Hi, How do you segregate employees into Management, Supervisory and Workers category in a Software Organization? Can someone let me know. ' Thanks & Regards
From India, Hyderabad
2From India, Hyderabad
Like Directors will be in Top Management, Team or Project Leaders in Supervisory. Where will HR / Finance / Admin and Marketing Heads fit in?
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Shashikala,
The Directors of a Company will be part of TOP LEVEL MANAGEMENT;
The HODs / Dept. Heads of a Company will be part of SENIOR / MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGEMENT;
The Workers will be part of LOWER LEVEL MANAGEMENT.
The above classification is done based on the Competency & Skill levels of each & every employee.
First of all you have define the band width / levels based on the competency & skills and later on you can categorize them. You can refer to your Organization Chart.
I think I have clarrified your query / doubt.
Regards,
Narendra
From India, Hyderabad
The Directors of a Company will be part of TOP LEVEL MANAGEMENT;
The HODs / Dept. Heads of a Company will be part of SENIOR / MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGEMENT;
The Workers will be part of LOWER LEVEL MANAGEMENT.
The above classification is done based on the Competency & Skill levels of each & every employee.
First of all you have define the band width / levels based on the competency & skills and later on you can categorize them. You can refer to your Organization Chart.
I think I have clarrified your query / doubt.
Regards,
Narendra
From India, Hyderabad
Thanks Mr Narendra. Actually within the organization what you have given is what we have done - for SSI they want some of the people to be put under Office Staff. I was wondering whom to put in this category.
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Shashikala, You can include housekeeping & security personnel under your office staff, if management approves only. Regards, Narendra (9885375038) Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Shashikala,
A few months ago, someone asked a similar question about the hierarchy of an IT Organization. I created a one-slide IT Org Chart and sent it to them. I am attaching it here. Please take a look.
The slide is divided into four quadrants. With CEO and CIO/CTO in the top center, each quadrant is headed by a VP (VP Operations, VP Product/IT Development, VP Business Management, and VP Project Offices etc.). Each VP has multiple Directors. For example, a VP Prod/IT development has Director (Applications), Director (Quality Assurance) etc. Under each Director, there are senior managers and/or managers, then the individual contributors.
With so many VPs and Directors, the Org Structure in the slide represents a large organization (with about 5000 to 15000 employees or more). However, depending on the size of your organization, you may choose to remove some roles. A typical thumb rule in management comes from the Military of various countries (the way they are organized). A people-manager would be most effective if the number of his or her direct reports does not exceed 5 to 7 people. If you have 15 people reporting to an individual manager, an ideal situation would be to promote the individual manager to a senior manager, train and promote 3 senior individual contributors to junior managers, and have four indiviuals report to each of the three junior managers. Gradually, as the organization grows and more people are hired, there will be an opportunity for the junior managers to move up the ladder into mid-level or senior managers, and the Senior Managers to move up the ladder into Director-level positions.
The slide is a bit crowded, but I tried to keep it organized. Take a look, try to follow the red arrows (for easy understanding of the hierarchy) and let me if you have any questions.
Best,
--Som G
From United States, Woodinville
A few months ago, someone asked a similar question about the hierarchy of an IT Organization. I created a one-slide IT Org Chart and sent it to them. I am attaching it here. Please take a look.
The slide is divided into four quadrants. With CEO and CIO/CTO in the top center, each quadrant is headed by a VP (VP Operations, VP Product/IT Development, VP Business Management, and VP Project Offices etc.). Each VP has multiple Directors. For example, a VP Prod/IT development has Director (Applications), Director (Quality Assurance) etc. Under each Director, there are senior managers and/or managers, then the individual contributors.
With so many VPs and Directors, the Org Structure in the slide represents a large organization (with about 5000 to 15000 employees or more). However, depending on the size of your organization, you may choose to remove some roles. A typical thumb rule in management comes from the Military of various countries (the way they are organized). A people-manager would be most effective if the number of his or her direct reports does not exceed 5 to 7 people. If you have 15 people reporting to an individual manager, an ideal situation would be to promote the individual manager to a senior manager, train and promote 3 senior individual contributors to junior managers, and have four indiviuals report to each of the three junior managers. Gradually, as the organization grows and more people are hired, there will be an opportunity for the junior managers to move up the ladder into mid-level or senior managers, and the Senior Managers to move up the ladder into Director-level positions.
The slide is a bit crowded, but I tried to keep it organized. Take a look, try to follow the red arrows (for easy understanding of the hierarchy) and let me if you have any questions.
Best,
--Som G
From United States, Woodinville
Typically, Office Staff consist of administrative staff - such as Executive Assistants to the VPs or Directors (who manage the schedules and calendars of the senior executives), Office Administrators (who manage the office supplies, new employee orientation scheduling, new employee logins etc), Project Administrators (who manage misc. project items assisting project managers on large projects etc.). The roles of Executive Assistants and Office Administrators may be combined into one person.
These roles may be organized in two ways.
1. You could have a separate shared services organization that hires all the administrative staff and lend the staff to other organizations. The downside of this approach is that this organization has a managerial overhead (supervising the staff - middle/senior management, Director etc.)
2. A better approach is to have them embedded into the organizations they actually work for. For example, instead of reporting to a Senior Manager from a Shared Services Organization, an Executive Assistant will report directly to the VP to whom he or she is working for. This way, you can eliminate the managerial overhead and exercise better organizational control over the administrative staff.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
-Som G
From United States, Woodinville
These roles may be organized in two ways.
1. You could have a separate shared services organization that hires all the administrative staff and lend the staff to other organizations. The downside of this approach is that this organization has a managerial overhead (supervising the staff - middle/senior management, Director etc.)
2. A better approach is to have them embedded into the organizations they actually work for. For example, instead of reporting to a Senior Manager from a Shared Services Organization, an Executive Assistant will report directly to the VP to whom he or she is working for. This way, you can eliminate the managerial overhead and exercise better organizational control over the administrative staff.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
-Som G
From United States, Woodinville
Hi, Your Chart is really wonderful. I needed this segregation for SSI purpose. What we have done is - MD & Other Directors in top management / functional heads under management / team & project leaders under Supervisory category / and Software Engineers and clerks under Office Staff category. Once again let me tell you, your Org. Chart is so very good that I am following it for internal purpose. Thanks a lot. With warm regards / S Kalaga
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Som G,
The presentation on organization chart provided by you is really useful. But how does
this fit into current trend / need to keep organizations hierarchy-less and flat?
Are need for hierarchy and trend towards flat structure mutually opposing needs?
How do organizations maintain a hierarchy and still derive benefits of a flat structure?
Thanks for responses.
HRMFUSR
From India, Bangalore
The presentation on organization chart provided by you is really useful. But how does
this fit into current trend / need to keep organizations hierarchy-less and flat?
Are need for hierarchy and trend towards flat structure mutually opposing needs?
How do organizations maintain a hierarchy and still derive benefits of a flat structure?
Thanks for responses.
HRMFUSR
From India, Bangalore
The less-hierarchy/flat and the full-blown hierarchy are two different forms of organizational structures. Flat is where the organization has less number of levels, increased individual responsibility and participation in the decision-making process etc. Hierarchy defines and focuses on maintaining those levels.
Flat organization is good for smaller/growing companies, but as the company/organization grows, it will severely impact the productivity of the company/individuals. To remain flat, they would have to establish hierarchy at a higher level, while the flatness remains intact at a lower/smaller unit level (e.g. a manger with 5 to 10 direct reports can remain flat within his/her direct reports, but not a VP with 1000 direct reports, or even a manager with 50-100 direct reports – highly inefficient).
I hope to believe that you were referring to Matrix Organization rather than strictly flat organization that the world is moving to.
Therefore, while I believe hierarchy must be clearly defined/established as the organization grows, I also believe that the benefits of various organizational structures may be achieved by fostering the required “culture organization”, rather than defining one type of organization or the other, and sticking to it.
So, how do we marry these three structures (Hierarchy, Flat, and Matrix) together and reap benefits? A large company may choose to organize their workforce into matrix – based on the functional domains (all engineers/developers grouped in one org, all analysts grouped in another, test/QA in a third, project management in a fourth and so on). Within each of these functional matrix components, the company may choose to establish hierarchy by defining various and as many/few levels as required to be productive/efficient. Further, individual managers may choose to keep their direct-reporting organization flat, by involving all of their direct reports in the decision-making process for decisions that impact them.
While the org chart I attached earlier refers to one such large organizations/companies (10,000+), it refers to a matrix organizational structure, and the flatness may be achieved starting at the lowest managerial level (where the manager has all individual contributors), such as Senior Managers in various organization. Going up the hierarchy, such flatness may be achieved by each manager/Director/VP by keeping his/her direct reports flat and encouraging them to maintain their direct reports flat as well. Such hybrid organizations (where multiple org structures merge to make a better org) are also known as Composit Structures.
Are hierarchical and flat organizations mutually exclusive? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how a company implements their organization.
I hope this answers your questions. Let me know if it does not, and I can further explain it with an example.
Regards,
-Som G
From United States, Woodinville
Flat organization is good for smaller/growing companies, but as the company/organization grows, it will severely impact the productivity of the company/individuals. To remain flat, they would have to establish hierarchy at a higher level, while the flatness remains intact at a lower/smaller unit level (e.g. a manger with 5 to 10 direct reports can remain flat within his/her direct reports, but not a VP with 1000 direct reports, or even a manager with 50-100 direct reports – highly inefficient).
I hope to believe that you were referring to Matrix Organization rather than strictly flat organization that the world is moving to.
Therefore, while I believe hierarchy must be clearly defined/established as the organization grows, I also believe that the benefits of various organizational structures may be achieved by fostering the required “culture organization”, rather than defining one type of organization or the other, and sticking to it.
So, how do we marry these three structures (Hierarchy, Flat, and Matrix) together and reap benefits? A large company may choose to organize their workforce into matrix – based on the functional domains (all engineers/developers grouped in one org, all analysts grouped in another, test/QA in a third, project management in a fourth and so on). Within each of these functional matrix components, the company may choose to establish hierarchy by defining various and as many/few levels as required to be productive/efficient. Further, individual managers may choose to keep their direct-reporting organization flat, by involving all of their direct reports in the decision-making process for decisions that impact them.
While the org chart I attached earlier refers to one such large organizations/companies (10,000+), it refers to a matrix organizational structure, and the flatness may be achieved starting at the lowest managerial level (where the manager has all individual contributors), such as Senior Managers in various organization. Going up the hierarchy, such flatness may be achieved by each manager/Director/VP by keeping his/her direct reports flat and encouraging them to maintain their direct reports flat as well. Such hybrid organizations (where multiple org structures merge to make a better org) are also known as Composit Structures.
Are hierarchical and flat organizations mutually exclusive? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how a company implements their organization.
I hope this answers your questions. Let me know if it does not, and I can further explain it with an example.
Regards,
-Som G
From United States, Woodinville
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Job Work-outwork employees.docx