organizational potential. Tools for the formation of the organizational potential of the enterprise

Concept of organizational potential. Systems long term planning are based on a stable growth in demand and are implemented according to the scheme:

Y(0) ® A(+t) ® C(+t), (22.7)

Where

A ¾ implementation of a new direction in the development of the company;

(0) ¾ time of planning;

(+t) ¾ adaptation period.

The instability of the external environment leads to the fact that new complications have to be planned in planning before they affect the firm:

A(-t) ® Y(0) ® C(+t), (22.8)

Y ¾ changes in the conditions of activity;

(0) ¾ time of planning;

C ¾ change in the company's capabilities;

(+t) ¾ adaptation period.

A similar control scheme is typical for systems strategic planning and for all its progressiveness, it has the following disadvantages:

■ resistance from managers whose status changes due to the implementation of the new strategy;

■ The combination of the new strategy and the firm's old capabilities may not be optimal.

If managers do not have the experience and knowledge to work within the framework of the new strategy, then the new structure of the organization can destabilize the functioning of the firm. These shortcomings can be eliminated only by gradually adapting the capabilities to the developed strategies. This period can take 5 years or more.

A high level of instability of the external environment makes it necessary to shorten the adaptation period С(+t). The following control scheme corresponds to control systems through the choice of strategic positions:

(A + C)(-t) ® Y(0), (22.9)

where A ¾ the implementation of a new direction in the development of the company (-t);

C ¾ change in the firm's capabilities (-t);

Y ¾ changes in the conditions of activity;

(0) ¾ time of planning.

The strategy provides not only new areas and directions of activity, but also a change in the company's capabilities.

Management based on the ranking of strategic objectives already involves not only changing internal capabilities, but also predicting the nature of the capabilities that are necessary for success in the future.

If the firm has to respond to unexpected changes that occur too quickly to be taken into account during periodic reviews of the strategic situation, then it should be ready to manage according to the scheme:

С(-t) ® A(-t) ® Y(0), (22.10)

where C ¾ change in the company's capabilities (-t);

A ¾ implementation of a new direction in the development of the company (-t);

Y ¾ changes in the conditions of activity;

(0) ¾ time of planning.

Thus, a company that chooses strategic management as its main management system should focus not on its traditional advantages, but on changing capabilities (organizational potential of the company).

The range of functionality and characteristics of the firm's system property (culture, authority structure, etc.) is called organizational capacity.

An example of the realization of pre-planned organizational capacity is the formation of large complex service firms (they include hotels, car rental, mechanized laundries).

In order for a firm to be able to consistently and effectively repeat services in many locations, it is necessary to establish standardization services, develop methodologies and procedures for managing personnel in the field. The main goal of such work is to systematize and standardize the process of providing services.

The organizational potential acquires a special role in those areas where qualified personnel are required, ¾ this is education, health care. An inbound tourism firm should encourage its employees not only to learn foreign languages, but also on the development of the ability to easily come into contact with representatives of other cultures. Companies in growth areas such as on-demand software, consulting, engineering, can exist only thanks to efforts aimed primarily at maintaining their own organizational potential.

The concept of functional potential. The basis of the organizational potential is the functional potential - the totality of the potential capabilities of the company, determined by its functional services. The range of functional potential depends on:

■ professional level and qualifications of employees;

■ technical base;

■ the total amount of knowledge that employees have;

■ operating experience accumulated in the course of implementation of the firm's functions.

The successful development of entrepreneurship may depend to a greater extent on one or another functional service. If the success factor is low production costs, That most attention is given to the function of production: the tasks of deepening the division of labor, introducing modern technologies. This is currently the case for labour-intensive services such as cleaning and building repairs. Managers large firms prefer not to engage in non-essential jobs that require time to find, retain and control intermittent workers who come from outside. Service firms, thanks to automation and specialized equipment, provide such services cheaper and better.

If the most important direction of activity is the satisfaction of new customer needs, significant efforts are directed to market analysis, sales, and advertising. In this case, the marketing function plays a decisive role. First of all, this applies to personal services (accommodation, treatment and rehabilitation, dry cleaning, burial).

Innovation-oriented firms are activating the research and development function (design services, engineering).

With the prevailing attention to one or another function, others are not abolished, but are subordinated to the one that at the moment determines success.

The concept of managerial potential. The success of the entire strategy adopted in the company depends on the implementation of the general management function. The potential of this function characterizes the managerial potential. It depends on the scope and nature of the work that the general management can handle, and is determined by:

■ the personality of the manager;

■ work experience;

■ ability to resolve interfunctional conflicts;

■ willingness to take risks and unplanned adaptation.

To date, in the development of managerial potential, determined by the size business activity firms recorded four stages.

1. General management ¾ the prerogative of the chief executive. The principle of maximum centralization of powers and decision-making is being implemented. The basis of managerial potential is the personal potential of a manager-leader. This is a person who is able to captivate other employees with the idea, enjoys authority, has activity and perseverance. The company begins to deliver new services to the market. Organizational structure firms are not formalized. It may even be in the structure of another company. As business activity grows, there is a need to formalize management.

2. With the growth of the scale of activity, the manager is forced to share powers and responsibilities with other persons. Top management tries to interfere as little as possible in operational activities and makes decisions only when there is a mismatch between functions. The principle of maximum decentralization of powers and decision-making is being implemented. Effective managerial potential is determined by competent coordination of work and professional management. The first rules and procedures appear. There is growing conservatism in decision-making.

3. As activities grow, additional levels of general management are introduced to reconcile opposing trends. Firm to present moment time reaches a stable position in the market. There are early signs that management is losing control of the organization as a whole. Strategic units may appear that have a fairly high degree of operational independence, but are tightly controlled by top management in matters of resource spending. Exactly on this stage many organizations begin to disintegrate due to an inefficient system of motivation, strategy, and rejection of new ideas.

4. General management takes on the form of an entrepreneurial type, it is characterized by the ability to solve poorly structured tasks (the problem does not have a clear outline, it is not clear what parts it consists of), to see the future, to reorganize the company.

Thus, in general, the capabilities of the firm within the systems strategic management depend on the organizational and managerial potential, interacting with the help of elements of the system property.

Companies with various structural units, in order to achieve a sustainable economic state, they must evaluate their organizational potential, the assessment tools of which will expand the analytical arsenal of the enterprise's management when developing their development strategy. Organizational capacity enterprises should be considered as an organizational process, considered as a set production processes, the value of which is determined as the sum of all its constituent elements, since any organization, defining the goals of its development, identifies the possibilities for their implementation based on its potential.

The organizational potential of an enterprise should be considered as an organizational process, considered as a set of production processes, the value of which is determined as the sum of all its constituent elements. The question of the organization's potential arises whenever one talks about the readiness to introduce innovations in various areas of activity, about the implementation of new strategies and entering new markets, etc. According to the authors, the organizational potential should be considered as a set of opportunities for employees of the management apparatus to perform the planned scope of work.

The organizational potential of an enterprise is a combination of various (extended in time and space) objective and subjective factors that ensure the implementation of the tasks set and it is sufficient complex structure, is determined not only by the high professionalism of the management, but also by a combination of various organizational factors. In our opinion, the organizational potential of an enterprise should be considered as a strategic component of its overall potential based on the use modern methods management, including program-target and system approaches.

It is necessary to highlight the main resource components of the organizational potential of the enterprise, which include:

· management potential resources;

The level of technical equipment of managerial work;

· level information support;

organizational culture.

The implementation of these resources will ensure the implementation of the plans of the enterprise, since their totality is characterized by adaptability, efficiency and reliability,

To date, there are various ways to assess the elements of organizational capacity for enterprises operating in the market. Considering that data on the value of the enterprise's potential are used to improve the efficiency of resource use, it became necessary to create tools for its measurement and evaluation. The practice of domestic enterprises and the experience of foreign enterprises have shown that improving the use of the organizational potential of complex production and economic systems is a real reserve for the development of their business. To improve the efficiency of the enterprise, it is necessary to create a mechanism for managing the process of using organizational potential, based on assessing the effectiveness of its use. First of all, it is necessary to choose the units of measurement of organizational potential, given that it is a big problem to take into account qualitative changes when assessing it in the corresponding natural indicators. Assessment of such elements of organizational capacity as technology, information and labor resources, when using natural indicators is also very difficult, since these elements have significant differences, both in form and in content. It is necessary to develop a mechanism for assessing organizational potential using one equivalent indicator, and the most universal and unified measure of the organizational potential of an enterprise is the indicator of their valuation, because it provides comparability, allowing you to determine its dynamics and structure.

· develop a systematic classification of organizational potential and substantiate the elements of its components;

Determine the features and role of strategic organizational capacity industrial enterprise, its place in the system of the complex concept of "enterprise potential";

· identify and classify the main approaches to the formation of the structure of organizational capacity;

· determine the tools for the formation of the organizational potential of the enterprise, allowing to build a model of the strategic organizational potential of the enterprise, taking into account the innovative component;

· to develop the structure of the strategic organizational potential for its formation and implementation, as an essential component of the management mechanism modern enterprise;

work out guidelines for assessing the strategic organizational potential of an enterprise, allowing to determine and measure the characteristics of the strategic organizational potential of enterprises specific enterprise and industries.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the organizational potential and tools for its formation, evaluation and implementation will ensure the economic sustainability of the enterprise in the long term.

For companies that have separate structural units (enterprises, organizations, branches) in their composition, it is important to achieve sustainable financial condition has organizational capacity. The organizational capacity of a company depends mainly on whether it is this company (entity) system or conglomerate. An increase in organizational capacity can be achieved by improving the structure of the company and the structure of its activities (optimal diversification of activities). It is important that as a result of these improvements the level of systemicity is increased and due to this a synergistic effect (interconnection effect) is obtained, in which the total return on investment of the company is higher than the sum of the return indicators for each technological chain (group of enterprises) separately.

Improving the structure of the company and the structure of its activities is carried out according to the scheme:

1. Definition of the mission, goals and strategy of the company;

2. Structuring of technological chains for the production of final products;

3. Structuring processes life cycles products / technologies of intermediate (according to technological chains of production) and final products;

4. Determination of the role of the (basic) enterprises operating in the company in the technological chains of production and life cycles of products / technologies and, possibly, their reconstruction;

5. Designing additions to the basic composition of enterprises due to:

• acquisition of operating enterprises of other companies;
• penetration into other companies (participation in them);
• formation of branches and representative offices, design and construction of new enterprises.

6. Integration of productions of various industry affiliation, various technological chains and product/technology life cycles.

The main sources (factors) of synergy in the designed system can be:

• the presence of unified elements in the design of manufactured products;
• the possibility of combining certain links of technological chains;
• the possibility of combining certain processes of product/technology life cycles (for example, design processes for unified product elements);
• the possibility of combining (combining) individual functions and tasks of management, as well as technical, informational and regulatory framework management;
• mutual opening of channels of commercial and scientific and technical information, providing:
• accelerating the diffusion of innovations and best practices;
• savings from combining information banks;
• increasing protection from the reflexive impact of competitors due to more qualified screening (filtering) of external information;
• harmonization of intracompany standardization.

When assessing synergy, all these sources are concretized into synergy factors. It should be noted that the interaction can also lead to a negative effect of synergy, when 2 + 2

IN foreign practice The structure of the activities of many successful firms is unsystematic: each type of activity is practically isolated from other types. These are conglomerate firms. The experience of US firms shows that synergistic firms and conglomerates perform roughly the same under favorable general conditions. But in times of stress and/or downturns, synergistic firms are more resilient and perform better than conglomerates. Therefore, it can be concluded that the higher the expected instability and stiffness of competition, the more success will depend on the availability of positive effect synergy (systematic activity).

Organizational potential includes two components of the concept: the organization and the potential of the organization. “Organizo” (lat.) means: I communicate a slender appearance, I arrange, i.e. characterizes the formation of "order" from "chaos". Moreover, the concept of “order” or “chaos” depends on the subject who perceives it. In other words, quality as a category of organization has an evaluative characteristic in these terms. The organization allows people to understand that it is much easier to achieve success together. At present, it has acquired an independent meaning as a concept that characterizes the quality of the system, including the management system.

The potential represents the capabilities of an individual, family, enterprise, company, city, region, region, republic, state, commercial structures, society and public organizations, state executive and representative structures (institutions) in a certain area. Organizational potential, therefore, is a collective concept, it includes both organizational and material factors, as well as relations regarding production, distribution, exchange and consumption, and, consequently, management relations.

Organizational potential is a combination of various (extended in time and space) objective and subjective factors that ensure the implementation of the tasks set.

Considering the organizational potential of the region, we assume that it covers sources, opportunities, means, reserves that can be put into action, used to solve some regional problem, achieve a specific regional goal.

The organizational potential of the region is classified according to the characteristics of its qualitative use. They include the following: political, social, economic, regional, structural-sectoral, natural-resource, scientific-technical, technological, labor, personnel, military-economic, export, industrial, corporate (production level) and others.

The list of signs can be continued, however, in modern conditions, when positive shifts in social production are finally outlined for many years, I would like to pay more attention to qualitative indicators organizational development of Russia. First of all, it is about economic potential of the region, which represents the total ability of the region's economy, its structural components: industries, territorial economic complexes, state and commercial enterprises to carry out production and economic activities, produce a variety of products, satisfy the needs of the population and, in general, social needs. The economic potential of the region is largely determined by the characteristics of its natural resources, production, labor and scientific and technical potential, accumulated national wealth. The first sprouts of positive economic shifts are clearly visible in the use production potential.

The quantitative and qualitative level of fixed assets, as the leading link in the material and technical base of society, is production potential. Here we have in mind the existing and potential possibilities of production, the presence of production factors, its provision with resources.

An important role in the organizational potential of the region is played by scientific and technical potential, which is a set of personnel, material and technical, information resources designed to solve the problems facing the region.

The network of scientific organizations - research, design, design institutes, as well as research departments of universities, functioning for the production, dissemination and implementation of scientific knowledge in practice, the implementation of a unified scientific and technical policy, is scientific potential region (it is often considered as part of the entire scientific and technical potential).

Almost 3% of the employed work in the field of science, and 14% together with the branches of education and culture. In one of the crisis years (1995), 930 samples of new technology were created, while in Soviet time(in 1980) was 1749. However, the scientific "intellect-intensive" sphere of production in Russia was undermined by the crisis. At the same time, the “order” of spending on R&D in the United States in recent years has been 2.4-2.6% of GDP, while we have 0.4-0.6%.

Of particular importance for the practical implementation of the achievements of scientific and technological progress in production is the formation of an innovative infrastructure - organizations that contribute to the implementation of innovative activities and the formation of "growth points" (innovation and technology centers, technology incubators, technology parks, educational and business centers, etc. ).

The study of the scientific and technical potential of the region is currently necessary, since the current system of state placement productive forces taking into account the specialization and cooperation of the regions, in the conditions of the hypertrophied sovereignty of the latter, does not meet modern requirements.

Two forms of using the organizational potential of the region can be distinguished: mechanical (formal) and organic (adaptive, informal).

mechanical, stable the form of organization is more suitable under the following conditions:

the environment is relatively stable;

goals are clearly defined and time-tested;

technologies are relatively uniform and stable;

activities are routine;

decision making is programmable, coordination and control processes tend to be rigidly structured, hierarchical system.

organic, adaptive the form of management organization is applicable under the following conditions:

the environment is relatively indefinite and mobile;

goals are different and changeable;

technology is complex and dynamic;

there are many non-routine activities for whom creativity and readiness for a quick response are important;

communication and coordination systems are informal and non-hierarchical.

In other words, the concept of restructuring the organizational potential of the region is based on provisions that require, on the one hand, the rejection of established management stereotypes, outdated, obsolete structures, forms of interaction with business entities, and, on the other hand, the wide involvement of new, intensive elements of organizational structures focused on on the criteria and indicators of a market economy, democratic methods of management.

The inefficiency of the existing organizational potential of the region is due to the lack of fundamental basic principles of regional development that could ensure its effective use. These include, in particular:

Uncertainty of the political structure (constitutional system, type of democracy, model of the contract between the citizen and the state). The subjects of the Federation, despite the rather definite articles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, are in captivity of their own ambitions regarding the unlimited sovereignty of their constitutional rights and the adoption of their own (often contradicting the Constitution of the Russian Federation) laws. President Yeltsin B.N. repeatedly tried to overcome the uncontrollable independence of the heads of administrations of the subjects of the Federation. He did not succeed. The All-Russian Conference on the Development of Federative Relations, which was organized by the Government of the Russian Federation at the end of January 1999, can serve as evidence of the latter. The agenda included the issue of considering the Statement of the participants of the All-Russian Conference "On the improvement of federal relations and the strengthening of Russian statehood." Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Primakov E.M. invited all governors to sign the text, which would seem to cause no discrepancies. In the project, for example, there were the following words: “We, the participants of the All-Russian Conference on the Development of Federal Relations, representing state authorities Russian Federation and subjects of the Russian Federation,

acting in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Constitutions and Charters of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the legislation of the Russian Federation and the legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation,

striving to strengthen the unity of the political, legal and economic space of the Russian Federation and guided by the need to preserve public harmony, strengthen the foundations of the constitutional system,

I undertake to build my relations on mutual recognition and respect for the constitutional rights of public authorities at all levels and striving to develop integration processes in the Russian Federation, recognizing the need to ensure a decent standard of living for the population, create budgetary and financial conditions in the regions under which citizens will be guaranteed a standard social minimum, regardless of the territory of their residence,

striving to unite the efforts of all levels of the state system and civil society to establish the principle of equal rights for citizens of different nationalities and religions, to strengthen mutual understanding between them,

undertaking to act in concert in the conduct of regional policy at the federal and regional levels,

aware of their personal responsibility for ensuring these interests,

have jointly adopted this Statement and recognize it as necessary:”. Next come the obligations of the executive authorities to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and eliminate contradictions in regulatory legal acts Russian Federation and subjects of the Russian Federation.

It should be noted that this Application was not only not signed by the Conference participants, but not even announced, which speaks of the tacit disagreement of the heads of administrations to give up their sovereign ambitions. How actively the governors have taken up calls to take sovereignty to the region "as much as you can", it is just as difficult to "take" it back. It was obvious that the opposition of the central authorities to the regional ones seriously hindered the economic development of the country. What are the articles of the regional constitutions of a number of Caucasian and other republics worth, for example, on the right to pursue their own foreign policy, to have their own armed forces and other legislative acts that contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

President of the Russian Federation Putin V.V. continued this work more actively. By Decree No. 849 of May 13, 2000 “On the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Federal District”, he transformed the Institute of Plenipotentiary Representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in the regions of the Russian Federation into the Institute of Plenipotentiary Representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in seven federal districts: . Moscow), Northwestern (St. Petersburg), North Caucasian (Rostov-on-Don), Volga (Nizhny Novgorod), Ural (Yekaterinburg), Siberian (Novosibirsk), Far East (Khabarovsk). With this step, he took measures to strengthen the vertical of state power. This is first. Secondly, the President becomes not only the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but also its conductor. With this, he actually began the administrative reform of the Russian Federation, which B.N. did not dare to undertake during the years of his presidency. Yeltsin.

Of course, the quality of governance is not determined only by the political balance of the central and regional authorities, but it largely depends on it. At the same time, it is difficult to see positive consequences for economic reforms in this political reform. Indeed, if earlier Russia traditionally had 11 economic regions, then in the early 1990s, without abolishing the latter, 8 associations of economic interaction appeared. Now 7 districts have been formed, which for the most part coincide with associations of economic interaction. It is difficult to assume that such districts can promptly interact with the governors of the subjects of the Federation. The territorial and quantitative (number of subjects of the Federation) scale of the districts, I think, will make it difficult to choose the accents of the socio-economic development of individual territorial entities. Representatives of the President of the Russian Federation receive very large powers. In particular, they concentrate: 1 the efforts of all power ministries in the regions; 2. the efforts of all federal executive bodies located in the subjects of the Federation; 3. provide a supervisory, control function over the implementation in the regions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws and decrees of the President of the Russian Federation. Particularly large-scale is the Central District, which, in addition to the Central Association for Economic Interaction, also includes the Central Black Earth Association. It includes Moscow, the Moscow region and the entire industrial center of Russia, which must be managed not from military, but from economic positions. With the exceptional opportunities of many of them, it seems difficult not only to coordinate them, but, most importantly, the choice of strategic directions for development.

As we can see, the organizational potential of these authorized representatives of the President of the Russian Federation is of such high importance that we can assume the need for their participation in the work of the Government of the Russian Federation, as was previously assumed the participation of representative leaders of economic interaction associations in its work.

It is difficult to imagine an increase in the quality of management with the emergence of a new district intermediate management body (is it executive?), but the need for its organizational focus on socio-economic goals is obvious.

2. The absence of a system of values ​​(social stereotypes) that the population of the region aspires to. Behind this lies a mutual misunderstanding of the goals of the administration (governments) of the region and various segments of the population. The executive authorities, both locally and in the central administrative structures, do not know what social group population should be guided. It is obvious that everyone (from beggars to large entrepreneurs) needs state support, but it is necessary to prioritize here. Moreover, in order to regain the confidence of the population, an adequate economic policy is needed, in particular, the recognition of private property and self-government, the realization of the advantages of a person's individuality.

3. Lack of a strategic program for economic development. Since the beginning of market reforms (1991), everything has been done to destroy the existing, albeit inefficient, economy of the country and regions, but practically nothing has been done to stop its further disintegration, and even more so to create a strategic program for socio-economic development. This applies to almost all regions-subjects of the Russian Federation. Moreover, the subjects of the Russian Federation now (more than ever) need state regulation and the participation of each of them in the system of social territorial division and labor cooperation.

4. Organs government controlled, including the office of the President of the Russian Federation, executive and representative bodies of government, regional and local government, public and commercial structures management was constantly changing, adapting to the demands of the times. This does not at all mean that the structure of economic management in the Russian Federation has objectively improved. This did not happen for many reasons, among which the following should be highlighted:

Liberalization, i.e. removal or sharp reduction of state control in all spheres of economic activity, primarily through the abolition of directive planning and mandatory state orders for the products of enterprises, the transition to pricing mainly in accordance with supply and demand, and, finally, the abolition of the state monopoly of foreign trade and allowing all economic entities to engage in foreign economic activity;

Privatization, i.e. changing the nature of property through the transfer or sale on various terms of state property to economic entities that use it in the future in economic activities, while bearing full property responsibility for the results;

Formation of market infrastructure, i.e. new mechanisms for establishing economic ties, including, in particular, commodity and stock exchanges, markets, commercial banks;

Demonopolization of the economy and encouragement of competition by removing restrictions on the movement of goods in the domestic market. Formation and preservation of natural monopolies;

Restructuring the economy. So far, it is carried out spontaneously, without scientific justification, giving the regions the opportunity to independently choose a strategy for socio-economic development. Moreover, the latter often has a purely personal (governor's) character and weak consistency with the interests of the socio-economic development of the region;

System social support has unprecedented distortion. This applies, in particular, to non-payment of wages to public sector employees, pensions to pensioners, delays in budget payments for social purposes in many regions of Russia. The differentiation of incomes of the population in various regions of Russia has acquired a stable character. Currently, it reaches 30 or more times.

The regulation of the economy is ensured with the help of macro-economic, primarily financial and stabilization means, providing an administrative impact on the economic stability of the country. Tight monetary policy contributed to the suppression of inflation, but did not help the formation and development of domestic production at all. However, in our opinion, she objectively could not help him. It is possible that this goal was not set by the reformers 1 .

The organizational structure of management in the regions and in the central government bodies did not have a unified concept. The absence of a simultaneous administrative reform, adequate to the qualitative changes taking place in society, has led to weak interaction between management structures in a single management vertical. This, by the way, is reflected in the names of the leaders of the regional administration - from the heads of administrations and governors to the chairmen of governments and presidents of the republics. This circumstance, in turn, weakens the leading role of the federal structures of executive power.

Therefore, the universal economic crisis, a change in structural and technological priorities in the development of the country's industry, the growing influence of Western (foreign) financial and other socio-economic technologies, as well as the dominance of foreign consumer products in the domestic market, and finally, the ongoing social tension in all regions of Russia - all this is reflected in distorted system of using the organizational potential of regional management.

To implement its effective use, it is necessary to form a regional organizational and economic production complex. Strictly speaking, a region is a dynamic and stable territorial or local (compact) combination of enterprises and sectors of the economy, also united by branched and close internal ties.

The organization of governance in the region, in our opinion, must comply with two requirements. One of them is purely organizational, which provides for a uniform organization of regional state structures management. Another requirement is economic, which involves ensuring a balanced economic development of the regions, implementing plans for regional development and pursuing a policy of developing new territories.

It should be borne in mind that the quality of regional governance is influenced by external and internal, objective and subjective, natural and acquired factors of development. It is easy to see that, firstly, each region in the process of economic reforms acquires a new geopolitical and economic position. So, some have become frontier, others have lost their place (specialization) in the single economic space of the country. Secondly, many regions are forced to change the patterns and structure of their industrial and agricultural development.

In this context, attention should be paid to the objective factors in the development of the regional management system of the Russian Federation and to the acquired (subjective) factors of the regional industrial and social policy. First of all we are talking about her internal features (inherent only to her). First of all, this applies to geography and nature.

Huge territory. WITH On the one hand, it is a positive factor (an abundance of resources, a variety of conditions and opportunities), on the other hand, it is a negative one (low population density, difficulties in the interaction of territories, remoteness from the administrative and cultural center, etc.).

Harsh nature. Russia is located in the harsh northeastern regions, 3/4 of its territory is covered with tundra and taiga on permafrost, only a fifth of it is suitable for plowing, and even then half of it lies in the zone of risky farming. Modern Russia has lost vast territories with an almost tropical climate (Crimea, the Caucasus, Central Asian territories). Many rivers and seas freeze in winter. The territorial boundaries of Russia have shifted (due to the collapse of the Soviet Union) and require large material and organizational costs.

The uneven distribution of the population. 3/4 of the population of Russia are concentrated in its European part, which is 1/4 of the country's territory, and the remaining 3/4 account for only 1/4 of the population.

National-territorial construction of the Russian state. A huge variety of nations coexists with a significant predominance of one of them in terms of numbers, rigid state centralism - with the traditional autonomy of the remote outskirts and disproportions in the level and character economic development some regions of Russia.

Along with the natural features of Russia, its development was greatly influenced by the qualitative features acquired in the course of the formation of state socialism, which hinder progressive socio-economic and scientific and technological development. This can be seen, firstly, in the concentration of economic life in the largest cities and the decline in population density with distance from regional centers. The complexity of the territorial structure is aggravated by the fetishization of large and largest enterprises and industries, the creation of territorial production complexes. The result of this is the monopoly of individual superfactories, the country's dependence on two or three centers of production, hyper-specialized regions. Enterprises took on an unusual function - the development of the social sphere in the respective territories. Superfactories had their own (often closed) cities with their own systems and services.

It is impossible not to notice that with the collapse of the Union and the active development of economic reforms, old ties and relations quickly collapsed, and interregional disproportions began to grow catastrophically. It is no coincidence that this process, on the one hand, was accompanied by a decline in production and an increase in inter-district contrasts in social indicators (child mortality, crime rates, etc.), and on the other hand, by the search for new technological solutions when creating new industries and specializing regions. However, new technologies (even if they were found) could not solve the problem of state building on their own, an administrative, economic action (revolutionary reform) was needed to qualitatively replace the socio-economic paradigm community development, without which Russia cannot join the ranks of the developed states of the world economic system.

Such an action (political upheaval) took place, but with it suddenly came a terrifying general (as it is now called - systemic) crisis. Politicians, including government officials, had no time for socio-economic development programs. And those who understood their necessity considered it possible to cope with economic and technological problems in a short time, in extreme cases in 400-500 days. Thanks to these unfortunate officials and politicians, the country has been in a crisis situation for more than ten years. The political struggle for power replaced economic reforms and shifted socio-economic problems away from the center - to the regions of the Russian Federation.

Under these conditions, the qualitative parameters of the organizational and economic development of society are identified with the system of regional management. This circumstance is due to the fact that the possibility of renewal and revitalization of economic ties, the use of the organizational potential of the regions were associated with its features, models of management of economic systems, models of development of the subjects of the Federation. The managerial elite of regional control systems used them in their own interests.

Qualitative territorial features of the subjects of the Federation made it possible to identify 5 models of regional development. These include:

Industrially developed regions of Russia, which have

historically established organizational potential, which, however, needs a serious renewal of equipment and production technologies.

Agricultural regions where it is necessary to re-create the ruined agro-industrial complex of Russia.

Regions with developed military industrial a complex that has undergone a hasty conversion. Here is the problem of establishing new socio-economic relations between enterprises of the military-industrial complex with government bodies power and market structures. Military-industrial complex enterprises should work on the basis of economic contracts and state orders.

resource regions. It is known that northern regions Russia has exceptionally rich reserves of unique natural resources. The danger of this regional management model lies in the lack of a legal framework for the preservation of these wealth from their reckless and wasteful use in the interests of local regional elites.

Management model built on the geographic and special resource prerogatives of Russian regions. So, the free economic zone of the Kaliningrad region does not cause discrepancies. She can serve organizational form management for other regions, some cities and regions of the country in the form of offshore zones, customs and other market structures. The unique reserves of gold in Chukotka, diamonds in Yakutia, non-ferrous metals in the north of Siberia suggest the creation of an adequate system of regional management. However, here the problems of belonging to the relevant property and its legal protection remain relevant.

The significance and scope of the changes that have taken place in the territorial structure of the Russian Federation should not be exaggerated, since each region is trying to independently cope with the difficulties of the transition period. As a result, economic disintegration has become a steady trend, and the federal executive bodies cannot effectively and sustainably prevent this process.

The process of disintegration is ambiguous. On the one hand, it reflects the historically inherent tendency in Russia towards a certain autonomy of regional markets. The desire for independence of the regions is explained by the geopolitical features of the country, the elimination of an over-centralized system of government and the objective need to expand the powers of local authorities, the transition to market relations. On the other hand, there is a noticeable inclination towards economic separatism, a desire to seize all new powers without prior notice. It has not yet been proven which path unambiguously leads to disintegration and which does not. At least it is clear that state regulation becomes objectively necessary. Here it is impossible not to rely on world experience.

A similar situation developed in various countries building federal relations. This is quite evident in the USA. At the end of the 19th century, the French historian Tocqueville, in his book “The Old Order and Revolution”, exploring the complexities of relations between the territorial subjects of the Federation and the central authorities of the United States, characterizes the situation as follows: “Either I am very mistaken, or the federal government tends to weaken ... When they realize that the weakness of the Federal Government threatens the very existence of the Union, the opposite trend will arise - to strengthen it.

In the management of the regions in France, this problem was not so acute. Already at the very beginning, the prefect of the district (territorial formation of the country) was the simultaneous head of the department and received all instructions and orders directly from the Prime Minister of France. Whereas in Russia the head of the region is an elected person and the relationship between the prime minister and the head of the regional administration is advisory in nature, which greatly complicates the unity of power and state administration in the Russian Federation.

For many today it has become clear that state regulation of the socio-economic development of the regions of the Russian Federation is a strategic factor.

An exceptionally deep territorial division of labor has historically developed in the country, and not a single, even the largest region is able to exist in the regime of absolute autonomy. Illusory ideas of local authorities in the opposite way not only violate the integrity of the single economic space and hinder market reform, but also prevent the use of the advantages of state regulation of the socio-economic interests of the regions. That is why it is necessary to create a federal legal space in which the interests of the regions and the federation would not oppose each other.

The preservation and strengthening of the Russian state directly depends on how successfully federal relations are formed, local self-government develops, and vertical and horizontal management structures for the activities of legislative and executive authorities are built. That is why the new state structure attaches great importance to the strengthening and development of federalism. Federalism - the relations of the subjects of the Federation among themselves and with the Federation as a whole, based on the delimitation of the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between the federal state authorities and the state authorities of the subjects of the Federation, as well as on the constitutional and legal equality of the subjects of the federation among themselves and in relations with federal state bodies authorities.

The tasks of strengthening federalism are solved as a result of:

Protecting and ensuring the interests of the Federation as a whole, the actions of the state authorities and regions aimed at maintaining the unity and territorial integrity of Russia;

Decentralization, democratization of power, expansion of the powers of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and increasing their responsibility to the population;

Legal and economic equalization of the rights and competence of the subjects of the Federation;

Development of political, economic and legal measures that ensure the constitutionally established independence of the regions, a combination of selective state support for individual regions with state stimulation of economic activity throughout Russia;

Consistent and proportional interaction of subjects of the Federation with federal authorities in economic, financial, social, cultural and national policy;

Real provision to every citizen of Russia of guaranteed constitutional rights and freedoms throughout the state.

According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 65), the Russian Federation includes 89 subjects of the Federation, which are called regions: 21 republics, 6 territories, 49 regions, 1 autonomous region, 10 autonomous districts and 2 federal cities. Administrative-territorial formations of the lower level - cities, towns, rural and urban areas, village councils, etc. there are about 27 thousand units.

Of the 11 economic regions of Russia, 4 are located in the North-Central strip of the European part of Russia: Northern, Northwestern, Central and Volga-Vyatka; 2 - in South European: Central Black Earth and North Caucasian; 2 - in Eastern European: Volga and Ural; 3 - in the Asian part: West Siberian, East Siberian and Far East.

It should be borne in mind that in Russia, as well as in other countries, the number of administrative-territorial entities has always been a mystery. If such regional formations as republics were built on a national-territorial basis, then this did not cause discrepancies and protests. However, krais, oblasts, and okrugs always had very approximate criterial boundaries, so they changed quite often. This applies to such historical precedents as provinces under tsarist rule or economic councils under the Soviet administrative command system.

Economic and social status subjects of the Federation are characterized by extreme inconsistency. According to 1995 data, the levels of economic development of the regions, calculated on the basis of the per capita volume of the gross regional product (GRP) as a percentage of the average Russian indicator, differ by economic regions by 2.9 times ( Western Siberia- 152%, North Caucasus 52%), and on the basis of gross industrial output - 3.9 times. In the context of the subjects of the Federation (without AO), the gap in levels (in terms of GRP) reaches 17.6 times (Tyumen region - 370%, Dagestan - 21%). Until recently, the situation has not changed much.

In terms of the number of people employed in the public sector (1995), Eastern Siberia (49%), the European North - 48% and the Far East - 48% are in the lead. At the average Russian level (42%) or slightly higher than it are the regions of the North-West, the Center, the Volga-Vyatka, the Volga region, the Urals and all the eastern ones. The share of the private sector is higher or at the level of the average (34%) in the regions of the North-West, the Center, the Chernozem region, and the North Caucasus. Mixed form of ownership against the average (22%) are allocated areas of the European North, Volga-Vyatka, Chernozem, Volga, Urals and three eastern. In 1998, there were 75 financial and industrial groups, which included more than 1,500 enterprises and 90 banks.

The Russian Federation has another qualitative characteristic of the territorial organization regional government- associations of economic interaction, we have eight of them.

Associations of economic interaction are an organizational form of integration of the economic interests of the regions. However, not all of them use this advantage well. Two of them are in a particularly difficult position. The first one is AEV "Central Russia". It includes the most developed economic terms regions and, at the same time, the most disunited in political claims that violate their potential for joint organizational development. Suffice it to say that such “monster” industrial regions as Moscow and the Moscow region have self-sufficient capabilities and practically do not need interaction with other regions of the association. The second is the AEV "Northern Caucasus", which is torn apart by national-territorial claims, and will not be able to cope with economic and social problems on its own (without federal support). At the same time, the effective advantages are visible in the activities of the associations of economic interaction "Siberian Agreement", "Ural", "Central Chernozem Region". The problems of applying this organizational form of regional governance lies in its legal uncertainty, both in relation to each other and in relation to the Federation. It is clear that the heterogeneous economic and political space of the regions of Russia complicates both their economic interaction and the participation of the latter in a joint state program of socio-economic development.

The above circumstances especially sharply pose the problem of a new quality of regional management, namely, programs for its solution - the formation of a new regional policy of the Russian Federation. In this context, regional policy in the Russian Federation should be understood as one of the most important activities of state bodies, in particular, the Government of the Russian Federation, synthesizing its regional aspects and representing a system of principles, priority areas, methods and measures of federal authorities to influence the territorial structure society to achieve the historical goals of the socio-economic development of the country. The Constitution of the Russian Federation declares a dialogue system for coordinating the interests of federal authorities, authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation, local governments to ensure sustainable self-development of a person in a specific territory, in a specific time and in a specific society.

The territory of the Russian Federation and now (after the collapse of the USSR) is huge. It is over 17 million square meters. km. The population is over 150 million people. The European part concentrates 4/5 of the total population and 1/10 of fuel and energy reserves. The length of the territory is 9 thousand km from west to east and 4 thousand km. - from North to South. Transport accessibility and cost-effectiveness of movement is an issue that has yet to be addressed. More than 2/3 joint ventures with foreign capital are located in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and most of the large commercial banks are also located here.

It should be noted that the possibilities of state support for the regions are already being considered. This is especially true for financial support.

Financial assistance to the regions is provided mainly through the following funds:

Federal Fund for Financial Support of the Subjects of the Federation (FFSR). The center's transfers are allocated to equalize average per capita spending using federal social standards and the budget spending index for each group of regions; - Regional Development Fund (RDF), which is a regional section of the investment part of the federal budget for social purposes. Regional cut federal budget development provides support for productive investments; - Fund for the Development of Regional Finances (FRRF), formed at the expense of loans from the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, directed to those regions that meet the standards and indicators of reforms, heal their budget.

Multi-channel assistance needs to be reconstructed on the basis of creating a single source of financing for the socio-economic development of the regions.

The further development of the regional management system, in our opinion, is associated not so much with the use of the potentials of the region, but with the strategic line of the state management system of the country as a whole and the balanced development of the regions. Of course, it is necessary to take into account the diversity of their features. To do this, it is necessary to determine the strategic directions of their development.

In our opinion, it is quite difficult to do this without a deep diagnosis of regional development. We have shown that there has been a qualitative shift in the system of government in the country and in individual subjects of the Federation. By a qualitative shift, we mean changes in the system various levels. The first level - (the topmost) involves changes in the Government of the Russian Federation. Here, first of all, there was a change in the paradigm of the organization. The second level - (regional) in accordance with the changes in the first, many of its functions have been transferred to the second, often inconsistent with each other. The third - (municipal), declared above the first level, weakly consistent with the previous ones. The fourth level - (enterprise - primary production link) was generally removed from the state management structure, thereby significantly delaying the organizational, technological and socio-economic development of society.

The weakness of the management system, as we see, lies in their organizational disunity: the inconsistency of development goals, the lack of understandable organizational forms of interaction, the weakness of material and financial mutual support at all levels of social development. All this exacerbates the problem of the formation and effective use of the organizational potential of the region.

It is interesting that all over the world, close attention is paid to the organizational factors of the development of society at all levels of the state and commercial management. In this regard, it is interesting, for example, the statement of one major entrepreneur: “Wherever we invested only economic factors of production, especially capital, we did not achieve development. In the few cases where we have been able to generate management energy, we have generated rapid development.”

Consequently, the organizational potential of the region is a universal category. Its implementation will not give the desired effect until he synthesizes the interests and strategic goals all levels of management.

Theory of organizational potential. In the early 1970s, the American scientist Igor Ansoff put forward a number of new ideas regarding approaches to understanding and developing organizational management structures. He considers an industrial organization as a certain system that interacts with sources of resources and the external environment (sales markets, competitors, government, etc.).

Based on this, two historical approaches to the formation of organizational structures stand out.

The first of these - the structural approach - was characteristic of the period before the Second World War. The main emphasis in it was placed on the internal structure of firms, the division of functions and the rationalization of management. At its core, the approach was static, since it did not take into account the dynamics of changes in organizational structures under the influence of external factors.

The second, dynamic approach was most widely used in the post-war period. It focuses on the analysis of the firm's links with the environment in which it operates and with sources of resources. The dynamic approach is illustrated by the model of the firm presented in fig. 3.

Within the framework of this approach, the analysis of managerial problems is carried out in two stages. At the first stage, the firm is considered in conditions of stable external relations(static aspect). The organizational problems that arise in this case are of an operational nature.

At the second stage, the impact on the organization of changes in the external environment (dynamic aspect) is studied. Organizational problems arising in connection with this, Ansoff calls strategic.

Ansoff believes that the main task of the top management of a modern firm is to solve strategic problems in a changing external environment. One of the main theses of the dynamic approach is the existence of a close relationship between the nature of external relationships and the behavior of the firm, on the one hand, and its internal organization- with another.

Ansoff emphasizes that any organization is a complex collection of a large number of interrelated elements.

The most important of them are: leaders, structure, information, systems and procedures, technological processes, values, organizational potential. A large set of these elements represents organizational capacity.

It is most expedient to start changing the organizational potential with people, with managers. This is followed by a change in the value system operating in the company, the restructuring of information flows, other elements.

It is believed that the basis of organizational potential is the so-called culture of the organization (the totality of managerial personnel, value systems, systems and procedures).

This part of the organizational capacity is most affected by the chosen strategy of the firm. There are cases when a small change in strategy may require a radical restructuring of the culture of the organization and when a change in strategy requires little or no change in the culture of the organization, and, consequently, organizational capacity. However, most often, changes in strategy are associated with certain changes in organizational capacity. The very nature of the transition essentially depends on the specific conditions. Within the framework of the theory under consideration, the influence of the product life cycle on the strategy for changing organizational capacity is revealed.

The theory outlined above is applicable only to organizations that are sensitive to all changes in the external environment. For each specific case, the optimal frequency of organizational restructuring should be established. The process of change itself is determined by external conditions. Experiments have been carried out when several possible management structures are worked out in advance in an organization and one of the options is selected depending on the conditions. Moreover, the choice of one or another variant can be carried out on a computer using formal methods.

The company management model (Table 2) shows that, depending on external conditions and the nature of the problems being solved, top management should focus on quite specific points indicated in the matrix.

Table 2 - The model of top management of the firm

Note: Aggregates (1) and (2) represent the full potential.