Skip to main content

How would you compare the relative importance of each function of each level of the management pyramid?

The question is to compare the importance of the function(s) performed by each level of management, using the concept of a pyramid to describe the hierarchy of management in a typical organization. By definition, each level is “important” to the extent it is deemed necessary by the organization; i.e. these are all jobs which “must” be done to operate the organization, otherwise they would be eliminated. Therefore, the concept of importance is really more one of what the key functions of each level are.


Most people tend to think of management hierarchies in terms of organizational charts with various job titles arranged in reporting relationships. The permutations of this approach are legion, but they can be simply distilled into three basic levels, namely “front-line,” middle, and executive.


Front-line managers are primarily responsible for coordinating the daily productive activities of the organization’s non-managerial personnel, issuing tasks, monitoring output, and training such personnel as needed. A front-line manager may have one or more supervisors assisting in their daily managerial responsibilities. The decision to organize this way will typically be driven by span of control issues (i.e. the manager has too many operational personnel to effectively task and monitor, so supervisors are necessary). Nonetheless, the core function at this level is direct management of production (the term being used broadly here to mean making or doing whatever is necessary to fulfill the organization’s purpose).


Middle managers are fundamentally information processors. They aggregate reports of results from the operational units into information useful to executive level staff, e.g. production results (upward information flow). They also take high-level directives, goals, policies and so forth from executive managers and implement them across the units for which they are responsible (downward information flow). By virtue of their access to the operational units, they may be asked to advise executive managers in policy development, but they do not have the authority to finalize such policy. Note that, because their role is one of information processing, the number of such managers necessary has decreased dramatically in the last several decades with the expansion of computing power and applications (“flattening” the organizational pyramid).


Finally, executive managers have the primary responsibility for determining the broad direction and policies which will drive the success of the overall organization. They report directly to the “owners” of the organization (e.g. shareholders, or with charities, the trusts or boards of directors). In US law, some of these executives may be personally legally liable for the actions of the organization/corporation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...