Abbreviation: Company A was founded by Southeast Asian Americans. Five years after its establishment, the founder retired to the second line and hired a professional manager as CEO (hereinafter referred to as "founder" and "CEO" respectively). Company B was founded for Chinese Americans. The founder has always been the CEO in charge of the company, and his wife also works in the logistics department of the company (hereinafter referred to as "the boss" and "the proprietress" respectively).
Last time I mentioned the departmental wall in the chapter on organizational structure.
Such as submarine corals, the bones of small corals have accumulated over time and surfaced, eventually becoming islands.
When a department encounters a problem, it usually looks for the reason of the other party, hoping to push the other party to take the lead so as to facilitate the work of its own department. At this time, it depends on whether the relevant employees are open-minded and willing to put forward constructive suggestions through consultation to promote the solution of the matter. In a company, because VP is excellent, it can not only make achievements, but also make political achievements. If they encounter problems, they will show the founders that they are doing the right thing. If there is a problem, it is also someone else's problem. However, no matter what the differences between VPs are, they are still very kind to employees and will not pass on the pressure rudely. However, some colleagues are very sensitive to some controversial language. In my opinion, they are not aimed at anyone, nor are they bad. They just think they're saying I'm not good. If such sensitive employees are in leadership positions such as department managers and directors, they will transmit this pressure to the surrounding employees. Then these people will wonder why I always have to change, because they think I am wrong, or they are just picking on me. These people will build fortifications and try their best to find out other people's mistakes and find out all kinds of reasons why they should not act.
For example, if a company wants to use some software programs instead of labor to improve efficiency, employees will say what to do if the original data is wrong and the report is wrong. If you can't change it, it's better to change it immediately if there is something wrong with the manual. Another example: the employee said several times that there was something wrong with the program, and now it needs to be retested. If you can't solve the problem again, you might as well not do it. These fortifications have gradually formed departmental walls, and the change is also a matter for other departments. Don't change it on my head. Therefore, the departmental wall of Company A is not caused by the organizational structure of function+hierarchical authorization, but by putting defensive people in management positions.
But how can company A put such a person in a management position? In fact, defensive mentality is only one of their characteristics, and its hidden dangers are not immediately obvious. In fact, their advantages are outstanding. Management wants to make good use of their advantages, but they are not aware of the influence of defensive mentality and have not taken measures to offset this side effect. There is a famous saying in the management of Company A: We don't need to like each other, we just need to work together. It's incredible for China people. I hate this man. How can I work with him? Foreigners don't think that work and making friends are two different things.
Defensive people abound, and Company B is no exception. Different from Company A, Company B has a small number of management posts, and the boss has centralized control over everything. The energy of management posts is small, so it is unlikely to draw a clear sphere of influence like VP of Company A. The boss is very cautious in choosing people for management posts and will not put people who don't get along well together. It can be seen that the coordination between company B and the boss is very important. The principle here is just the opposite to that of company A. You can get along well if you get along well, and you can be versatile if you get along badly.
Take a case as an example.
The sales order of Company A is received by the sales assistant and entered into the system, but the delivery is arranged by the production plan. Sometimes customers require early delivery and late delivery, which requires the sales assistant to cooperate with the production plan. The sales assistant belongs to the sales department and the production plan belongs to the operation department. This process spans the jurisdiction of the two VP's, so we often hear two departments arguing about how to change this order, just to distinguish the responsibilities of the two departments. In company B, these two positions belong to one person, so there is no need to quarrel at all.
Or this case.
The administrative work of company A is the least technical and the workload is not large. Usually, administrative posts are not specially set up, but other positions that require skills are used for administration, such as sales assistant and sales office administration, personnel and administration. In Company A, the sales assistant is also the administrator of the sales office, reporting to the regional sales manager. I once thought that if the sales assistant and the role of arranging delivery in production and operation are integrated, these contradictions will not exist, but who will report to the integrated position, who will be responsible for the VP and who will do the office administration? It's too wasteful to leave a person. No one will do it. Moreover, such a change needs to break the original departmental structure and change the sphere of influence of the existing function VP, so just think about it.
In Company B, the proprietress actually controls the logistics department. In this department, the proprietress is personally responsible for administration, so there are many administrative posts. What the administrative post can do is undertaken by the administrative post, and what the administrative post cannot do is other functional posts. The total number of jobs in the logistics department of Company A and Company B is similar. Company A has only functional posts but no special administrative posts, and the number of administrative posts in Company B exceeds functional posts. For example, there is a special administrative assistant in the sales office, so that the duties of the sales assistant can be merged with those of the assistant who arranges delivery in the production plan, avoiding the departmental wall of Company A.
In addition, I have observed that there are many people running errands and doing chores in Company B. The proprietress can mobilize the human resources of the whole logistics department to see which assistant is free today and let her run errands. Not in a company. You must consider the nature of this matter and which department it belongs to, and let this department do it. Assistants in other departments can't be transferred if they have nothing to do.
There are also departmental walls under the centralized system, but the places are different. My best friend told me from personal experience: dear, the place where centralized private enterprises are most likely to produce departmental walls is the junction of old courtiers and new courtiers. Old employees want to maintain the status quo, while new employees want to change. Old employees are vested interests, holding a group to resist change, making new employees unable to act, and finally new employees leave because of inaction, or are left behind because of inaction. My girlfriend's company is relatively large, and there are already a considerable proportion of airborne soldiers. Airborne troops come and go, very lively. Company B hasn't reached this point yet, and the boss and proprietress are carefully trying to grasp the unchangeable principle of controlling the enterprise.