The current stage in the development of the sociology of management in Russia. The formation of the sociology of management at the present stage

Are you here: Family and relationships

In the development of the Russian sociology of management, four stages can be conditionally distinguished: pre-revolutionary, post-revolutionary pre-war, post-war and post-perestroika stages. Industrial management and the movement for the scientific organization of labor originated in Russia even before the revolution, simultaneously with the countries of Europe and the USA. In the pre-revolutionary period, according to the Taylor system in Russia, work was organized at eight enterprises (for comparison, in France, only at one). Russian scientist A.A. Bogdanov is the creator of a new science about the general laws of organization - tectology, in which he outlined the general organizational principles and laws of organization processes in all areas of the organic and inorganic world. In the work "General Organizational Science (Tectology)" he argued the need for a systematic analysis of the organization and argued that the organized whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A.A. Bogdanov formulated the law of least, which states that the strength of any chain is determined by the weakest link, and the pace of economic development is determined by the state of the lagging industry. He substantiated the idea of feedback, which subsequently entered cybernetics, and then into the general theory of control and the sociology of control.

After the revolution, the issues of political and socio-economic management were outlined in the works of V.I. Lenin. These works include “State and Revolution”, “Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Power”, “Great Initiative”, “Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, “On Giving Legislative Functions to the State Planning Committee”, “How We Reorganize the Rabkrin”, “ Less is better, but better”, “On cooperation”, etc. The impetus for the development of the domestic science of production management was the First All-Russian Initiative Conference on the Scientific Organization of Labor and Production in 1921. The conference formed two opposing approaches to management - Taylorism and anti-Taylorism. Taylorists argued that this theory is universal and applicable in any socio-economic conditions. The “Group of 4”, headed by the director of the Central Institute of Labor A. Gastev, proposed to deal primarily with practical issues and begin all management work with rationalizing labor relations and streamlining the work of an individual. According to A. Gastev, the problem facing the country was the complete reorganization of the entire production structure and, first of all, man as the main productive force.

Anti-Taylorists argued that the maximum intensification of labor beyond human capabilities is incompatible with the values of the socialist system, and with a low level of organization of production and life of the population in Russia, the introduction of the Taylor system would bring great harm. Members of the "Platform of the 17" P. Kerzhentsev, I. Burdyansky, M. Rudakov and others, which existed in the 20s of the twentieth century, considered it necessary to develop broad theoretical studies, and to manage the national economy through circles and other grassroots cells of society .

General theoretical and applied issues of management and management of individual enterprises in the 20-30s were developed by such prominent scientists as N. Kondratiev, A. Gastev, A. Chayanov, S. Strumilin, A. Bogdanov. Their ideas were continued by managers of the second generation P. Kerzhentsev, N. Vitke, O. Yermansky, A. Zhuravsky and others. This period is characterized by the cooperation of sociologists, psychologists, physiologists, labor hygienists, specialists in the organization of production and labor protection, since Russian researchers considered the science of management to be intersectoral, which should develop in the unity of theoretical and applied research. Prominent state and economic leaders V.V. Kuibyshev, N.I. Bukharin, F.E. Dzerzhinsky, P.A. Bogdanov. In the mid-1930s, a wave of political repression swept across the country, affecting management professionals as well. Until the end of the 50s, the concepts and theories of management were practically not developed in the USSR, and what was created earlier was irretrievably lost, while in the USA there were many concepts and schools that are considered classic today.

The revival of research in the field of management begins in the 60s of the twentieth century, during the years of the Khrushchev thaw, and the term "sociology of management" entered into scientific use only in the mid-80s. The creation of sociological and managerial concepts in this period took place against the background of the critical assimilation of Western concepts, the development of general sociology and cybernetics. The development of theoretical and methodological problems of management was carried out by V.S. Afanasiev, N.I. Lapin, Yu.E. Volkov, V.N. Ivanov, A.I. Prigogine, D.M. Gvishiani, V.A. Yadov, V.G. Podmarkov, Zh.T. Toshchenko and others. Under the leadership of T.I. Zaslavskaya and R.V. Ryvkina created the Novosibirsk management model. Management in it was considered as the interaction of interests in the activities of managers and subordinates, and the behavior of managerial personnel was considered in accordance with their position. The result of the activities of managers was evaluated from two positions, since it reflects the leader's own activities (management style, time spent on various activities) and expresses the effectiveness of subordinates (they fulfill the plan, make a profit, etc.).

Factory sociology, as an applied branch of industrial sociology, continued the developments of scientists of the 1920s and 1930s and solved specific applied problems. Scientists from academic institutions were engaged in fundamental theoretical developments and, as a rule, carried out all-Russian research on large sample arrays.

In general, during this period, management was considered at the level of the individual, organization and at the city level (plans were drawn up for the social development of cities) from the standpoint of a systematic approach, the subject area of sociology of management was specified, models of management and management of an organization in a conflict environment were studied, and innovative approaches were developed.

The last stage in the development of the sociology of management is determined by the beginning of perestroika in the mid-1980s. It is marked by a shift in research interests from the study of management processes in the socio-economic sphere to the socio-political sphere of society. Domestic sociologists develop normative aspects of social management, analyze the social functions of state and municipal government, study the role of public opinion in social management, and develop social technologies in management.

The process of formation of the Russian sociology of management in the scientific literature is considered from different points of view.

Some scientists conventionally distinguish four stages in the development of the national sociology of management: pre-revolutionary, post-revolutionary pre-war, post-war and modern stages.

Others consider the development of the sociology of management in a broader context, designating the pre-war and post-war periods.

The movement for the scientific organization of labor (abbreviated as NOT) and management originated in Russia at about the same time as in the United States and European countries. According to the well-known Soviet theoretician and practice of NOT and production management A.K. Gastev, already in 1904, "attempts were made to apply the principles of NOT in the Urals." The first domestic scientific school of Professor N.I. Savin, who published the work "Metal Cutting", which in Western European literature was put on the same level with the works of F. Taylor. Pupils of this school were engaged in practical activities to introduce the principles of NOT at a number of factories, primarily at the Aivaz machine-building plant in St. Petersburg. Before the First World War, there were eight enterprises in Russia, the work of which was organized according to the Taylor system, while in France there was only one.

A powerful impetus to the process of formation of domestic scientific management was given by The First All-Russian Initiative Conference on the Scientific Organization of Labor and Production , convened on the initiative of L.D. Trotsky under the auspices of the Commissariat of Railways and began its work on January 20, 1921. The conference was attended by 313 delegates and about 100 guests who worked in 5 sections: 1) organization of work in mechanical production, in particular in railway workshops; 2) organization of work on railway transport; 3) organization of management and its parts; 4) labor reflexology; 5) measures to combine work on NOT and their practical implementation.

During the discussions, two polar opposite camps were formed: Taylorists and anti-Taylorists. The first (R. Polyakov, N. Sarnovsky, V. Zheleznov, I. Ozerov, I. Kannegisser, N. Gredeskul and others) were inclined to identify Taylorism with the scientific organization of labor and management, arguing that the teachings of F. Taylor are not only fundamentally undeniable, but also universal, i.e., almost completely acceptable in any socio-economic conditions. Supporters of Taylorism believed that he would defeat the old system of management and lack of culture, just as the steam engine defeated handicraft labor in its time.

The second (O. Ermansky, V. Vorontsov, P. Maslov, I. Poplavsky, G. Aleksinsky) sharply objected to the thesis about the political and ideological neutrality of Taylorism and emphasized the inadmissibility of its identification with the "scientific organization of labor", noting the focus of Taylor's teaching on the maximum, the intensification of labor beyond the limits of the capabilities of the human organism, incompatible with the values of the new system that has established itself in Russia. Critics of Taylorism believed that in Russia, with low levels of organization of production and life of the population, the arbitrariness of entrepreneurs, in the absence of legislative guarantees, the introduction of the Taylor system would do more harm than good.

In general, the conference showed a fairly deep understanding of the complexity, multidimensionality of the concept of scientific organization of labor and management, highlighting "not only its economic and technical side (which was typical for F. Taylor), but also socio-economic and psycho-physiological." Being the first in Russia and all over the world to experience a broad discussion of labor issues, it became an outstanding event in the history of the formation of domestic management.

It can be noted that the development of scientific management in our country was very successful, including due to the presence of bright, talented scientists who led original scientific areas, which we are now considering.

Among the management theorists of the pre-war period, the figure undoubtedly stood out Alexander Alexandrovich Bogdanov (real name Malinovsky) (1873-1928) - an outstanding Russian scientist, member of the Socialist Academy, economist, philosopher, naturalist, mathematician, writer. The main works of Bogdanov were the works: “Essays on the General Organizational Science” (1921), “Organizational Science and Economic Planning” (1921), “Organizational Principles of Social Technology and Economics” (1923), “General Organizational Science (Tectology)” (in three volumes, 1925-1929).

A. Bogdanov's approach to identifying common features and characteristics inherent in various types of management differed markedly from those proposed in the 1920s. 20th century Organizational and technological concepts.

Assuming that all types of management (in nature, society, technology) have common features, Bogdanov made an attempt to describe them from the standpoint of a special organizational science - tektology, designed to become a common methodological basis for all other sciences, to systematize the vast organizational experience of mankind and to equip leaders with knowledge of organizational laws. According to the scientist, the subject of tektology should have been general organizational principles and laws, according to which the processes of organization proceed in all spheres of the organic and inorganic world.

In his works, A. Bogdanov made an attempt to formulate the basic concepts and methods of the organizational science proclaimed by him. Analyzing the essence of the organization, he expressed the idea of the need for a systematic approach to its study, gave a description of the relationship between the system and its elements, showing that the organized whole is more than the simple sum of its parts. He also expressed a number of interesting thoughts about the structural stability of the system and its conditions, the main organizational mechanisms, and the need to use the mathematical apparatus in the analysis of the organization.

Of exceptional importance, from the point of view of characterizing the concept of A. Bogdanov, is his analysis of the two main organizational mechanisms - forming and regulating. The forming mechanism includes such components as conjugation (the connection of complexes), ingression (the entry of an element of one complex into another) and disingression (the disintegration of the complex). The organizational activity of a person always consists in the connection and separation of any available elements. Thus, "the process of labor is reduced to the combination of different materials, tools and labor power and to the separation of different parts of these complexes, resulting in an organized whole - a product." These two acts - connection and separation - play an unequal role in human activity: one of them is primary, the other is derivative. The connection of complexes (primary moment) is the fundamental principle of the mechanism of tectology - conjugation. In this term, Bogdanov put the broadest meaning: it is cooperation, and any other communication, and the fusion of metals, and the exchange of goods between enterprises, and much more. The connection of complexes, leading to an organizational crisis, a rupture of the tektological boundary between them and the emergence of some kind of qualitatively new system, is carried out directly or through a link (ingression). Systems are aggressive if they consist of complexes united by a bundle. Along with the connection of complexes, separation often takes place, the disintegration of the conjugated system, the formation of new separateness, boundaries, i.e. "disingression" - an organizational crisis of a system of a different type. According to A. Bogdanov, all crises observed in life and nature belong to these two types. So, for example, revolutions in society usually represent a break in the social boundary between different classes.

The universal regulatory mechanism is denoted by the term "selection": A. A. Bogdanov borrows this concept from biology and extends it to the processes of preservation and destruction of all types of systems.

The main attention in "Tektology" is paid to progressive selection ("selection"), since, from the point of view of the author, the actual preservation of forms in nature is possible only through their progressive development. Selection can be positive or negative - it acts in the development of complexes and in the process of their relative decline. Taken together, positive and negative selection cover the entire dynamics of world development. Positive selection, by complicating forms, increases the heterogeneity of being, provides material for it that grows ever larger; negative selection, simplifying this material, eliminating from it everything that is fragile, discordant, contradictory, introducing homogeneity and consistency into its connections, streamlines the latter. Complementing each other, both processes spontaneously organize the world.

In addition to the forming tectology, it also has a regulatory mechanism, which is based on the selection of the best combination of elements. Only selection can ensure the actual preservation of forms in nature. Selection can be positive or negative, acting both in the development of complexes and in the process of their relative decline. Thus, the model of the organizational structure proposed by A. Bogdanov was of a universal nature and was applied by him to the knowledge of an unlimited range of processes and phenomena occurring both in nature and in society.

Bogdanov's tektology was not widely used: it was often criticized for its abstractness and weak connection with the actual problems of economic management. At the same time, one cannot but admit that A.A. Bogdanov expressed many valuable ideas in the field of organization theory, cybernetics, and network management methods.

The undoubted leader of the domestic science of management and NOT in the 20s. 20th century was Alexey Kapitonovich Gastev (1882-1941) - economist, sociologist, active figure in the revolutionary and labor movement in Russia. The main works of A. Gastev: "Industrial World" (1919), "Our Tasks" (1921), "Trade Unions and Labor Organization" (1924), "New Cultural Setting" (1924), "Labor Sets" (1924), “Installation of production by the CIT method” (1927), “Rationing and organization of labor” (1927), “Methodological prerequisites for the development, foundation and classification of standards” (1933).

From 1921 to 1938, Gastev headed the Central Institute of Labor (CIT) - the largest and most productive research institute in the field of labor organization and management. The main merit of the scientist was the development of theoretical and experimental ideas of a new science - social engineering, which combined the methods of the natural sciences, sociology, psychology and pedagogy.

An exceptionally original idea of social engineering is as follows: the labor organization of society is the most complex and inseparable combination of the organization of human complexes with the organization of machine complexes. These machine-human complexes provide a synthesis of biology and engineering.

According to Gastev, "the holistically calculated inclusion of certain human masses in the system of mechanisms will be nothing more than social engineering." In the idea of a social engineering machine, a person no longer acted simply as an individual, a subject of activity, but as a decisive unit of the complex, an integral part of the whole organism - a labor organization.

A. Gastev and his colleagues paid attention to managerial work proper, however, in their studies, CIT considered managerial activity as a simple kind of labor activity in general, not seeing fundamental differences between them. In the view of Gastev and his colleagues, the head of the labor collective was a social engineer, on whom the success of the functioning of the entire “social engineering machine” depended. Since the head of this or that structure dealt not only with things, but also with people, he had to have a number of social attitudes - social qualities, the mastery of which ensured economic success for the bearer of these qualities. Among these attitudes, the director of the CIT attributed the ability to influence, tact, friendliness, economic resourcefulness (the ability of a leader to carry out significant, often unexpected and quick economic maneuvers in conditions of tight deadlines and limited capital). Further, Gastev formulated a number of qualities associated with the art of teamwork, by which he understood the ability to "infect" people with deeds with the help of such qualities as unbending will and enthusiasm. Along with the art of “infecting”, Gastev singled out the art of disposing - the ability to find a common language with workers, creating the so-called. "social capital".

A major organizer of the NOT movement in the USSR was Nikolai Andreevich Vitke - a prominent representative of the Soviet theory of the scientific organization of labor, the leader of the social and labor concept of management, which also included Ya. Ulitsky, R. Meizelie, S. Strelbitsky, I. Kannegisser, G. Nefedov and others. and sociology of organization and management.

Among his works are the works “Issues of Management” (1922), “The Structure of Office Work and Saving Time” (1923), “Scientific Organization of Administrative Technology” (1924), “Organizational Issues of Modern NOT” (1924), “Organization of Management and Industrial Development ( essays on the sociology of the scientific organization of labor and management)” (1925), etc.

Methodologically, Witke relied, on the one hand, on the ideas of F. Taylor, A. Fayol, H. Ford and other representatives of the classical school, and on the other, synthesized their provisions with his own humanistic ideas about management, anticipating the idea of a “community” model of organization . His most important scientific achievement was the concept of using the nature of the human factor in the organization, put forward by him in the late 20s and early 30s. 20th century and ahead of the views of E. Mayo and F. Roethlisberger, which formed the basis of the doctrine of "human relations".

N. Witke proceeded from the fact that in the NOT system two main branches should be distinguished: the scientific organization of the production process carried out by an individual in interaction with material factors of production (NOT proper), and the rationalization of human interactions with a person (NOU - scientific organization of management or scientific management). The subject of the first was the rational connection of a person with the tools of labor, the second - the rational connection and interaction of a person with a person in the labor process. The latter, from the point of view of N. Witke, was the content of social engineering as a science focused on purposeful change in organizational structures that determine human behavior and provide control over it. N. Vitke believed that with the development of production, its concentration, the role and importance of its management increases. Industrialism leads to an organizational crisis, the essence of which is that the modern (collective labor) organization can no longer be managed by traditional methods adopted from small farming. The way out of this crisis was seen by the scientist in the “organizational revolution”, which changes not only the relationship of an object to an object, or a person to an object, but also the relationship of people to each other in the production process.

In an attempt to single out the science of management, N. Witke looked for it on the border of such disciplines as "industrial and collective psychology", "structural sociology", physiology, ignoring economic, political and other branches of knowledge. At the same time, he clearly distinguished two types of management - people and things, and concentrated his attention on the first.

Having put the worker in the center of management, and considering him as an active subject of activity, N. Witke offered an interpretation of the organization, unusual for those years, as a kind of combination of human wills. Introducing the concept of social organization, he connected its functioning with socio-psychological laws. The essence of organizational and managerial activity consisted, according to his definition, in the direction of human energy to achieve a specific goal. The most important feature of his concept was also the fact that instead of the problems of organizing the activity of an individual (the emphasis on which was typical for representatives of the Russian schools of the CIT), he first drew attention to the management of a social community (i.e., a system of interaction between people), emphasizing that every worker is in constant communication and interaction with other people.

Sociology as a science was banned throughout the entire period of Stalin's personality cult. Its revival begins only from the end of the 1950s, during the “Khrushchev thaw”.

In the 1960s special attention was paid to the problems of scientific management of society (V.G. Afanasiev, D.M. Gvishiani). At the same time, several of its directions were distinguished. One of them was associated with the emergence of a general theory of social management, the second - with an analysis of the problems of public administration, the third - with an interest in production management. If within the framework of the first direction philosophers and sociologists engaged in general sociological theory worked mainly, the second - lawyers, then the attention of applied sociologists and economists Zborovsky G.E., Kostina N.B., the same, p. 73 ..

The development of general problems of social management, on the one hand, and the practical need of enterprises, districts, cities, regions, on the other, led to the emergence in the 1960s and 1970s. a new important direction in the sociology of management - social planning(N.A. Aitov, Yu.E. Volkov, V.I. Gerchikov, V.M. Elmeev, DA Kerimov, L.N. Kogan, N.I. Lapin, N.F. Naumova, Yu.L. Neimer, L.A. Olesnevich, A.S. Pashkov, V.R. Polozov, Zh.T. Toshchenko, Z.I. Fainburg, S.F. Frolov, O.I. Shkaratan, etc.).

Social planning is commonly understood as a scientifically based definition of goals, tasks, indicators (terms, rates, proportions) of the development of social objects and social processes, as well as the main means of its implementation. Society as a whole and its individual sections - territorial and functional - are considered as objects. We are talking about social planning of individual spheres of public life, as well as territories, republics, regions, cities, districts, enterprises, etc. It becomes obvious that in social planning it is necessary to take into account regional, territorial-administrative, national, geographical, production and other features.

In the 1980s social planning as a direction in the development of the sociology of management began to lose ground, until finally, under the conditions of perestroika, it completely lost its relevance. The reasons are quite understandable, some of them go back to the understanding of social planning as an integral part of the management of a socialist society. A loud, even noisy parting with the latter meant a rejection of social planning as well.

But didn't it happen too quickly? Can't the transition to another type of society involve the use of the best (of course, far from all) elements of social planning? Isn't the social sphere of society's life subject to planning in some of its forms? Can the full development of this sphere really take place without it? The answer follows from the very nature of the questions. We believe that Russian society, domestic sociology of management, one way or another, and already in the coming years, will return to certain aspects of social planning Zborovsky GE, Kostina NB, the same, pp. 73-74.

Among domestic researchers who developed the sociology of management at the theoretical level in the period up to the end of the 1980s, one should name (in addition to the authors mentioned above) A.N. Averina, Yu.P. Averina, A.A. 3vorykina, Val.N. Ivanova, P.N. Lebedeva, A.M. Omarova, L.Ya. Suvorov, I.M. Slepenkova, Yu.A. Tikhomirova, V.M. Shepel and others.

Within the framework of the second stage in the development of the sociological science of management, a kind of “spinning off” of it took place as a specific branch of knowledge that has its own subject, object, categorical apparatus, research methods, etc. Here is a typical definition for that time: “The sociology of management is a branch of sociological knowledge that studies the system and processes of management under the conditions of social relations that are taking shape in society” Russian sociological encyclopedia. M., 1998. S. 525. .

In the works of domestic researchers of the period of the 1980s. reflected the most diverse aspects of social management in Soviet society. Various management functions were considered in detail - as a rule, not only theoretically, but also on specific material: development and decision-making, planning, organization, regulation, accounting and control. The implementation of precisely these functions created the management cycle (sometimes they were associated with the characteristics of similar management stages).

Some attention was paid to the specifics of public self-government. Foreign experience was analyzed, which was constantly compared with domestic (moreover, the comparison ended most often in “our favor”). It is also important to note that since the 1970s sociologists began to concretize the process of social management, considering not only the general problems of theory and methodology, but also social planning, social foresight, social forecasting, social design, social technologies, social experiment.

However, until the end of the 1980s. over the works of sociologists-managers hung the sword of Damocles of the party-ideological press-sing Zborovsky G.E., Kostina N.B., the same, pp. 74-75. Of all the branches of sociological science, the sociology of management has been one of the most ideologically biased and dependent on party control. It is not difficult to understand why: after all, it was about the problems of power at all its levels, about the effectiveness of managerial activity.

The “emancipation” of the sociology of management began only in the late 1980s, but it really took place in the 1990s. It is no coincidence that precisely this period accounts for a sharp increase in research on the sociology of management, carried out in a new plan, free from ideological dictates (works by A.N. Averin, Yu.P. Averin, E.M. Babosov, V.S. Dudchenko, A. I. Kravchenko, Yu. D. Krasovsky, A. I. Prigogine, M. V. Udaltsova, V. V. Shcherbina, etc.).

Another feature of the works of this period in the field of sociology of management is their connection not only with the sociology of management, but also with its theories, which are purely economic or psychological in nature. This connection gradually acquired such close forms that Western management was sometimes presented under the guise of sociology of management (since its own had only just begun to emerge). The situation is generally understandable and understandable: in the context of the transition of Russian society to a market economy, the popularity of foreign management theories and practices has sharply increased, which today are more “economical” and “psychological” than “sociological”.

But in the case when such a substitution occurs, the specificity of the subject is lost. And the point is not only in the theoretical “yxods” of representatives of the sociology of management in the sphere of other interests. The main thing is that the social aspects of management, if they remain, then only at the level of enterprises and firms.

Other management structures of society, ranging from federal to local ones, cease to attract the attention of management sociologists Zborovsky G.E., Kostina N.B., the same, pp. 75-76. They become the subject of special consideration by lawyers, state experts, and representatives of management science. All this is necessary and good, but in this case, the social aspects of the various social structures that are the subjects of management disappear from the field of view of sociologists, which is already wrong. Sociologists of management cease to deal with the problems of social policy - an integral part of social management at its most diverse levels.

Therefore, at the present stage of development, the sociology of management should focus on the social aspects of management Zborovsky GE, Kostina NB, the same, p.76.

Development of sociology of management in Russia.

The development of management science in Russia began in the 17th century. and mainly within the framework of the theory of public administration. Played an important role in the development of this system A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin(1605-1680), who made an attempt to introduce urban self-government in the western border cities of Russia. Thus, A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin is considered one of the first Russian managers who raised the issue of developing not only strategic, but also tactical (at the micro level) management.

Noteworthy management ideas I. T. Pososhkova(1652-1726). To the original ideas of I.T. Pososhkov should attribute the division of wealth into real and immaterial. Under the first he meant the wealth of the state (treasury) and the people, under the second - the effective management of the country and the existence of fair laws. Principles of I.T. Pososhkov about improving economic management were based on the decisive role of the state in managing economic processes. He was a supporter of strict regulation of economic life.

A special era in the development of the Russian theory of management are the reforms of Peter the Great to improve the management of the economy. Circle of management actions Peter I very wide - from changing the chronology to creating a new state administrative apparatus. Detailing and concretizing the administrative aspects of the reign of Peter I, we can single out the following transformations in central and local government: the development of large-scale industry and state support for handicraft industries; promoting the development of agriculture; strengthening the financial system; activation of the development of foreign and domestic trade.

Legislative acts of Peter I and control over their execution regulated various spheres of state activity, in fact it was state administration.

The ideas of public administration are reflected in the works A.P. Volynsky(1689-1740). The consistent ideologist of serfdom was V.N. Tatishchev(1686-1750). In the field of economic affairs management in Russia, V.N. Tatishchev attached particular importance to the management of financial policy. He believed that the state was obliged not to observe economic processes, but to actively regulate them in the interests of Russia.

In the second half of the 18th century, management thought developed in the spirit of reforms. Catherine II. In order to improve the management of the Russian economy, at the direction of Catherine II, the "Institution for the Administration of the Provinces of the Russian Empire" was published.

By the beginning of the 19th century, the impossibility of managing the Russian State by the old methods, the need for reforms was recognized by the highest authorities.

The main transformations of economic management at the beginning of the 19th century occurred during the reign of Alexandra I. In 1801, a manifesto was issued on the establishment of ministries, which were built on the basis of personal power and responsibility.

He played a special role in the development of management in Russia MM. Speransky(1772-1839). He saw the purpose of the transformations in giving the autocracy an external form of a constitutional monarchy based on the force of law. The system of power M.M. Speransky proposed to divide it into three parts: legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative issues were to be under the jurisdiction of the State Duma, the courts - under the jurisdiction of the Senate, state administration - under the jurisdiction of the ministries responsible to the Duma.

In 1864 Alexander II approved the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions", which approved all-class self-government.

In the second half of the XIX century. Sociologically, the ideas of the Western world penetrate into Russia and find their supporters in the Russian intellectual environment.

Petr Lavrovich Lavrov(1828-1900) is known primarily as a politician-theorist and politician-practitioner. Lavrov's work is difficult to find a work of a purely sociological orientation, that is, those that would explore social processes. His contribution to Russian sociology is that he was the first to popularize Comte's positivist ideas in Russia, he spoke and wrote about sociology as a possible and scientifically correct method of research.

The fundamental ideas of subjective sociology were first formulated in the famous Historical Letters by P. L. Lavrov (1870). The essence of social development, according to Lavrov, is the processing of culture, namely: the processing of traditional social forms prone to stagnation into a civilization characterized by flexible, dynamic structures and relationships. Civilization is interpreted by subjective sociologists as a conscious historical movement. This movement is carried out, first of all, by critical thought. But since thought really appears only through the actions of the individual, insofar as they argue, the main driving force of social development is critically thinking individuals, the progressive intelligentsia.

A prominent place in the social science of that period is occupied by the works MM. Kovalevsky(1851-1916). He was the last representative of classical positivism. The leading role in his sociological theory M.M. Kovalevsky assigns the doctrine of social progress.

In parallel with subjective sociology and positivism, in the fight against them, the sociology of Marxism developed in Russia, represented by two main theories: orthodox Marxism, led by V. Plekhanov and V. I. Lenin, and the so-called legal Marxism, whose representatives are P.B. Struve, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, H.A. Berdyaev.

At the beginning of the XX century. management transformations were carried out under the leadership of such personalities as S.Yu. Witte(1849-1915) and A. S. Stolypin ( 1862-1911). A.S. Reform Program Stolypin affected all branches of public administration and was designed according to the intention of its author for 20 years. It was mainly about the decentralization of government in Russia.

In Russia, even before 1917, there was a school of administrative law, within the boundaries of which the problems of public administration were studied. At each stage of the country's social development, attempts to reform the management system had to meet new management needs. Theoretical thought reflected these needs and sought to find the most effective forms of not only economic, but also social management of society. However, the truly scientific developments associated with the emergence of sociological interpretations and studies in the field of management fall already in the post-revolutionary period.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Origin and developmentsociologistsandmanagement

Introduction

Management is one of the most complex and at the same time the most subtle spheres of public life. Its importance is constantly growing.

Management is internally necessary both for society as a whole and for each of its parts, so the degree of organization of management mechanisms can be considered as one of the essential indicators of the level of development and the society itself, each of its spheres. First of all, labor activity, division of labor, joint work involve management to a greater or lesser extent. And where the process of production acquires the character of a socially organized one, a special type of labor necessarily arises - management.

In any enterprise, in any organization, structures are needed for management. And the whole further fate of the enterprise, organization depends on what these structures will be, what goals they will pursue.

Sociology of management helps to choose certain methods and forms of management of social processes.

1 . History of the science of sociology of management

The first primitive elements of the science of management, that is, attempts at this phenomenon, can be found in Socrates, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle.

Plato called management "the science of people's nutrition", thereby emphasizing its vital importance in ensuring the material existence of society. The philosopher believed that laws should govern the country, but they are too abstract, and therefore a politician who knows the art of government should supervise their implementation. Moreover, depending on the circumstances, Plato distinguishes two styles of management: political and tyrannical. If citizens perform their functions in society and comply with the laws, then the style of government should be soft (political); if there is no proper order and harmonious relationships in society, then a management style based on force (tyrannical) is used. Thus, in Plato we find the origin of ideas about management styles and about the most “modern” now situational approach to management.

Aristotle gave a lower assessment of managerial activity. He called management "the master's science", the meaning of which is to supervise the slaves. And he gave advice, if possible, to entrust these chores to the manager, and to engage in more noteworthy sciences himself: philosophy and other fine arts.

Given the historical approach, the types of social management can be classified according to the stages of development of society: tribal management, management in slave, feudal, industrial societies. In the conditions of tribal relations, the leaders of the tribe, endowed with power and enjoying authority, coordinated all the main functions of the life of tribal groups. In this control mechanism, a group consciousness, embodied in traditions, played an essential role.

In a slave-owning society, legislative principles, differentiation of power, and a strict delimitation of the spheres of subject and object of control are already emerging. If the tribal community was regulated by unwritten laws, then under slavery, written laws appear, for example, the laws of Hammurabi. Having studied the experience of his predecessors, Hammurabi considered it insufficient to govern only on the basis of unwritten laws, popular law and customs. The famous code of Hammurabi, containing 285 laws of government, is a certain stage in the development of management.

Under feudalism, there is a great differentiation of management systems - political, legal, moral, religious, philosophical, artistic and others designed to ensure the appropriate principles of social behavior of people, social groups, society as a whole. Political power here was of an elitist nature (it was inherited), as, indeed, were almost all forms of material and spiritual production (craft, healing, agricultural culture, art, etc.).

In the context of the general democratization of public life, political power, having forever lost its hereditary character, becomes elective, and the ruling elite is formed from people capable of leading various parts of public life. The achievements of science and technology, as well as the reserves of human capabilities, are used to the maximum. In each specific case, the organization of management has a clearly defined purposeful character, while at the same time obeying, on the whole, the spontaneous forces of the market. Management of various types of material and spiritual production has become an independent profession that requires special education, experience, mindset and even character. A special science of management has been formed, which is based on economic research, sociology, psychology, mathematics, cybernetics, etc. The institution of managers has also been formed - hired specialists in managing various fields of activity.

If we consider the emergence of management as an area of scientific research, foreign historiography unanimously calls the year 1911. Taylor's book "Fundamentals of Scientific Management" was published this year. This date is the starting point from which the science of management began to develop. The fact is that in Taylor's time the need for scientific management was caused primarily by the fact that the growth of labor productivity, in connection with the industrial revolution, had exhausted itself, and it was necessary to look for new levers to increase it. It was then that there was a breakthrough in public consciousness regarding the role of management in the production process. The complication of industrial production required highly qualified mechanical engineers to service the machines. In this regard, highly educated, specially trained, thinking people came to production. They were interested not only in technical operations, but also in the process of organizing labor in an industrial enterprise.

Thus, there was a certain desire to integrate the technical and economic spheres of production, and it was at the junction of these areas that a breakthrough subsequently occurred that singled out such an independent science as management. However, in the development of managerial thought, this is not the beginning, but a certain qualitatively new stage.

The classical or administrative school in management takes a period of time from 1920 to 1950. Henri Fayol is considered the founder of this school. Unlike the school of scientific management, which was mainly concerned with the rational organization of the labor of an individual worker and increasing the efficiency of production, representatives of the classical school began to develop approaches to improve the management of the organization as a whole. The goal of the classical school was to create universal principles of government.

Fayol's merit lies in the fact that he divided all management functions into general, related to any field of activity, and specific, related directly to the management of an industrial enterprise. One of the shortcomings of the scientific management school and the classical school was that they did not fully understand the role and importance of the human factor, which, ultimately, is the main element in the effectiveness of the organization. Therefore, the school of psychology and human relations that eliminated the shortcomings of the classical school is often called the neoclassical school.

The formation of the school of management science is associated with the development of mathematics, statistics, engineering sciences and other fields of knowledge related to them. The School of Management Science was formed in the early 1950s and is successfully functioning at the present time. The merit of the management science school lies in the fact that it was able to identify the main internal and external variables (factors) that affect the organization. Modern management science is developing very intensively, at a rapid pace, it is a synthesis of theoretical developments and comprehension of the conclusions drawn from many years of practical activity.

Thus, the 1950s are characterized by the formation of a new stage in the development of managerial thought. Based on the synthesis of ideas put forward in previous periods, researchers have come to understand the need for an integrated approach to management. In addition, the idea was formulated that management is not only a science, but also an art.

2 . Subject and object of management sociology

The subject of the sociology of management are patterns, forms and methods of purposeful management of social processes and groups in order to achieve a specific goal.

Often the term "management" is used as an equivalent of the term "sociology" of management. However, the sociology of management considers only the social aspects of management and in this sense is a superstructure of management. In general, the sociology of management and management have much in common - the same goals and objectives solve the problems of managing objects and people, but they have different methods and approaches to this problem.

In management, broader issues are considered: special socio-economic institutions, a special circle of people (managers) employed in the field of management, technical, organizational and social aspects of production and people management. The social aspect of production and people management, managers and other issues of social management coincide with management.

The sociology of management is interested in the social aspects of economic and scientific and technological development, social policy, the development and implementation of managerial decisions, the study of the process of self-government, the relationship between the leader and subordinates. The system of information necessary for the implementation of management activities is also considered.

Information processes are not an end in themselves, they are ultimately designed to manage material flows, the interaction of material and information flows.

governance feudalism sociology aristotle

3 . The formation of the sociology of management at the present stage

The sociology of management is one of the young sociological disciplines. Obviously, this is largely due to the fact that it "still does not have its generally recognized place in the system of sociological knowledge and the established conceptual apparatus."

The immaturity of its methodology is expressed in a broad borrowing from the sociology of labor, the sociology of organizations, the foundations of management and other sciences and scientific disciplines.

The need for scientific reflection of the ongoing changes has become especially acute in the context of the transformation of Russian society, at the time of the transformation of basic institutions. Qualitative changes affected the entire Russian institutional system: forms of ownership, laws in the labor sphere, economic rights of enterprises. At the same time, it was found that during the reforms there was a weakening of the integrity of the institution of enterprise management, which manifested itself in the violation of "mutual consistency and internal balance of managerial functions and end-to-end management processes, as well as innovative processes in this system."

The sociology of management is considered as an interdisciplinary sociological theory of the middle level. The object of the sociology of management is "the process of joint activity of people, in which, under certain conditions, an artificial structure arises, the main functions of which are the coordination and programming of this activity." The separation of this artificial structure from the bowels of joint activity is the process of institutionalization of social management. Management relations, the processes of their institutionalization and functioning, as well as social mechanisms for optimizing management impact, are the subject of management sociology.

The point of view, according to which management is considered as a social institution, has become popular in recent years. Many authors use the sociological category "institution" when analyzing management: G.V. Atamanchuk, A.I. Kravchenko, P.V. Romanov, V.I. Franchuk. The social institution of management is a stable type and form of social practice, through which the stability and regulation of relations between the subjects of management relations are ensured.

A more in-depth understanding of a social institution can be given by an analysis of its structure. Considering social institutions, most sociologists recognize the systemic nature of its structure. In the structure of a social institution, six elements are distinguished: a social group, institutions, customs, material tools, organization, and a specific goal. The constituent elements of the structure of a social institution include the goal, functions, institutions and means of achieving the goal, social sanctions.

4 . Sociology in the service of management

Sociology in many countries has been successfully included in the mechanism of state administration for a long time, because it equips with scientific knowledge about society. The effectiveness of management in modern conditions depends on the quality of information, its reliability, completeness, efficiency, etc. This is precisely what the modern technique of sociological research can provide. With a well-established program, methodology and analysis procedures, the process of collecting and processing data becomes so formalized that a biased assessment of social phenomena is unlikely.

Sociology performs a variety of functions. First of all, it is able to diagnose the state of the control object. Any social system can be described by a certain number of indicators reflecting the vital factors of its functioning. For example, the level of social tension, the dominant orientations of the population, loyalty to the authorities, etc. The implementation of the diagnostic function is carried out in the monitoring mode in the presence of a normative model, the need for which is due to the fact that data about a real object is meaningless for management if specific criteria are not developed. This model reflects the achieved level of social development, which can be considered the norm. For example, the normative housing model means that each family has a separate comfortable apartment. Revealing the real situation with housing in society, sociologists compare it with the normative model and thereby determine the direction and magnitude of deviations. The totality of these deviations provides information for decision making.

Sociology is needed by government bodies to perform a prognostic function. Two types of forecasts are usually developed: search, designed to show the possible state of a social object by extrapolating observed trends, and normative, defining the forms, methods and timing of achieving the desired state of the object based on predetermined criteria. This function is implemented through social modeling, design, construction and planning.

Social modeling is most often associated with the allocation of a limited number of factors that affect fundamental changes in people's lives. In the system of human relations, changes in one factor inevitably entail changes in others. In everyday practice, it is not always possible to predict how, say, the social activity of civil servants will change if, after the adoption of the relevant law, the “growth prospects” factor changes, i.e. each official will clearly know what awaits him in his financial, professional, official position. Moreover, this will not depend on the personal attitude of his boss towards him.

Thus, if the main factors that determine the system of human relations are known, their interrelations are identified, then by changing any parameter, it is possible to simulate changes in the social object. What does it give? The ability to make a decision after testing it on the model and finding out its consequences.

Social design is the development of a model of a social object in clear qualitative and quantitative characteristics. Of course, it is possible to regulate relations at the farm level without a social project, but it will be very difficult to form a team of a large joint-stock company. A variety of design is social design. It is a general, speculative construction of human relations, not set by specific parameters. However, no matter how well the social construction is developed, it needs to be thoroughly tested. This is usually done through a social experiment.

Social planning acts as not only a method for determining the desired state of a social object, but also a tool for achieving it. The plan is a scientific substantiation of the goals, sequence and pace of change in human relations in close connection with the life of various social groups.

Recently, the role of the control-analytical function has been growing. We are talking about the sociological examination of bills and management decisions. Sociology is able to check how the decision will “work”, how, in particular, people will perceive it.

Of particular importance is the organizational and technological function. As a result of studies of specific situations, not only social projects are developed, but also technologies for their implementation. In essence, this is a socio-engineering activity focused on a purposeful change in the organizational structures that determine human behavior. Thus, it is directly related to the process of forming a new way of life for people with an effective socially oriented system of public administration.

Sociology performs a consulting function that optimizes the internal activities of administrative institutions. It is involved in the improvement of organizational structures, decision-making processes, leadership style, selection, placement of personnel, etc. For these purposes, the achievements of the sociology of organizations, the sociology of management, and the sociology of public service are used.

Sociology also performs an image function, which is aimed at preserving or changing the image of a state organization, creating an atmosphere of trust and goodwill on the part of the public, and ensuring that the population is informed about the work of this organization.

The above managerial functions of sociology change the nature of the activities of the public service. The very fact that sociology is included in the management mechanism is a kind of indicator of the state of democracy, it indicates that the administrative and political elite is oriented towards civil society, towards ensuring the expectations and interests of people.

The solution to the problem of including professional knowledge in the organizational structures and methods of work of the public service largely depends on the sociologists themselves, their active position and responsibility. First of all, we are talking about sociologists working in the same team with officials as experts, advisers, assistants, etc. Often the role of these specialists is limited to giving opinions on government programs and policies for their implementation. As a result, sociological knowledge has only an advisory, but not a decisive voice. It is necessary to overcome the stereotype of the secondary role of sociologists in decision-making. To do this, they must break free from the outdated academic paradigm of distancing themselves from practical orders. Sociologists should act more boldly in the role of independent management consultants, which will allow using a specific methodology to involve officials in the process of understanding the problems and tasks of their institutions and finding ways to solve them. In this regard, it is important to develop and improve the methods of sociology of "small forms", procedures for "express assessment", etc.

Sociologists are called upon to train civil servants. Here it is also necessary to rationalize some traditional forms of work, to offer new types of their "products". Organizational and activity games and trainings in the workplace may well become such. They are able not only to provide a certain amount of knowledge of employees, but also the maximum of their skills. Therefore, it is hardly worth discussing with officials what you need to know and what you need to do, but it is more useful to decide the main thing - what they should do in non-standard situations. All this will make it possible to intensify activities for the sociological support of the civil service.

Conclusion

Cognition, sociological substantiation and interpretation of management as the most important social institution is the main function of the sociology of management, which is experiencing a rebirth. This is all the more important in the context of social change, when the institution of governance that exists and functions in society cannot remain unchanged, and the transformations taking place in it are of a fundamental nature.

Thus, we can conclude that the sociology of management plays an important role in the management process, for solving managerial problems, in resolving issues of reorganization, introducing new structural divisions, etc.

With the help of social research, it is possible to identify optimal solutions to issues that arise in the process of production and management of the organization.

Bibliography

1. Kapitonov E.A. Sociology of the twentieth century. History and technology, - R. 2006

2. Kravchenko A. Sociology: General course. Textbook for universities. - M. PERSE; Logos, 2005

3. Tyurina I. Sociology of management: fundamental course: Textbook for students of higher educational institutions. - M.: Academic Project, 2007.

4. Kravchenko A.I. Introduction to sociology. Tutorial. - M. "New School" 2008

5. Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Sociology. Lecture course. - M. "Vlados" 2007

6. Sociology as a science. Study guide Technical editor: T.A. Smirnova - Tver, 2009

7. Frolov S.S. Sociology. - M. "Logos" 2006

Hosted on Allbest.ru

The current stage in the development of the sociology of management in Russia. The formation of the sociology of management at the present stage

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents