User:Bondwang/sandbox

Wikipedia: Requested articles: Hybrid management - Please advise if this is the same as Hybrid organization?

A Hybrid organization structure is a completely new organizational structure that combines many organizational structures. It can be seen as a combination of a matrix-shaped organizational structure and a business unit-shaped organizational structure.

The company will set up a series of relatively independent departments. All departments are fully empowered and have great autonomy. For example, companies set up a series of relatively independent business units based on products, customers, and markets.

In order to achieve resource sharing, companies '' typically focus on departments with similar functions, such as the personnel department, customer service department, and advertising department. When the superiors delegate tasks, these departments can collaborate and share resources to maximize profits.

In addition to concentrating departments with similar functions, the hybrid structure is designed to leverage the expertise of certain special departments to strengthen the role of these functions. All the resources obtained from other departments are brought together to make the functions of certain close-up departments more perfect.[1]

Hybrid management is conducive to enterprises to choose different organizational structures according to special needs and business priorities, and has strong flexibility. It can also make quick adjustments based on changes in the external environment and business activities;

But on the contrary, the organization of mixed management is not standardized, which is easy to cause management confusion; the differences between the various departments are not conducive to coordination and cooperation, and it is not conducive to establishing a complete corporate image in the world.[2]

Hybrid management, which was proposed by Robert Black and Jane Morton, behavioral scientists at the University of Texas in 1964, in Managing Grid.

The introduction of mixed management has changed the previous theories, either production-centered or human-centered absolute views. They pointed out that between the two leadership styles of production concern and concern for people, different levels of mutual Combine.

Black and Morton screen out the six elements of decision-making, beliefs, conflicts, temperament, conservation, and effort according to the influence of management coordinate positioning, and give different behavioral expressions for each element for the reader to conduct self-test. This self-test can rule out most unconscious self-deception. With this list, managers can conduct more accurate and objective self-identification.

Black and Morton believe that the various mixed management methods in reality, despite their existence and reason, do not recognize the integration principle of caring and caring for production, so they must be integrated and transformed with behavioral science theory.

Impoverished Management – Low Results/Low People

Poor leaders have no concern for performance and people. They just want to keep their status and have already given up their duties. Usually because they don't have the ability to manage, and they don't have goals and ambitions. This kind of business is a failure, and this kind of leader has no charm. In many developing countries, the leaders of state-owned enterprises are of this type. The second generation of leaders of many familial businesses is also of this type.

Produce-or-Perish Management – High Results/Low People[3]

Authoritarian leaders are more concerned about performance, less concerned with people, and authoritarian. They have no fresh individuals in their eyes. Only the lower-level employees who need to complete production tasks are only concerned with performance indicators. They just want to keep their status and seek greater profits. Many political leaders are of this type.

Middle-of-the-Road Management – Medium Results/Medium People

Small citizen leaders are neither focused on production nor on caring for people. Their management style is moderate and does not set too high a goal. Companies can get a certain morale and appropriate output, but not excellence. Usually they are limited by their personal ability, but they are very clear about their ability to know their own limits. This kind of management style is very common, but this is the favorite management style of most employees. Employees have their own free time, and the superior department does not assign a lot of tasks to them.

Country Club Management – High People/Low Results

Club-style leaders care less about performance and care more about people. They strive to create an environment where everyone can relax and feel friendship and happiness. But they don't care about the company's performance, profits and goals. Usually they are limited by their personal ability. Even if they want to develop their performance, it is difficult to achieve great goals. But they are very concerned about developing interpersonal relationships. Although they have limited ability, they are very motivated and they will contribute to the company. Many leaders in the human resources department are in this style of management.

Team Management – High Production/High People

Ideal leaders are concerned about performance and people. They are excellent leaders who can bring about productivity and profit improvement, and enable employees to achieve career success and wealth. This type of leader is very capable, good at using people, and at the same time very ambitious. They are very good managers.According to the Blake Mouton model, Team management is the most effective leadership style. It reflects a leader who is passionate about his work and who does the best he can for the people he works with.[4]

Although in the above theory, according to the leader of the enterprise, the degree of concern for performance, and the degree of concern for people, the leaders are divided into five different types, but this is only a theoretical template. Many real-life companies are not typical cases, so this is not a perfect theory, but an idea. The management grid theory provides a theoretical framework for management behavior. The management activities in reality are not completely pure forms of the above five types, but a mixture[5][6]

In addition, the hybrid management model has many advantages, because the company itself has many independent departments, they can protect themselves, supply themselves, do not need to obtain resources from other external companies, the company has great autonomy, and can protect the company to get the most Profit, the goal has been achieved. In addition, it is flexible and can be flexibly adjusted according to the company's goals and the objects of the company's services. Although the various departments of the company have different functions, they can share resources. When necessary, you can concentrate all the company's information resources and strengthen the functions of a particular department. Companies with mixed management models can vigorously develop international projects because they have strong adaptability to the external environment.

However, the hybrid management model also has many shortcomings. As its advantages describe, many independent departments of the enterprise, but the functions of different departments are different. If the organizational structure is not perfect, it is difficult for managers to grasp the direction of the company and easily cause management. Chaos, and often due to organizational damage, is irreparable. There are great differences between the various departments set up by the company. If resources and tasks cannot be allocated reasonably, it will be very unfavorable for coordination and cooperation, and it is not conducive to establishing a complete corporate image in the world. If the company develops very well, it will also cause monopoly of the enterprise, which is not conducive to the development of other companies. Especially in the later stage of the company's development, it will create price monopoly and commodity monopoly, which is unfavorable to consumers.


 * 1) Wikipedia: Requested articles: Hybrid management - Please advise if this is the same as Hybrid organization?Moreno, Juan C. (October 2011). Neurorobotic and hybrid management of lower limb motor disorders: a review. Spain: Spain. pp. Moreno, J.C., del Ama, A.J., de los Reyes-Guzmán, A. et al. Med Biol Eng Comput (2011) 49: 1119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-011-0821-4.


 * 1) Wikipedia: Requested articles: Hybrid management - Please advise if this is the same as Hybrid organization?T, Kostova (2002). "Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects". Academy of Management Journal: 45: 215–233.


 * 1) Wikipedia: Requested articles: Hybrid management - Please advise if this is the same as Hybrid organization? Savage, Jan (27 October 2004). The modern matron: a hybrid management role with implications for continuous quality improvement. 62, Thornhill Road, London N11JU, UK: Cherill Scott MA (Oxon). p. 18.


 * 1) Wikipedia: Requested articles: Hybrid management - Please advise if this is the same as Hybrid organization?L, Zucker (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Oxford: Scott W. R.Short J. F. pp. Annual review of sociology, vol. 13: 443–464.


 * 1) Wikipedia: Requested articles: Hybrid management - Please advise if this is the same as Hybrid organization?Miller, Clark (October 1, 2001). "Hybrid Management: Boundary Organizations, Science Policy, and Environmental Governance in the Climate Regime". Science, Technology, & Human Values.


 * 1) Wikipedia: Requested articles: Hybrid management - Please advise if this is the same as Hybrid organization?Bergmann, Shimoni (1 Aug 2006). "Managing in a Changing World: From Multiculturalism to Hybridization—The Production of Hybrid Management Cultures in Israel, Thailand, and Mexico". Academy of Management.