【观点】德鲁克：组织结构不当的七个典型症状

没有十全十美的组织。在最好的情况下，一个组织机构只不过是不会引起麻烦而已。但是，在设计组织的基本构成单位并把它们结合起来时，最常见的毛病是什么？组织中最常见的严重缺陷所表现出来的症状有哪些?

一、结构不当的最常见和最严重的症状，就是管理层次过多

组织的一条基规则就是：使组织层次尽可能少、指挥线路尽可能短。每增加一个层次，就会使保持共同方向和互相理解更加困难一些。每增加一个层次、就会使目标歪曲而注意力分散的可能性更大。在数学的“信息论”中有一条规律：在通信系统中，每增加一个中继站，就会使“信息”减半而“噪声”加倍。在一个组织中，任何一个“层次”都是一个“中继站”。链条中的每一环，都增加了紧张程度并造成一种惰性、摩擦和松弛的根源。

企业，特别是大型企业，每増加一个层次，就会使培养未来的管理人员更加困难一些。之所以会这样，主要是由于以下两个原因：

一是必然会使管理人员从基层向上提升的时间更长；

二是使得从这条渠道提升上来的人员更易于成为专业人员而不是成为经理人员。

目前，在某些大型公司里，从第一线的监工到公司总经理之间有12个，甚至15个层次。假定一个人从25岁时开始担任第一线的监工，在每个层次只花费5年的时间(这两者都是最乐观的估计)那么在他可能被考虑担任公司总经理时，将要达到80岁或90岁。而通常采用的一种“治疗方法“——为某些挑选出来的年轻“天才”或“王储”另设一条特别的晋升阶梯，却如同这种疾病本身一样不好。

一个组织到底要多少层次，可以从西方世界最古老、最庞大和最成功的组织即天主教会的例子中看出来。在教皇和最基层的教区神父之间只有一个权力与责任层次，即主教。

二、结构不当的第二个最常见的症状，是组织问题的重复发生

一个组织问题刚刚被认为已经“解决”，它立即又以一种新的形式重新发生。在制造公司中，一个典型的例子就是产品开发。市场营销人员认为产品开发应该归他们管，而研究与开发人员则同样地坚信应该归自己，但是无论把这项工作交给哪一个部门，都只会造成重复发生的问题，事实上，无论放在这两个部门中的哪一个部门，都是错误的。在一个需要创新的企业里，产品开发是一项关键活动和产生收益的活动。它不应从属于任何其他活动，而应该作为一个独立的创新部门受到重视。

组织问题的重复发生，表明了把“典型职能”或“参谋与直线”这些传统的“组织原则”不加思考地加以应用（的结果）。正确的解决办法是做出正确的分析一一关键活动分析、贡献分析、决策分析和关系分析。如果一个组织问题再三地重复发生，那就不能用在纸上改画组织图这样的机械方法来处理了。它表明缺乏思考、缺乏明确性、缺乏理解。

三、同样普遍并同样危险的一种症状是组织机构使关键人员的注意力放在不恰当的、不相关的次要问题上

组织应该使人员的注意力集中在重大的企业决策、关键活动和绩效与成果上。如果不是这样，而是使人们去关注恰当的举止、礼貌和程序，更不用讲去关注管辖范围方面的冲突了，那么组织就是指引错误的方向。那样的话,组织就会成为取得杰出绩效的绊脚石了。

这是由于机械地构建组织，而不是有机地构建组织的结果。同时，这也是由于只顾所谓的各种原则而没有对企业所要求的组织战略进行深入思考的结果，是由于只顾形式上的对称性而没有顾及绩效的结果。组织图不会陈列在大型的美术馆里，所以它是否美观是无关紧要的，重要的是组织。一张组织图不过是简单的表达方式而已，它使人们可以确保在讨论组织结构时所讨论的是同一些事物。人们永远不会为了使组织图美观而进行组织上的变革，而始终是因为结构不当才对组织进行变革。

还有一些常见的结构不当的症状，通常需要对它们做进一步的诊断。

四、就是有太多的人参加太多的会

在有些组织，特别是大型组织中，管理机构通过会议来开展工作。通用汽车公司中的高层管理委员会就是其中的一个例子。另外，由高层管理人员组成的新泽西标准石油公司和杜邦公司的董事会，也属于这类例子。不过，这些是前面讨论过的会议过多病症的一种例外——这些是故意设置的一些机构，它们并不具有经营职能，而且一般也不具有决策职能。它们是进行指导、思考、回顾和评估的机构，也许，它们所具有的最重要职能，就是迫使参加这些会议的高层经理人员认真思考他们自己的方向、需要和机会。这些故意设置的机构，正是通过会议来行使它们的职能的。但是，除此以外，会议过多应该被看做是结构不当的一种标志。最理想的组织应该是没有会议而仍能正常运转的组织一一就像最理想的机械设计应该是在机械中只有一个传动部件一样。在每个人群组织中，需要合作、协调和处好关系的地方太多了，以至于不得不增加会议。但会议中人们的动态又过于复杂，以至于对完成工作而言，会议是一种非常不好的工具。

在任何时候，如果经理人员(不包括最高阶层的经理人员)花费在会议上的时间超过了他们工作时间的一小部分(可能是四分之一或更少一些)那就是“虚有其表”的结构不当症状。会议过多，就表明职务未予以明确界定、机构不够健全、责任不够分明。此外，会议过多，还表明或者是根本没有进行决策分析和关系分析，或者是并没有把这些分析付之应用。相应的规则是：应该把召集许多人在一起来完成事情的情况减少到最小限度。

五、组织不良的第五个症状是如果人们总在关心人的感情问题或其他人喜欢什么或不喜欢什么，那就不是一个有着良好人际关系的组织

良好的人际关系正如良好的行为方式一样,是出于自然的。如果经常担心别人的感情,那就是最坏的人际关系。

如果一个组织有这种毛病（而许多组织有这种毛病），那就可以毫不含糊地说，它存在着人员过多的毛病。从实际情况来看，这可能表现在活动方面人员过多。与集中精力关注关键活动相反，人们更多的是试图什么事情都做一些，特别是在咨询和教育方面。另外,这也可能表现为在某项活动上人浮于事，大家待在一个房间里，互相刺激对方的神经，你碰到了我的眼睛，我踩到了你的脚趾。如果人们都有适当的空间，就不会再互相碰撞了。人员过多的组织，是在创造更多的额外工作，而不是在提升绩效，这会造成摩擦、敏感、烦恼和担心感情。

六、如果ー个组织依于“协调员”“助手”或其他以不担任职务为职务的人,也是结构不当的一种症状

它表明各项活动和工作设计得过于狭窄了，或者表明各项活动和工作不是为某项明确的成果而设计的，而是期望从事许多不同的工作。另外，这通常也可能表明：各个组织部门是按照技能进行组织的，而不是按照它们在生产过程中的地位或贡献。实际上，技术做出的贡献，通常只是局部的，而不是一项成果。为此，就需要有一个协调员或其他某个无职务的人把这各个部分拼凑在一起，而各个部分本来就是不应分开的。

七、作为慢性病的“组织脑炎后遗症”

在这种组织中，每一个人都对组织问题特别关心，并不断地进行重组。只要一有某种麻烦的征兆，即使只是一个采购员同工程人员有关某种物品规格的争执，都会吵到“组织医生”(外部的咨询人员或者内部的参谋人员)那里去。没有一项组织的解决方案能够得以长期维持。事实上，在另外一项组织研究着手进行之前，几乎没有任何一项组织安排可以有足够的时间进行试验并在实践中产生结果。

在某些情况下，这种做法实际上就表明了组织不良。如果组织结构没有抓住基本要点，就会发生“组织脑炎后遗症”。特别地，当一个企业在规模大小或复杂程度上，或企业的目标和战略上发生了重大变化，而企业又没有进行重新思考和重新改组时，就会发生“组织脑炎后遗症，由于“组织脑炎后遗症”常常是自我感染的，并且是多疑症的一种形式，所以需要强调的是：不应该经常和轻易地进行组织变革。重组是一种外科手术，即使是小的外科手术，也是有风险的。

对于一有小毛病就进行组织研究或重组的要求，应该予以抵制。没有那个组织会是十全十美的，某种程度的摩擦、矛盾和混乱，是在所难免的。

翻译：

Drucker: The seven classic symptoms of improper organizational structure

No organization is perfect. At its best, an organization is simply not a problem. But what are the most common pitfalls in designing the basic building blocks of an organization and putting them together? What are the symptoms of the most common serious defects in an organization?

One of the most common and serious symptoms of improper structure is excessive levels of management

One of the basic rules of organization is to have as few layers of organization and as few lines of command as possible. Each additional level makes it more difficult to maintain common direction and mutual understanding. Each additional level makes it more likely that the goal will be distorted and the focus will be distracted. In the “information theory” of mathematics, there is a rule that every additional relay station in a communication system halves the “information” and doubles the “noise”. In an organization, any “level” is a “relay station.” Each link in the chain increases tension and creates a source of inertia, friction and relaxation.

Each additional level of enterprise, especially large enterprises, makes it a little more difficult to train future managers. This is mainly due to the following two reasons:

One is that it will inevitably make it take longer for managers to move up from the grassroots.

The second is to make it easier for people who move up through this channel to become professionals rather than managers.

At present, in some large companies, there are 12 or even 15 levels between the first line supervisor and the general manager of the company. Assuming that a man starts as a front-line supervisor at the age of 25 and spends only five years at each level (both are the most optimistic estimates), he will be 80 or 90 years old by the time he is likely to be considered for the position of general manager of a company. The usual “cure” – a special ladder of promotion for selected young “geniuses” or “crown princes” – is as bad as the disease itself.

Just how many layers an organization needs can be seen from the example of the oldest, largest, and most successful organization in the Western world, the Catholic Church. There is only one level of authority and responsibility between the Pope and the most junior parish priest, the bishop.

The second most common symptom of improper structure is the recurrence of organizational problems

No sooner is an organizational problem thought to have been “solved” than it reoccurs in a new form. In a manufacturing company, a typical example is product development. Marketing people believe that product development should be theirs, and research and development people are equally convinced that it should be theirs, but no matter which department it is assigned to, it will only create recurring problems, and in fact, no matter which department of the two departments it is wrong. In a business that requires innovation, product development is a key and revenue-generating activity. It should not belong to any other activity, but should be valued as an independent innovation sector.

The repetition of organizational problems indicates the thoughtless application of traditional “organizational principles” such as “typical functions” or “staff and lines.” The right solution is to make the right analysis – critical activity analysis, contribution analysis, decision analysis and relationship analysis. If an organization problem occurs over and over again, it cannot be solved by mechanical means such as changing the organization chart on paper. It shows a lack of thought, a lack of clarity, a lack of understanding.

An equally common and equally dangerous symptom is that organizations focus the attention of key personnel on inappropriate and irrelevant secondary issues

The organization should focus people’s attention on major business decisions, key activities, and performance and results. If, instead, people focus on proper manners, courtesy, and procedure, not to mention conflicts of jurisdiction, then the organization is pointing in the wrong direction. In that case, the organization becomes an obstacle to achieving outstanding performance.

This is the result of building the organization mechanically rather than organically. At the same time, it is also the result of thinking only about the so-called principles without thinking deeply about the organizational strategy required by the company, and it is the result of thinking only about formal symmetry without considering performance. An organization chart is not displayed in a large art gallery, so whether it is beautiful or not is not important, the important thing is the organization. An organization chart is simply a way to make sure that people are talking about the same things when they talk about organizational structure. Organizational change is never made to make the organizational chart beautiful; it is always made because the organization is improperly structured.

There are also some common symptoms of structural malfunctioning that often require further diagnosis.

Four, too many people attend too many meetings

In some organizations, especially large ones, the management body conducts its work through meetings. The top management committee at General Motors is an example of this. The boards of directors of Standard Oil of New Jersey and DuPont of New Jersey, made up of top executives, are also examples. However, these are an exception to the symptoms of excessive meetings discussed earlier – these are deliberately set up bodies that do not have an operational function and, in general, do not have a decision-making function. They are institutions for guidance, reflection, review and evaluation, and perhaps the most important function they have is to force the senior managers who attend these meetings to think hard about their own direction, needs and opportunities. It is through meetings that these deliberate bodies perform their functions. But, beyond that, too many meetings should be seen as a sign of poor structure. The ideal organization is one that can function without meetings – just as the ideal mechanical design is one that has only one driving part in the machine. There are so many areas of collaboration, coordination, and rapport in every population organization that meetings have to be added. But the dynamics of people in meetings are so complex that they are a very poor tool for getting work done.

At any given time, if managers (excluding the most senior managers) spend more than a fraction (perhaps a quarter or less) of their working time in meetings, that is a symptom of structural malpractice. Too many meetings indicate that functions are not clearly defined, institutions are not sound enough and responsibilities are not clear enough. In addition, the excessive number of meetings also indicates that decision analysis and relationship analysis are either not carried out at all or are not applied. The corresponding rule is that the number of people brought together to get things done should be kept to a minimum.

The fifth symptom of poor organization is that if people are always concerned with people’s emotional problems or what other people like or don’t like, then it is not an organization with good interpersonal relationships

Good relationships are as natural as good behavior. If you constantly worry about other people’s feelings, that is the worst kind of relationship.

If an organization has this problem (and many do), it can be said unequivocally that it has a problem with too many people. In practical terms, this may manifest itself in the presence of too many people in the field of activities. Instead of focusing on key activities, people are more likely to try to do a little bit of everything, especially in counseling and education. In addition, it can also be in the form of people floating around in an activity, everyone in the same room, each other’s nerves, you touch my eye, I step on your toes. If people had the right space, they wouldn’t bump into each other anymore. Overstaffed organizations create more extra work rather than improving performance, which causes friction, sensitivity, annoyance, and worry about relationships.

It is also a symptom of improper structure if ー organizations depend on “coordinators”, “assistants”, or other people who do not hold office for the purpose of holding office

It indicates that activities and work have been designed too narrowly, or that they are not designed for a specific outcome but are expected to perform many different tasks. In addition, it may often indicate that the various organizational departments are organized according to skills, rather than according to their position or contribution in the production process. In fact, the contribution made by technology is usually only partial, rather than an outcome. For that, a coordinator or someone else without a job title is needed to put the pieces together, and the pieces should not be separated in the first place.

7. Sequelae of tissue encephalitis as a chronic disease

In this kind of organization, everyone is particularly concerned about organizational problems and is constantly reorganizing. At the first sign of trouble, even if it is just a dispute between a buyer and an engineer about the specifications of an item, it goes to the “organizational doctor” (external consultant or internal staff). No organizational solution is sustainable over the long term. In fact, almost no organizational arrangement has enough time to experiment and produce results in practice before another organizational study is undertaken.

In some cases, this practice is actually indicative of poor organization. If the organization does not grasp the basic points, the sequelae of tissue encephalitis can occur. In particular, “sequelae of tissue encephalitis” occurs when a business changes significantly in size or complexity, or in the goals and strategies of the business, without re-thinking and re-organizing the business. Since “sequelae of tissue encephalitis” is often self-infecting and is a form of paranoia, it is important to emphasize that: Organizational change should not be carried out often and easily. Recombination is a surgical procedure, and even a minor surgical procedure is risky.

Requests for organizational research or reorganization at the first sign of a glitch should be resisted. No organization is perfect, and some degree of friction, conflict, and confusion is inevitable.

由CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）转载而成，来源于包子堂本质私塾，作者彼得·德鲁克；编辑/翻译：CXO UNIONCXO联盟小U。

如需加入CXO UNION（CXO联盟）高管社群，请联系社群小伙伴哦~

免责声明: 本网站(http://www.cxounion.cn/)内容主要来自原创、合作媒体供稿和第三方投稿，凡在本网站出现的信息，均仅供参考。本网站将尽力确保所提供信息的准确性及可靠性，但不保证有关资料的准确性及可靠性，读者在使用前请进一步核实，并对任何自主决定的行为负责。本网站对有关资料所引致的错误、不确或遗漏，概不负任何法律责任。

本网站刊载的所有内容(包括但不仅限文字、图片、LOGO、音频、视频、软件、程序等) 版权归原作者所有。任何单位或个人认为本网站中的内容可能涉嫌侵犯其知识产权或存在不实内容时，请及时通知本站，予以删除。