قدرت و اختیار

نویسنده: مهدی یاراحمدی خراسانی

 قدرت

• قدرت يعني توانائي در اعمال نفوذ برساير افراد. قدرت مي تواند در هر نوع رابطه اي وجود داشته باشد. در سازمان مديران اعمال قدرت مي کنند.

v      منابع قدرت

• قدرت مبتني بر پاداش
• قدرت مبتني بر زور
• قدرت قانوني
• قدرت مبتني بر تخصص
• قدرت مرجع

اختيار          Authority

v      اختيار

• اختيار شکلي از قدرت است.به ويژه،اختياررسمي يک قدرت مشروع مي باشد. ولي ، اغلب ما اين واژه را به صورتي گسترده در مورد ساير انواع قدرت هم به کار مي بريم.
• اختيار رسمي نوعي از قدرت است که در ساختار سازماني و مديريت گنجانده شده است. آن بر اساس اين شناخت قرار دارد که مديريت حق اعمال نفوذ دارد.

v      مبناي اختيارات رسمي

• ديدگاه کلاسيک
• ديدگاه مبتني بر پذيرش

اختيارات صفي و ستادي

v      اختيارات صفي

• مديران با اختيارات صفي کساني هستند که در سازمان،به صورت مستقيم مسئول تأمين هدف هاي سازمان مي باشند. اختيارات صفي به وسيله زنجيره استاندارد فرماندهي مشخص مي شود که از هيأت مديره آغاز مي گردد، از سطوح مختلف سلسله مراتب اختيارات مي گذرد و به نقطه اي مي رسد که فعاليت هاي اصلي سازمان انجام مي شوند. اصولا اختيارات صفي بر پايه قدرت مشروع گذاشته مي شود.

v      اختيارات ستادي

• اختيارات ستادي به کساني يا گروههائي در سازمان تعلق دارد که به مقامات صفي خدماتي ارائه مي کنند. مفهوم ستاد در برگيرنده عوامل و اجزايي در سازمان است که در گروه صف نمي گنجند. ستاد مشاوره اي براي تصميم گيرندگان و کساني که در مجلس قانونگذاري و حتي ديکتاتورهايي که نامشان در تاريخ ثبت شده خدمات شاياني نموده است.

v      اختيارات وظيفه اي

•  نقش اعضاي ستادي در ارائه خدمات، توصيه و راهنمايي به مديران صفي به معني اين است که اعضاي ستاد استقلال ندارند و فاقد اختيارات رسمي مي باشند. در واقع واحدهاي ستادي، بويژه آنها که مسئول حسابرسي هستند و چنين وظيفه اي را به عهده دارند، احيانا صاحب اختيارات رسمي هستند و مي توانند بر مديران صفي ( در محدوده وظايف خود ) اعمال نفوذ نمايند. حق کنترل فغاليت گروه هاي ديگر به مسئوليت خاص ستادي بستگي دارد و آن را اختيارات وظيفه اي مي نامند.

تفويض اختيار

v      تفويض اختيار يعني واگذارکردن اختيارات رسمي(قدرت مشروع)و مسئوليت اجراي فعاليت هايي خاص به يک نفر.

v      نقاط قوت تفويض اختيار

• نخستين و آشکار ترين آنها اين است که مديران مي توانند مقدار بيشتري از کارها و وظايف خود را به ديگران محول کنند، در پي فرصت هاي بيشتري برآيند و مسئوليت هاي بيشتري را از مقامات بالا بپذيرند.
• مزيت ديگر تفويض اختيار اين است که اغلب به اتخاذ تصميمات بهتر منجر مي شود، زيرا زيردستان در خط مقدم جبهه قرار گرفته اند و تصويري روشن تر از واقعيت ها دارند.
• اگر اختيارات به شيوه اي موثر تفويض شود،تصميمات با سرعت بيشتري گرفته خواهند شد.

v      عواملي که راه تفويض اختيار را سد مي کند

• با وجود اين مزايا، بسياري از مديران تمايل ندارند اختيارات خود را به زيردستان واگذار کنند.اغلب مديران بهانه هاي زيادي براي تفئيض نکردن اختيارات خود مي آورند ، از آن جمله مي گويند که “من خودم بهتر آن را انجام مي دهم” يا “ زيردستان من توانايي هاي لازم را ندارند”،”وقت زيادي مي گيرد تا آنچه را که من مي خواهم انجام شود شرح و توضيح دهم”،ولي واقعيت اين است که اين مديران نمي خواهند تفويض اختيار کنند، انعطاف پذير نيستند، چون نمي توانند اختيارات خود را به صورتي موثر تفويض نمايند.
• عوامل ديگري که بر سر راه تفويض اختيار قرار دارند،عبارت اند از احساس نداشتن اعتماد به کسي که در نهايت بايد مسئوليت کار خاصي را بپذيرد.

v      رهنمودهايي براي تفويض اختيار به شيوه اي موثر

• اگر آنها بتوانند نوعي اعتماد به يکديگر به وجود آورند،موضوع تفويض اختيار شانس بهتري را براي هر دو طرف به وجود خواهد آورد. مورد ديگري که مطرح است مسأله رعايت اصول اخلاقي در فعاليت هاي روزانه سازمان است.

تمرکز و تمرکززدايي    

• مقدار اختياراتي که مديران در سازمان به ديگران واگذار مي کنند بر روي يک طيف قرار دارد که در يک انتهاي آن تمرکز و در انتهاي ديگر تمرکززدايي مشاهده مي شود.
• در يک سازمان نسبتا غير متمرکز اختيارات و مسئوليت هاي قابل ملاحظه اي به مديران رده پايين، در سلسله مراتب اختيارات سازماني، واگذار مي شود. در يک سازمان نسبتا متمرکز اختيارات و مسوليت هاي بسيار زيادي در رأس هرم سازمان باقي مي ماند.

v      نقاط قوت و ضعف تمرکززدايي

• مدير رده بالا بارها را از شانه خود بر مي دارد، فرايند تصميم گيري بهبود مي يابد.
• روحيه افراد و ابتکار عمل کسانيکه در سطوح پايين تر هستند بالاتر مي رود؛ و انعطاف پذيري در سازمان بيشتر مي گردد و تصميمات، در محيطي که به سرعت در حال تغيير است، سريع تر گرفته مي شود.
• ولي اگر وضع به گونه اي باشد که در سازمان چيزي به نام هماهنگي و رهبري از بالا وجود نداشته باشد، ترديدي نيست که کل تمرکززدايي نامطلوب خواهد شد. هدف اصلي سازمان (ايجاد هماهنگي موثر بين واحد ها و ارائه يک مجموعه خوب و کامل) با شکست مواجه خواهد شد، البته اگر کنترل مرکزي در آن سازمان وجود نداشته باشد.

v      وينيک نقاط قوت يامزاياي پديده عدم تمرکز را به صورت زير برمي شمارد :

• نزديکي به بازار
• دانش محلي
• راحت تر بودن مسئول بنگاه معاملاتي

v      وينيک در مورد متمرکز نمودن فعاليت ها ويژگيهاي زير را بر مي شمارد:

• گاهي در گروه هاي محلي متعدد نمي توان به راحتي افراد با مهارت ويژه،تخصص،استعداد و فناوري جذب کرد و از نظر عملي اين افراد در چنين جوامعي وجود ندارند.
• محل هاي پراکنده و غير متمرکز بان معني است که بايد بر هزينه سربار و کارکنان افزود.
• پيشرفتي که در زمان کنوني در تکنولوژي ارتباطات انجام شده است باعث مي شود که پول،اعتبار،حمل و نقل و پردازش داده ها با سرعت بيشتري انجام شود و مي توان اين امور را در يک مرکز اداره کرد.

v      چالش هاي فراروي تمرکززدايي

• روي آوردن به پديده تمرکززدايي خالي از مسائل و مشکلات نخواهد بود. بايد به مديران ، آموزشهاي بيشتري داد و اختياراتي را که فرد در فروشگاه دارد بايد صرف آموزشهاي مديريتي نمايد.
• معمولا تمرکززدايي ايجاب مي کند بر تعداد کارکنان افزوده شود.

v      عواملي که بر پديده تمرکززدايي اثر مي گذارند

• در تعيين ميزان تمرکززدايي(براي يک سازمان) بايد عوامل زير را در نظر گرفت :
• عوامل محيطي که بر سازمان اثر مي گذارند،مانند ويژگي هاي بازار، فشارهايي که شرکت هاي رقيب وارد مي آورند و در دسترس بودن مواد اوليه
• بزرگي و نرخ رشد سازمان
• ساير ويژگيهاي سازمان ، مانند کم هزينه بودن يا پر هزينه بودن نوع تصميمي که گرفته مي شود، سليقه ها و اولويت هاي مديريت ارشد يا مدير عالي سازمان ، فرهنگ سازماني و توانايي مديراني که در رده هاي پايين سازمان قرار دارند.

طرح ريزي شغل

v      طرح شغل محملي است که بدان وسيله مديران براي تآمين هدف هاي سازماني(با توجه به شرايطي که مورد بحث قرار داديم) ميزان عدم تمرکز را تعيين مي نمايند. بنابراين، تعيين شغل راهي است که مديران بدان وسيله که کارکنان براي اعمال قدرت و اختيار دارند فرصت را به آگاهي کارکنان مي رسانند.

v      راه هايي براي طرح ريزي شغل

• طرح ريزي شغل به روش مکانيکي
• روش مبتني بر انگيزش و طرح ريزي شغل
• توسعه شغل
• طرح ريزي شغل به روش بيولوژيک

 What is authority?

What is authority? Is it the inevitable power of the natural laws which manifest themselves in the necessary linking and succession of phenomena in the physical and social worlds? Indeed, against these laws revolt is not only forbidden – it is even impossible. We may misunderstand them or not know them at all, but we cannot disobey them; because they constitute the basis and the fundamental conditions of our existence; they envelop us, penetrate us, regulate all our movements. thoughts and acts; even when we believe that we disobey them, we only show their omnipotence.

Yes, we are absolutely the slaves of these laws. But in such slavery there is no humiliation, or, rather, it is not slavery at all. For slavery supposes an external master, a legislator outside of him whom he commands, while these laws are not outside of us; they are inherent in us; they constitute our being, our whole being, physically, intellectually, and morally; we live, we breathe, we act, we think, we wish only through these laws. Without them we are nothing, we are not. Whence, then, could we derive the power and the wish to rebel against them?

In his relation to natural laws but one liberty is possible to man – that of recognising and applying them on an ever-extending scale of conformity with the object of collective and individual emancipation of humanisation which he pursues. These laws, once recognised, exercise an authority which is never disputed by the mass of men. One must, for instance, be at bottom either a fool or a theologician or at least a metaphysician, jurist or bourgeois economist to rebel against the law by which twice two make four. One must have faith to imagine that fire will not burn nor water drown, except, indeed, recourse be had to some subterfuge founded in its turn on some other natural law. But these revolts, or rather, these attempts at or foolish fancies of an impossible revolt, are decidedly the exception: for, in general, it may be said that the mass of men, in their daily lives, acknowledge the government of common sense – that is, of the sum of the general laws generally recognised – in an almost absolute fashion.

The great misfortune is that a large number of natural laws, already established as such by science, remain unknown to the masses, thanks to the watchfulness of those tutelary governments that exist, as we know, only for the good of the people. There is another difficulty – namely, that the major portion of the natural laws connected with the development of human society, which are quite as necessary, invariable, fatal, as te laws that govern the physical world, have not been duly established and recognised by science itself.

Once they shall have been recognised by science, and then from science, by means of an extensive system of popular education and instruction, shall have passed into the consciousness of all, the question of liberty will be entirely solved. The most stubborn authorities must admit that then there will be no need either of political organisation or direction or legislation, three things which, whether they eminate from the will of the soverign or from the vote of a parliament elected by universal suffrage, and even should they conform to the system of natural laws – which has never been the case and never will be the case – are always equally fatal and hostile to the liberty of the masses from the very fact that they impose on them a system of external and therefore despotic laws.

The Liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognised them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatsoever, divine or human, collective or individual.

Suppose a learned academy, composed of the most illustrious representatives of science; suppose this academy charged with legislation for and the organisation of society, and that, inspired only by the purest love of truth, it frames none but the laws but the laws in absolute harmony with the latest discoveries of science. Well, I maintain, for my part, that such legislation and such organisation would be a monstrosity, and that, and that for two reasons: first, that human science is always and necessarily imperfect, and that, comparing what it has discovered with what remains to be discovered, we may say that it is still in its cradle. So that were we to try to force the practical life of men, collective as well as individual, into strict and exclusive conformity with the latest data of science, we should condemn society as well as individuals to suffer martyrdom on a bed of Procrustes, which would soon end by dislocating and stifling them, life ever remaining an infinitely greater thing than science.

The second reason is this: a society which should obey legislation emanating from a scientific academy, not because it understood itself the rational character of this legislation (in which case the existence of the academy would become useless), but because this legislation, emanating from the academy, was imposed in the name of a science which it venerated without comprehending – such a society would be a society, not of men, but of brutes. It would be a second edition of those missions in Paraguay which submitted so long to the government of the Jesuits. It would surely and rapidly descend to the lowest stage of idiocy.

But there is still a third reason which would render such a government impossible – namely that a scientific academy invested with a soverignty, so to speak, absolute, even if it were composed of the most illustrious men, would infallibly and soon end in its own moral and intellectual corruption. Even today, with the few privileges allowed them, such is the history of all academies. The greatest scientific genius, from the moment that he becomes an academian, an officially liscenced savant, inevitably lapses into sluggishness. He loses his spontenaity, his revolutionary hardihood, and that troublesome and savage energy characteristic of the grandest geniuses, ever called to destroy old tottering worlds and lay the foundations of new. He undoubtedly gains in politeness, in utilitarian and practical wisdom, what he loses in power of thought. In a word, he bocomes corrupted.

It is the characteristic of privilege and of every privileged position to kill the mind and heart of men. The privileged man, whether practically or economically, is a man depraved in mind and heart. That is a social law which admits of no exception, and is as applicable to entire nations as to classes, corporations and individuals. It is the law of equality, the supreme condition of liberty and humanity. The principle object of this treatise is precisely to demonstrate this truth in all the manifestations of social life.

A scientific body to which had been confided the government of society would soon end by devoting itself no longer to science at all, but to quite another affair; and that affair, as in the case of all established powers, would be its own eternal perpetuation by rendering the society confided to its care ever more stupid and consequently more in need of its government and direction.

But that which is true of scientific academies is also true of all constituent and legislative assemblies, even those chosen by universal suffrage. In the latter case they may renew their composition, it is true, but this does not prevent the formation in a few years’ time of a body of politicans, privileged in fact though not in law, who, devoting themselves exclusively to the direction of the public affairs of a country, finally form a sort of political aristocracy or oligarchy. Witness the United States of America and Switzerland.

Consequently, no external legislation and no authority – one, for that matter, being inseparable from the other, and both tending to the servitude of society and the degradation of the legislators themsleves.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed on me by no one, neither by men nor by God. ions and even their directions Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give – such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subbordination.

This same reason forbids me, then, to recognise a fixed, constant and universal authority, because there is no universal man, no man capable of grasping in all that wealth of detail, without which the application of science to life is impossible, all the sciences, all the branches of social life. And if such universality could ever be realised in a single man, and if he wished to take advantage thereof to impose his authority upon us, it would be necessary to drive this man out of society, because his authority would inevitably reduce all the others to slavery and imbecility. I do not think that society ought to maltreat men of genius as it has done hitherto: but niether do I think it should indulge them too far, still less accord them any privileges or exclusive rights whatsoever; and that for three reasons: first, because it would often mistake a charlatan for a man of genius; second, because, through such a system of privileges, it might transform into a charlatan even a real man of genius, demoralise him, and degrade him; and, finally, because it would establish a master over itself.