one member to another.

To the extent possible, the expected outcome of the group's work should be defined. It must be directly related to the problem and measurable.

The validity of restructuring measures can be verified on a limited scale experiment, for example, in one or two organizational units and for a limited period of time, say a few months. For example: flexible working hours or new system awards can first be tested in individual departments and workshops.

A true experiment includes pre- and post-test controls. Two (or more) divisions or groups with similar or very similar characteristics are used.

Data is collected from both groups, then changes are made in one (experimental group), while in the other everything remains as it was (control group). After this, further observations or data collection are carried out. Data collected before and after changes in both groups are compared.

Demonstration projects used to test on a limited scale whether a new scheme involving significant technological, organizational or social changes and usually requiring large financial outlays is effective, or whether adjustments are necessary before being introduced on a larger scale. A properly prepared and monitored demonstration project will usually provide a wealth of experience and thus minimize the risk associated with introducing a major new scheme.

When evaluating demonstration projects, certain errors are common. To demonstrate that the proposed changes are justified and possible, management usually devotes time to a demonstration project. Special attention(for example, attracting the best employees to it or strengthening leadership and control). Thus, it is performed not under ordinary, but under exceptionally favorable conditions. In addition, it is assumed that these conditions can be reproduced on a larger scale. This is often not possible for a number of reasons. Thus, when evaluating a demonstration project, one should impartially consider the conditions under which it was carried out.

New organizational units often created when management has decided to pursue change (for example, develop a methodology and begin providing marketing services) and has decided that appropriate resources and funds should be committed to its implementation from the outset. This usually happens if the need for change is well documented, and its importance justifies the underutilization of resources, which may well happen in the initial period after the organization of the unit.

New forms of labor organization include people involved in reorganizing and restructuring their work. An outside consultant, manager, or lay person can act as a catalyst, but it is up to the group itself to decide what kind of organizational structure it wants. This approach emphasizes the importance of group work over individual work and places greater responsibility on the group, reducing the need for traditional active supervision.