Productivity management: the path to growth // Man and labor.
Control applies to everything: to objects, persons and actions, and is practiced in all areas.
From the point of view of administrative control must certify that the program exists, is implemented and kept “openwork”, that the social organism is in good condition, that management is carried out in accordance with accepted principles, that administrative equipment is performed and functioning properly.
It penetrates into similar details and in all other functions – technical, commercial, financial, accounting and insurance. These control operations are part of the responsibilities of the boss and his employees in a small business; on a large scale – they are partially transferred to special officials – inspectors, controllers.
The main conditions that must be met by the controller are: competence, sense of duty, independent position in relation to the controlled, prudence and tact. He must refrain from interfering in the management and execution of cases.
For control to be effective, it must take place in a timely manner and have practical consequences. Conversely, if one deliberately ignores the practical conclusions that follow from it, then such control will be simply useless.
These are the basic rules of administrative doctrine. They are acceptable everywhere. No voice was voiced against such an understanding of enterprise administration. Meanwhile, very rare are those large private enterprises in which administration would conform to this doctrine, and even rarer, however, are government agencies. Why?
First, because it is generally difficult to manage large enterprises and it is not enough to have the general information necessary for an administrator to be able to anticipate, organize, manage, coordinate and control.
The second reason, perhaps even more important, is that it has not been established what the organization and functioning of “management” in a large enterprise should be, because time and experience have given the “basis” of the social organism of all enterprises a consecrated form called pyramidal. both in public institutions and in private enterprises, and thanks to this system, the higher power is able to influence the lower in the performance of its tasks.
The development of modern large enterprises has added to the hierarchical pyramid one or more steps that have not yet been able to take advantage of lessons that slowly follow from experience based on certain facts. Industry leaders, military leaders, ministers, and heads of state are looking for common rules that could govern their activities, but because they are not yet established, they act on their own inspiration, which does not always contribute to the success of their enterprises. In this regard, the spectacle that constitutes the management of large enterprises – both private and public – is extremely instructive:
in one case – a well-understood prediction; in the other – the lack of foresight and life from day to day; here – great importance is attached to the selection, promotion and construction of a social organism; there is a lack of interest in the quality of staff; here – bosses are selected very carefully; there – the order was entrusted almost to the first counter; here – everything is used, all efforts are coordinated; there – everyone pulls in his direction, between the parts of the social organism erected opaque partitions; in control – the same extremes.
Deficiencies in the organization and functioning of management in large enterprises can be reduced to two main reasons:
to the size of the enterprises themselves; to the administrative ignorance of managers.
The difficulties arising from the size of the enterprise cause a new trend on the part of large enterprises to develop more horizontally, by creating unions and branches, than vertically. In large nations, there is even a tendency to develop federation rather than centralization. Of course, all this must be taken into account when building large enterprises.
To overcome administrative illiteracy, all means of education must be used. Another way, the effectiveness of which I have tested, is to implement effective tools of administrative equipment at the enterprise.
Used literature
1. Kardashevsky V ‘., Bondarenko A. Increasing productivity: a European approach // Vopr. economy. – 2000. – No. 11. – P. 35-40.
2. Rastimeshin V., Kupriyanova T. Productivity management: the path to growth // Man and labor. – 1996. – No. 8. – P. 70-73; No. 9. – P. 67-69.
3. Filev V. Management of productivity growth // Economist. – 1997. – No. 3. – P. 60-66.
4. Batra Rajiv, Myers John J., Aaker David A. Advertising Management: Per. with English – 5th ed. – M.; SPb .; K.: Published. house “William” 1999. – 784 p.
5. Vikentayev IL Techniques of advertising and PUBLIC RELATIONS. – SPb.: – Ed. House “Business Press” 1998. – Part 1. – 238 p.
6. Witt Jürgen. Sales Management: Per. with him. – M .: INFRA-M, 1997 .– 112 p.
7. Voychak AV Marketing Management: Textbook. – K.: KNEU view, 1998 .– 268 p.
8. Voychak AV Marketing Management: Textbook. -method. manual for self. studied dist. – K.: KNEU, 2000 .– 100 p.
9. Gerchikova IN Management: Textbook. – 2nd ed., Reworked. and ext. – M.: Banks and Exchanges, UNITY, 1995 .– 480 p.
10. Golikov EA Marketing and logistics: Textbook. allowance. – M .: Publishing house. house “Dashkov and K0” 1999. – 412 p.
02/07/2011
Ways to reduce risks: the concept of development of the agricultural insurance system. Abstract
The need to develop an agricultural insurance system is due to the needs of stabilizing production and income in the agricultural sector of the economy, involving farmers in risk management and encouraging the use of the best achievements of agricultural production technology
The results of economic activity in the agricultural sector more than in any other sector of the economy depend on weather factors and, accordingly, are exposed to risks beyond the influence of the economic entity, there are grounds for a systematic approach to the development of insurance in the agricultural sector. sector.
Agrarian insurance, as one of the most effective ways of risk management, allows to profitably combine the interests of participants in the agricultural insurance market and the state as a party whose priority is to ensure stable economic growth, welfare and social protection.
The world experience of agricultural insurance consists of several models of interaction between participants in this market, which is formed depending on the objective conditions and traditions that characterize the economy of each country. At the same time, more and more countries around the world are inclined to follow the experience of those countries where the model of agrarian insurance system with state participation (USA, Canada, Spain) has been introduced and successfully operates, because there are objective, proven international experience grounds for state support. agricultural insurance system.
The current state of development of agricultural insurance in Ukraine does not meet its priority – to be an effective mechanism for risk management in the agricultural sector and ensure the stability of production and income of agricultural producers. In particular, the characteristic features of the current state of development of agricultural insurance are:
our insurance companies are essentially acting at their own risk. None of them can be based on mandatory tariffs and therefore must set them independently. Although they are about the same, but if you look at the problem from the insured, it becomes clear that even small fluctuations in tariffs lead to the fact that companies are forced to look for the most attractive option, which in turn causes another problem, which is related to that the insured is forced to look for insurance companies with the lowest rates, and the insurer is forced to attract the insured to set small rates, but at the same time increase the size of the deductible. Thus, in 2006 the average premium per hectare to UAH 42.73. / ha at an average tariff rate of 4.6% (3.41% in 2005) [29]. Insurance companies often use understated or overstated deductibles (0.5% to 50%). The spread of tariff rates in 2006 was 0.1% -12.4%. There is a significant deviation of premium rates and premium amounts per unit area. The amount of premiums per 1 hectare in the past was fixed at the level of UAH 7.99. (at a rate of 1% – ROM-Ukraine) up to UAH 205.92. (tariff 7.49% – SC Rokada). Thus, the amount of premium per 1 hectare for wheat insurance in Donetsk region to UAH 18.5, and in Poltava region – UAH 169.9. The amount of the premium per 1 hectare of 30 hryvnias was recorded in 11 oblasts. Such fluctuations cannot be explained by risk maps or historical loss data. It is obvious that at tariff rates of 0.1-0.5% insurance companies insured crops formally, most likely, when insuring collateral or for other reasons. Administrators of the subsidized crop insurance program should raise the issue of legality of compensation of part of insurance premiums under formal contracts in case violations of the procedures recommended by the Ministry of Agrarian Policy are established. The analysis of the use of complex and index (yield) insurance contracts by official institutions was not conducted. Thus, according to the Odessa region, only index insurance contracts were used in the region, although judging by the tariffs, franchises and according to insurance companies, comprehensive insurance contracts were widely used in the region. low demand for insurance from agricultural producers (low percentage of participation in insurance, use of insurance mainly not as a method of enterprise risk management, but as an ancillary measure in obtaining a bank loan, distrust of agricultural producers to insurance companies); Insufficient supply from insurance companies (low percentage of agricultural insurance in the portfolio of insurance companies https://123helpme.me/buy-compare-and-contrast-essay/, lack of a variety of insurance products in the portfolio of insurance companies that would meet the needs of policyholders, distrust of insurance companies to farmers) Analysis of insurance companies in the regions shows that insurers are unevenly represented in areas.