Formation and main stages in the development of the theory and practice of organizing production in Russia and abroad. Coursework Stages of development of the theory of organization of production

The process of organization of production, which includes the design, construction, maintenance and improvement of production systems, includes a number of interrelated types of work. In this case, one should proceed from the fact that the organization of production can be aimed at creating or improving the existing production system. In the first case, the goal of the organization is to create a production system for a new enterprise or some new division at an existing enterprise, in the second, the organization is associated with improving the existing system, that is, with the reorganization of production, or the entire enterprise, or one or more of its divisions. In the work on organizing production, it is necessary to determine the organizational goal, i.e. determine the result expected from a specific organizational work. As organizational goals, such results of organizational activities as increasing the rhythm and efficiency of production, improving product quality, reducing inventories, etc. can be selected. In some cases, several organizational goals are put forward at the same time, which requires their coordination. The process of determining the organizational goal involves the joint work of the head of the enterprise and specialists in the field of production organization.

Establishing activities and determining the circle of participants in the work. After the goals of the organization are defined, it is necessary to establish the types of activities necessary to achieve them, that is, to compile a list of works that must be performed. The extreme complexity and importance of this stage of organizational work should be taken into account. For its implementation and the creation of a general scheme for carrying out work and their implementation, it is necessary to attract workers with a high scientific outlook and extensive experience in the field of production organization. Then it is necessary to determine those divisions of the enterprise, involved organizations and specific performers who will participate in the implementation of organizational goals. In this case, there may be a need to make changes to the current structure of the enterprise apparatus or to create new, including temporary, divisions. The performance of all the prescribed work must be assigned to the relevant unit, institution and / or a specific contractor.

Study of the state of the organization and analysis of the results. A study of this kind is an assessment of the actual state of the production system, related to the scope of solving this organizational problem. In the process of research, an idea should be obtained about all the characteristic features of the system, about the processes taking place in it and external relations, about the effectiveness of its functioning, about the need for organizational changes, etc. The study of the actual state of the system involves determining quantitative indicators and qualitative characteristics, as well as assessing the organizational level of the system by comparing the obtained parameters and characteristics with average or normative (reference). In the course of analyzing the results of the study, it is necessary to identify the causes of negative phenomena or deviations from the average and standard levels and formulate proposals for the organization of production.

Development of options for the organizational concept and the choice of the optimal option. The results of the analysis can confirm the possibility of achieving the goal or show that it is untenable and needs to be adjusted. The goal formulated in the final form can be achieved in various ways. In this regard, in the process of organizing production, several possible variants of the organizational concept should be put forward and worked out. At the same time, it is necessary not only to characterize the changes in the existing production system or characterize the newly created system, but also to evaluate the proposed costs for its implementation and the economic efficiency of implementation. After reviewing the options

concept, the head of the enterprise takes one of the options as a basis.

Development of a project for the organization (reorganization) of production and its implementation. At this stage, it is necessary to fill the chosen concept with concrete content. This task is solved on the basis of project development: organization of production in an association (at an enterprise) or in any subdivision that is part of it; organization of one or more functional subsystems of the enterprise; organization of production. An organizational project for a specific purpose can also be developed to solve a specific problem, for example, improving product quality, increasing shift work of equipment, reducing production costs, etc. The implementation of the developed organizational project involves the creation of a special administrative plan that establishes specific deadlines for the implementation of certain work, provides for the allocation of necessary resources, measures for training and retraining of personnel, the sequence of transition to a new system of organization, etc. The implementation of the organization or reorganization of production project involves direct participation in this work of the head of the enterprise.

As a result of mastering the material of Chapter 1, the student must: know

The history of the emergence and development of management, including production management in Russia and abroad;

be able to

Use in practice the information obtained as a result of studying various enterprise management systems;

own

Methods of comparative analysis of the best practices in management.

The history of the emergence of the science of organization and management of production

The issues of organization and management of production emerged as a separate field of knowledge at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. The impetus in this regard was the emergence of the steam engine, electrical engineering and other inventions that ensured a truly revolutionary development of industry. There was a need to develop and implement adequate, scientific methods of organizing and managing production.

The first to approach the organization of production from a scientific standpoint was the American engineer Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1915). Taylor's books "Fundamentals of Scientific Enterprise Management", "Factory Management" and others laid the foundation for an extensive literature on the scientific organization of production.

Taylor's goal was to create a system of scientific organization of labor at the enterprise, ensuring the achievement of maximum results with the least expenditure of labor, material and financial resources. Taylor chose the rationalization of all elements of production as a way to achieve this goal: the means of labor (machines, equipment, industrial buildings), objects of labor (raw materials, materials, fuel, energy) and the living labor of workers and employees. According to Taylor, nothing can be done in a plant or factory “as God puts it on the soul”, according to routine, out of blind habit. Everything, even every little thing, must be scientifically investigated beforehand.

All forms, conditions and methods of work, supervision over it, management of it - everything must be foreseen in advance, expediently constructed and precisely established. The main elements of the Taylor concept and their characteristics are presented in Table. 1.1.

Table 1.1

Basic elements of F. W. Taylor's concept

	Characteristic
The division of the process of organizing the work of the enterprise into its constituent parts	Establishing the purpose of the activity of both the enterprise as a whole and the individual employee. The choice of means of activity (i.e. objects and means of labor). Preparation of means of activity for work. The use of means of activity in accordance with a predetermined plan. Monitoring the performance of the enterprise as a whole and individual employees
Rationalization	Rationalization of the use of equipment (each machine, tool, etc. must be adapted to a certain part of the work). Improving the care of production tools, production facilities, communications. Optimization of the movement of materials, semi-finished products and finished products around the plant
Creation of a planning and distribution bureau	Establishes how work should be organized in all departments of the enterprise. Develops appropriate instructions for all jobs and workers. Allocates representatives of the bureau in each division of the enterprise
Formation of the corps of masters of four categories	Foremen giving tasks to workers. Masters overseeing the work. Masters accepting finished products. Equipment repair technicians
Accounting for the progress of production	Graphs, diagrams, etc. are used. It is always known what is being done where. There are no irreplaceable people, everyone works according to the instructions

The end of the table. 1.1

The main goal of the Taylor system is to achieve an increase in labor productivity, first of all, by ensuring the interest of workers in meeting and overfulfilling established standards. He wrote: “The output rate must be increased so much that only a first-class worker can carry it out; The difference between a first-class worker and a bad worker is the same as between a good draft horse and a donkey.

The basis of Taylor's philosophical system was the concept of the so-called "economic man", whose only driving stimulus is his needs. Taylor believed that through an appropriate system of payment, maximum productivity could be achieved.

FW Taylor's compatriot Harrington Emerson (1853-1931) in 1912 formulated the "12 principles of productivity", representing the author's system of views on the organization of the production and economic activities of an industrial enterprise.

G. Emerson considered the elimination of losses in the broadest sense to be the main goal of implementing his principles. Like Taylor, Emerson prioritized productivity growth. However, unlike Taylor, he believed that this growth was determined not only by the increase in wages, but also by the "ideals" of the workers.

The French engineer Henri Fayol (1841-1925), who for a number of years headed a large metallurgical association, created his own enterprise organization system. He outlined his views in the book General and Industrial Management, which was published in 1916. Fayol divided all operations taking place at the enterprise into six groups:

• mechanical (production, processing);
• commercial (purchase, sale, exchange);

• financial (finding capital and managing it);
• protection of property and employees;
• accounting (calculation of costs, statistics, balances);
• administrative (foresight, organization, command, coordination, control).

A. Fayol concentrated his attention on administrative operations, which he deciphered as follows: establishing a program of action; monitoring the implementation of this program; providing unified, energetic and competent leadership; good selection of staff; clear definition of authority; coordination of efforts of all participants in production; clear formulation of decisions made; encouraging initiative and responsibility; prevention of errors and misunderstandings; observance of discipline; subordination of the individual interests of employees to the general interests of the enterprise.

A significant contribution to the theory and practice of organizing industrial production was made by Henry Ford (1863-1947), the founder of a well-known automobile corporation. Developing Taylor's ideas, G. Ford replaced manual labor with machine labor and ensured the creation of a mass assembly line. He formulated the following principles for the organization of production (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2

Principles of production organization G. Ford

"Vertical" structure of production	Inclusion in the corporation of links in the technological chain that precede the main production (in particular, the production of cars) and following this production (coal mines, mines, metallurgical plants, railways, ports, etc.)
Organization of mass production	Continuous release in significant volumes of the same standard size for a long time with strict repeatability of the production process in all departments of the enterprise
Maximum separation	Splitting the production process into the smallest monosyllabic operations so that they can be performed by the most unskilled worker (“from the plow”)
typing, unification equipment, items	Use of a limited number of types of specialized equipment, tools, types of raw materials, semi-finished products, materials, spare parts, etc.

The end of the table. 1.2

Phase change sequence	Placement of equipment and workers in strict accordance with the sequence of the technological process
Rational Preparation production	Timely supply of objects of labor, devices, tools directly to the workplace
Mechanization transport	Movement of goods only with the help of mechanisms (cranes, elevators, conveyors, conveyors)
threading production	Coordinated execution of all operations in time and movement of objects of labor using conveyors through workplaces in accordance with the given fast pace of the production process

The "vertical" structure of production made G. Ford independent of the market situation, allowing maximum synchronization of the work of all elements of the technological chain. The mass nature of production led to a reduction in the cost of a unit of production (in this case, a car), increased the possibilities of mechanization and automation of labor processes. The complete division of labor made it possible to save on the wages of low-skilled workers. The unification of equipment and objects of labor simplified their maintenance and use. The sequence of phase changes ensured the passage of the objects of labor in the process of production of the shortest path.

The principle of rational preparation of production G. Ford carried out in the most stubborn way. He said: “... an untrained worker spends more time searching for and delivering materials and tools than for the work itself. We began to deliver work to workers, and not vice versa. We follow two serious principles in all work: to force the worker, as far as possible, never to take more than one step and never to allow him to bend forward or to the side when working.

The mechanization of transport according to G. Ford consisted in the fact that not the objects of labor move along the tracks, but the tracks move along with the objects of labor. As a result, there is no need to move each piece of workpiece separately. At Ford, no one carries loads down: trough-shaped tracks allow you to use the gratuitous force of gravity of the earth.

The most revolutionary of all Ford's principles - threading - made it possible, unlike Taylor, to abandon timekeeping, detailed instructions for workers, most of the masters (drivers and overseers). The rhythm of work at Ford sets the conveyor, and the worker cannot lag behind him.

• Taylor F. Administrative and technical organization of an industrial enterprise. 1916.

First stage in organization theory covers the period from 1900 to 1930. It can be defined as the era of "closed systems and the rational individual". The main representatives of the organization theory of this time were Max Weber and Frederick Taylor. The approach they developed is focused on organizational and technical improvements of the system by increasing the efficiency of the internal functions of the organization.

Second phase , 1930 - 1960, is the era of "closed systems and the social individual". Its representatives were Anton Mayo, Douglas McGregor, Chester Barnard. This group of theorists developed the issues of closed systems management based on the internal relations and non-economic motivation of workers.

Rice. 7. Stages of development of the organization

Third stage lasted from 1960 to 1975. This is the period of "open systems and the rational individual." The theory of organization takes a step forward, considering the organization as an integral part of a higher level system, and at the same time a step back, as it returns to mechanistic ideas about a person. The main contribution to the development of organization theory during this period was made by Alfred Chandler, Paul Lawrence, Jay Lorsch.

And finally fourth stage , which began around 1975, can be defined as the period of "open systems and the social individual." At this stage, there is a return to "social thinking", but within the framework of open systems. The leader of modern organization theory is James March.

Let us determine the contribution to the development of the theory of organization of its most prominent representatives.

Fundamental Ideas of Organization Theory

F. Taylor and scientific foundations of organization theory. The beginning of a series of fundamental works in the field of organization theory was laid by the "Principles of Scientific Management" by F. Taylor, published in 1911.

Frederick Taylor (1856 - 1915) - American engineer. After graduating from the Institute of Technology in 1876, Taylor worked for the Midvale Steel Company, an iron and steel company, and worked his way up from foreman to chief plant engineer. In 1886 he joined the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Taylor left behind a solid creative heritage, including, in addition to social works on metallurgy, the books that made him famous throughout the world: "The Deal System" (1895), "Shop Management" (1903) and "Principles of Scientific Management" (1911). He was buried in Philadelphia, where his grave is inscribed: "The Father of Scientific Management."

With his experiments and scientific works, F. Taylor sought to prove that the methods of scientific organization of labor developed by him and the principles of "scientific management" formulated on their basis would make a real revolution in modern production, replacing outdated authoritarian methods with scientific approaches to management.

From his research and experiments, F. Taylor derived a number of general principles that formed the basis of the classical theory of organization.

These include:

division of labor - this principle is carried out not only at the level

workshop or workshop, but also extends to managerial echelons. The manager should be assigned the planning function, and the employee should be assigned the execution function. In addition to this division of labor in a broad sense, Taylor also recommended that specific production tasks be distributed so that each member of the staff (both worker and manager) would be responsible for only one function;

functional guidance - supervision of workers should be functional and carried out at every phase of production. Taylor suggested moving from sole to functional leadership, replacing the power of one master with functional administration (several specialist managers, each of whom would give instructions to the worker within his competence). In the specialized literature on the problems of organization, such specialist managers and their subdivisions are called functional bodies (departments), and the organization is called functional;

measurement of labor - Taylor insisted on studying the processes of working time, seeing this as the most optimal way to implement production tasks. This principle involves the measurement of working time using the so-called "time units", representing the discrete elements of labor processes;

tasks - prescriptions - according to this principle, production tasks should not only be broken down every minute, but also accompanied by a detailed description of the best methods for their implementation. The goals of the enterprise are clearly planned, and each worker is given written instructions regarding his specific tasks. Through the implementation of these measures, both the worker and the manager obtain certain standards that contribute to the measurement of work;

incentive programs - it should be clear to the worker that any element of labor has its price and its payment depends on the established output of finished products; in the case of achieving greater productivity, the worker is paid a bonus;

work as an individual activity - the influence of the group makes the worker less productive;

motivation - the essence of this principle is that self-interest is the driving force for most people;

the role of individual abilities - a distinction is made between the abilities of workers and managers; workers work for rewards in the present, and managers for rewards in the future.

As you can see, F. Taylor did not neglect the human component of organizations, as many believe, but put the emphasis on the individual rather than the collective qualities of the employee.

Taylor believed that the application of the principles of scientific management would eliminate almost all causes of disputes and disagreements between business owners and employees.

Unfortunately, this optimism was not "appreciated". Trade unions in the 20s and 30s strongly resisted the introduction of "scientific management". Taylor's methods were considered as a scientifically based system of exploitation of workers, leading to the intensification of labor and an increase in unemployment.

Nevertheless, Taylor was undoubtedly one of the great pioneers in the field of organization theory and social engineering. He proposed a new concept of "division of labor", which was accepted by all. Its influence can still be traced both in industrial enterprises and in public institutions in the organization of clerical work.

Principles of organization A. Fayol. Some time after the publication by F. Taylor of the results of his research in the United States, the Frenchman A. Fayol formulated the general principles of organization.

The main work of A. Fayol "General and Industrial Management" was published in 1916. And although the works of Taylor and Fayol were written at about the same time, they differed significantly from each other. Taylor's ideas were based primarily on scientific research, while the principles formulated by Fayol were the result of numerous experiments and were determined by his experience as a leader. For 30 years (1888 - 1918) he was the chief manager of the French mining and metallurgical concern Comambo, which was on the verge of collapse; when Fayol retired, it was one of the largest and most prosperous enterprises in France.

Fayol sought to develop principles of organization applicable to all levels of government. Briefly, they can be formulated as follows.

To operate effectively, an organization must have:

clear goals;

one center of subordination (unity of control);

one management department (unity of control);

clear lines of authority along which orders go (a scalar chain of command from the upper echelons of the hierarchy to its lower links);

equality of rights and obligations;

rational division of labor and logical grouping of tasks by subdivisions, departments and administrative sectors of the highest level;

a clear definition of responsibility for the results of activities and such established official relations so that everyone in the organization knows his role and position in the team;

favorable opportunities for taking the initiative.

A. Fayol attaches special knowledge to the formal structure of the organization. Using the principle of a scalar chain, along the lines of A. Fayol, allows you to create a system of responsibility of various links and ensures the unity of management with the consistent transmission of instructions and information. However, he warns against excessive formalism of the organization, showing what obstacles are created in the way of the communication flow by the organizational structure.

management

Fayol illustrated the problem of the limitedness of the formal organizational structure using the following typical example (Fig. 8).

Rice. 8. Steps of the hierarchy

Example. Suppose you want to send a message from individual D to individual O, who are at the same level of the hierarchy, but in different departments. In accordance with the shown hierarchical structure, formal contact between them can be carried out only through the steps of the hierarchy of power (up and down). However, it is obvious that it is wiser and much faster for D&O to make direct contact, bypassing 7 senior managers. Fayol argued that such direct horizontal communication should be allowed in any organization, at least in crisis situations where speed of action is important. This social communication channel was called "Fayol's bridge".

Fayol recognizes that when certain management principles are violated in organizations, communication difficulties arise. For example, if a manager's range of control is too wide and the number of subordinates exceeds 5 to 6 people, then his ability to effectively communicate with subordinates may decrease. Therefore, Fayol and Taylor are making attempts to develop rules and norms of controllability in digital terms. Thus, in effectively working organizations, according to Fayol, the range of control at the level of masters can vary from 10 to 30 people; the presence of 2, 3, 4 or 5 masters forces the introduction of the position of workshop manager; and the presence of 2-5 heads of workshops requires the introduction of a department head. To solve the problems of control and coordination of actions of subordinates, it is proposed to delegate the authority of the leader to lower levels of the hierarchy, characterized by a decrease in the range of control.

The general governance principles discussed have been criticized at all levels. It was believed that the principles of A. Fayol only more accurately express "generally known truths", and in a particular situation, the manager's assessment of the circumstances is of paramount importance. However, despite significant remarks, the works of A. Fayol had a huge impact on the development of organization theory, and the results of the implementation of his ideas can be seen in many industrial and social organizations.

The Bureaucracy of Max Weber . The German sociologist Max Weber (1864 - 1920) developed the principles for constructing an ideal type of organization structure, which was called bureaucratic. The term " bureaucracy "M. Weber used in its exact meaning -" board of civil servants ". According to Weber, bureaucracy is marked by accuracy - strict discipline, stability and responsibility. The principles of building a bureaucratic organization are as follows:

all activities on the basis of the division of labor are divided into elements, which makes it possible to determine the tasks and responsibilities of each official;

the organization is built on the principles of hierarchy, a strict system of subordination and responsibility, a system of power and authority;

the activities of the organization are regulated on the basis of instructions, standards, rules that determine the responsibility of each employee and his duties;

the management of the organization is carried out on the basis of formal impersonality, i.e. excludes personal motives and emotions;

selection, appointment and promotion are based on merit and merit, and not on tradition and whims.

M. Weber believed that the system of principles he proposed would ensure the satisfactory fulfillment of many monotonous organizational tasks, and hierarchy, power and bureaucracy underlie all social organizations.

Elton Mayo and the Hawthorne Experiment . Australian consultant, sociologist, professor of business school at Harvard University E. Mayo led a series of experiments conducted at the plant of the Western Electric company in Hawthorne. The results of these experiments significantly changed the ideas that existed at that time about the motives of an employee's behavior in an organization and served as the beginning of the second stage in the development of organization theory.

Research at the Hawthorne Works began with a series of experiments to improve the lighting of workplaces in order to find ways to increase labor productivity.

The results of the experiments did not allow us to derive such a dependence. However, it was possible to establish that labor productivity is related to the fact that workers felt special attention to themselves as participants in the experiment. This phenomenon is called the Hawthorne effect.

hawthorne effect refers to the propensity of people to deviate from the norm when they understand that they are the object of the experiment and feel special attention to themselves.

This kind of "special" appeal to the subjects under test led to the emergence in management of a new scientific school, called the school of "human relations".

The conducted research allowed E. Mayo to make a number of significant conclusions that contradict the concept of "rational worker". The main ones are the following:

a clear division and rationing of labor does not always lead to increased productivity;

people are more responsive to the social influence of a group of peers than to incentives and control measures coming from management;

a manager must be well trained professionally to be a true leader. He must understand the needs of individuals and groups, listen to the problems of both, be able to give the necessary advice and convince the employee to accept change.

The influence of the ideas of E. Mayo is obvious today. Management improvement programs in many large organizations emphasize the need and importance of special training for managers in conversation, interpersonal relationships, group understanding, and developing other managerial social skills. All these problems are relevant and directly or indirectly follow from the works of E. Mayo.

In conclusion, it can be noted that E. Mayo formulated a number of guiding principles that can be useful and used in the management of any organization:

Individuals have unique needs, goals, and motives. Positive motivation requires workers to be treated as individuals.

Human problems cannot be simple.

A worker's personal or family problems can adversely affect work performance.

Chester Barnard and Purposeful Organizations . The combination of the ideas of Taylor, Fayol and Weber with the results of the Hawthorne experiment led to the conclusion that the organization is "a system of consciously coordinated actions of a group of people." Its main elements are technology and people, and focusing on only one of these elements does not lead to system optimization.

This provision was first put forward by C. Barnard. Chester Barnard is a professor, businessman and philosopher. He began working for AT&T in 1909 as a statistician and quickly rose through the ranks. In 1927, C. Barnard was already president of one of the telephone companies. His only book, The Functions of the Leader, published in 1938, is recognized as a classic work in the field of organization theory.

Ch. Barnard gave a definition of a formal (purposeful) organization and its constituent elements, appointments, singled out the subjective and objective aspects of the power of leaders. He developed a theory of perception, which in a new way explains the relationship between managers and workers, received particular recognition. The essence of Ch. Barnard's ideas can be expressed in the following terms:

the physical and biological limitations inherent in individuals force them to cooperate, to work in groups, since cooperation is the most effective way to overcome these limitations;

cooperation leads to the emergence of coordinated systems. The success of such systems depends on their effectiveness and inherent efficiency. Performance characterizes the achievement of corporate goals. Efficiency is a consequence of individual performance and means achieving goals at minimal cost to its participants;

individuals have personal motives for cooperation, but there is a limit to which they continue to contribute to efforts to achieve corporate goals. Therefore, the success of an organization also depends on the degree of satisfaction of its members;

organizations can be divided into two types: "formal", i.e. those that combine the efforts of several individuals and coordinate their actions to achieve common goals, and "informal" organizations, which mean a set of personal contacts and interactions, as well as associated groups of people who do not have a common or consciously coordinated goal;

informal organization acts as a kind of self-defense of individuals against the expansion of formal organizations. Among its main functions are: communication, maintaining cohesion, strengthening a sense of personal dignity, self-respect and independence of choice. Formal organization occurs when there are individuals who: a) are able to communicate with each other; b) agree to contribute to group activities; c) have a common goal;

Each formal organization includes the following elements:

a) general purpose (purpose); b) a system of incentives that will encourage people to contribute to the achievement of the goal; c) a system of power that induces group members to agree with the decisions of administrators; d) communications;

power is an information connection (team), thanks to which information is perceived by members of the organization as a tool for managing their activities. Leaders are empowered by people who want to be led. Therefore, the true bearer of power is not the manager, but the staff itself, since it is he who decides whether or not to carry out orders from above. The subjective element of power is its perception by employees, and the objective element is the nature of the team or information connection;

The functions of an administrator in a formal organization are as follows: a) maintaining information communication through an organizational structure; b) ensuring the activities of the most important sections by the forces of individuals included in the organization; c) formalized definition of the goal (planning).

Ch. Barnard, like E. Mayo, was a supporter of the concept of "social man" and considered non-economic incentives as a decisive factor in production. He believed that the essence of the relationship between the individual and the organization lies in cooperation. There are certain needs that cannot be satisfied by the individual himself, so he must cooperate with others. Thus, the organization simply helps the individual to reach a goal to which he cannot go in any other way.

Douglas McGregor and Theory X - Theory Y . Douglas MacGregor (1906 - 1964) is one of the most famous theorists who made a significant contribution to the development of organization theory in the second stage. His works are devoted to the issues of practical management (leadership). The most significant work is the book "The Human Side of Entrepreneurship", published in 1960. Observing the relationship between management and staff, McGregor came to the conclusion that the manager builds his behavior towards subordinates in accordance with his personal ideas about employees and their abilities. The conducted research allowed McGregor to describe the management system from two opposite positions, each of which can be taken by the leader in relation to his subordinates. A simplified version of this system considers designated positions on opposite sides of the continuum. One of the extreme positions, reflecting the traditional view of management and control, is called theory X, and the other - theory Y.

Theory X . In accordance with theory X, the leader expresses his attitude towards subordinates most often as follows:

every man has a natural reluctance to work, and therefore he tries to avoid the expenditure of labor wherever possible;

due to the fact that people are not disposed to work, they should be coerced, controlled, directed or threatened with punishment if they do not make sufficient efforts to achieve the goals set by the organization;

ambition is inherent in very few, people try to avoid direct responsibility and prefer to be led;

most of all, people desire personal peace and need protection.

Theory Y describes the opposite idealized situation, in which subordination looks like a partnership and the formation of a team takes place in an ideal environment. It includes the following provisions:

the expenditure of physical and spiritual strength at work is just as natural as when playing or relaxing, and under normal conditions a person does not refuse to perform certain duties;

the threat of punishment or external control is not the only means of stimulating the achievement of the organization's goals. People are endowed with the ability to self-manage and self-control in achieving the goals to which they are committed;

commitment to goals is a function of reward, i.e. involvement in the activities of the organization implies that the reward for the activity will strictly correspond to how the tasks facing the team are completed;

ingenuity and creativity are very common among the population, but in modern life, when technology is so highly developed, they often remain hidden.

According to McGregor, Theory X is command and control through the direct application of power. In this case, a person acts as an object of power influence. On the contrary, Theory Y is based on the principle of integration or the creation of such conditions in which the members of a given organization would best achieve their goals, directing their energy to achieve the success of the enterprise.

The significance of McGregor's assumptions has led managers and organizational writers to carefully consider the relative merits of different organizational leadership styles. Soon the question of what it means to lead in the best way became the main question in leadership research.

Alfred Chandler, James Thomson, Paul Lawrence, Jay Lorsch and the study of the influence of the external environment on the organization . The most significant contribution to the development of organization theory in the third stage was made by Alfred Chandler. The results of his research were reflected in the book "Strategy and Structure" (1962). A. Chandler found that with a change in the strategy of companies, their organizational structure also changes accordingly. The need for strategic change is dictated by the demands of the external environment. Changing the operating conditions of the enterprise leads to a change in strategy, and this has a direct impact on the organizational chart.

So, A. Chandler showed that an increase in the volume of output is oriented towards in-line production and leads to the necessary transition from a functional organizational form to a structural diagram based on departments.

The theoretical substantiation of the relationship between the environment and the structure of the organization was carried out by J. Thomson in the book "Organizations in Action". J. Thomson showed the difference between closed and open organizations. Closed, according to J. Thomson, the organization strives for certainty

and is focused on internal factors that are associated with the achievement of its goals. An open organization recognizes the interdependence of the organizational structure and its environment, tries to achieve stabilization in its relations with the requirements of the external environment. As J. Thomson stated, organizations are ultimately closely related to their environment. They acquire resources in exchange for manufactured products, their technologies are based on the realities of the surrounding world.

Following A. Chandler and J. Thomson, the study of the influence of the external environment on the organization was carried out in 1967 by Harvard Business School teachers P. Lawrence and J. Lorsch. They collaborated on the book The Organization and Its Environment. P. Lawrence and J. Lorsch looked at organizational structures and management systems, comparing companies with the best results in a dynamic business (production of special plastics) with the best companies in a stable, little changing industry (production of containers). They found that the best firms in a stable business use a functional organization chart and simple control systems. On the contrary, leaders in dynamic production have a more decentralized form of organization and more complex management systems than their competitors. By means of a sociometric survey, P. Lawrence and J. Lauren revealed a close correlation between the internal parameters of the organization and the characteristics of the external environment.

The obtained results and conclusions served as the basis for the formation of the concept of the organization as an open system. Theorists put forward and substantiated the position that not only there are adaptation relations between the organization and the environment, but the external characteristics of the environment, on the one hand, and the internal structural and behavioral parameters, on the other hand, are inextricably linked by objective laws and interdependencies (the environment, of course, is not the only determinant of the organization, besides this, independent variables of goals, technology, size, innovations, etc. are important). By the beginning of the 1970s, this approach, named by P. Lawrence and J. Lorsch, took shape as one of the directions in organization theory.

James March, Gelbert Simon and the trashcan model . The modern concept in the development of views on the organization emphasizes informality, individual enterprise and evolution. The most famous theorists of this stage are R. Cyert, J. March, G. Simon.

R. Cyert and J. March made an attempt to construct a theory of a firm operating in conditions of constant "quasi-resolution" of conflicts between departments in the organization, which, according to J. March, constitute "political coalitions". However, they considered the sources of conflicts to be the natural distribution of responsibility for different goals for any organization.

and the "bounded rationality" of managers in their efforts to cope with management problems. Any organization, according to Cyert-March, has sufficiently strong social mechanisms to resolve conflicts (compromise agreement on goals and objectives, the formation of reserves in case of unforeseen complications, switching attention from considering one problem to another, etc.). Developing ideas such as satisfaction (achieving satisfactory rather than maximum results in decision making), bounded rationality and sequential search, R. Cyert, G. Simon and J. March largely contributed to the assertion of the view that managers are not at all devices for rational problem solving or calculating machines. Decision makers do not work in conditions of perfect knowledge, hence uncertainty arises, which is the normal state of affairs. Subsequently, J. March and G. Simon put forward the concept of the organization as a "wastebasket", expressing their attitude to the conflict of goals and interests, the uncertainty of problems, the irrationality of decisions that take place in intra-organizational relations. The wastebasket model applies to a particular type of organizational structure known as organized anarchy. Examples of wastebaskets include universities, think tanks, research organizations, and perhaps some organizations in the health care system. In organizations of this kind, preferences are not clearly defined and in many cases inconsistent. The technology here is unclear, participation is inflexible, with many examples of periodic employee turnover on a "leave-and-come" basis, as well as continuous personnel turnover as a result of staff turnover. Preferences, or goals, are determined in action, rather than as if the manager starts by setting a pre-selected goal and pursues its achievement. Thus, the trash can model can be seen as one of the models of irrational decision making that managers have to deal with.

critical situations. The practical application of the systems approach in the theory of organization was hampered by the fact that the systems in this approach are frozen, often abstract models that are difficult to adapt to changes both within the organization and in its external environment; in addition, there were difficulties in using specific knowledge about the specifics of organizations and their development. This circumstance gave rise to the situational theory, or situational approach, to the study of organizations and management processes.

In the 1940-1950s. developed empirical school in management theory. Representatives of this school P. Drucker, A. Chandler, R. Davis attached particular importance to the dissemination of specific experience in managing firms. At the same time, existing organizational structures were adjusted on the basis of empirical research, depending on the field of activity, the geographical location of the company, market conditions, etc.

The impetus for the creation of the situational theory was the research of T. Burns and G. Stalker, conducted by them in 1960-1961. at 20 engineering, electronic and textile firms in England and Scotland. The main result of their research was the assumption that, depending on the type of external environment (stable or changeable), the most effective organizational structures can be "mechanistic" or "organic".

The main provisions of the structural-functional approach. Structural-functional analysis is one of the most important research approaches to the study of social phenomena. This approach has received the greatest theoretical and practical significance precisely in the theory of organizations. The founder of the concept of functionalism is E. Durkheim, who was the first to formulate the problem associated with the functional division of labor in an organization and the problem of the interconnectedness of the functions of individual system units. Later, the problems of functionalism were developed by anthropologists B. Malinovsky and A. Radcliffe-Brown, who considered a social object (in particular, society) as an adaptive system in which all parts serve to satisfy the needs of the system as a whole, ensuring its existence in the external environment.

The starting point of structural and functional analysis is the concept of the function of each system unit in relation to the system as a whole. This is not a mathematical understanding of function, but rather "function" is closer to the biological sciences, where it means "a vital or organic process, considered from the point of view of what contribution it makes to the preservation of the organism" .

Fundamentals of General Systems Theory. In many areas of knowledge, the object of study is presented as a system, and its subsequent study is carried out on the basis of the basic principles of a systematic approach. There are biological, technical, information and other systems. However, in no other area has the systems approach been so widely adopted and used with such effect as in the theory of organizations.

Conceptual models of a systematic approach to explaining the complex phenomena of modern life or systems analysis appeared in the form of a general theory, which was credited with the ability to explain all the phenomena of the modern material and non-material world. G. Spencer, an English naturalist and researcher of social phenomena, is considered one of the founders of the systemic approach. According to Spencer, the entire social world is a kind of whole or an organism that can be represented as a set of interacting parts - the heart, kidneys, brain and other organs that generally perform the function of life support or, in other words, the survival of this system. Transferring the problems of a biological organism to the social level, Spencer was unable to identify purely social phenomena inherent exclusively in human society. At the same time, individual elements of his "organismic" theory are still relevant and contribute to a comprehensive analysis of social communities, in particular social organizations. However, A.A. Bogdanov and L. von Bertalanffy. A particularly significant contribution to the theory was made by Bogdanov. He developed a number of basic provisions of the general theory of systems: the principle of feedback, the phenomenon of an open system (i.e., a system interacting with the environment through the exchange of energy and matter). Bertalanffy developed the basic principles of the functioning of the system, the balance between input and output, defined the principle of "isomorphism", according to which all systems (biological, technical, social, informational, etc.) have common features, defined as system features.

According to general systems theory system meanssome complex whole with clearly defined boundaries andrelatively independent components that are interconnectedso that a change in the position or state of one part inevitably leads to a change in the state of other parts.

The value of the human factor in the organization. Even F. Taylor in his works wrote about the need to study the human factor in the organization. He pointed out that the organization will work effectively only when all the most important needs of employees are taken into account, when the organization is not only a mechanism for generating profit, but also a close-knit team whose members treat each other kindly.

But representatives of the school of scientific management practically did not consider the relationship between members of the organization. Moreover, they actually denied the significance of horizontal connections, considering exclusively vertical, power connections in the direction only from top to bottom - from leaders to subordinates. Inattention to the human factor had the most negative impact on the work of "rational organizations", which failed to improve performance despite the availability of resources. The problem of alienation and anomie has come to the fore again.

Prerequisites for the emergence of the theory of scientific management. The early period of development of the theory of organizations is characterized primarily by the weakness of the organization's management system, the uncertainty of management functions. This is mainly due to the fact that the owner and manager were combined in one person, which resulted in a small number of managers and a lack of specialization in the implementation of managerial tasks.

As a result of the separation of the owner of the enterprise from the process of production management, which occurred after the collapse of the factory system of labor organization and the emergence of large-scale machine production, a specialized management apparatus appeared, whose tasks included monitoring the activities of ordinary members of the organization and taking measures to improve the efficiency of their work.

One of the first theoretical schools that considered the problems of organization theory was the so-called classical school of scientific management. The basis of the organizational theories of this school is the idea of ​​rationalization of all components of the organization, in other words, the orientation of all structural units of the organization towards its goals, general expediency. Achieving the universal expediency of rationality is primarily a rigid hierarchy of management of all organs and positions of the organization, which contributes to the implementation of the most rigorously comprehensive formal control. It is obvious that the creation of a system of such control is possible only if there is a clear distribution of functions (rights and duties) among the members of the organization, and therefore requires the development of interrelated role requirements, cutting off unnecessary actions, simplification and maximum rationalization of existing technologies.

Socio-economic conditions for the emergence of the theory of organizationtions. For quite a long time, the established forms of organizational structure of some aspects of social life did not change. This is largely due to the lack of need for organized associations in the sphere of material production. At that time, single, unique goods and services were produced by craft guilds, and other necessary products were produced on the basis of forced labor using direct economic, physical or other types of coercion. But in both cases, the main requirements for the mass production of products and services are not satisfied: high productivity and high quality. If in the case of handicraft production it is possible to create quality products, but high productivity cannot be achieved, then in production based on forced labor it is impossible to achieve high quality products (a forced worker can drag stones or dig channels, but he is a fundamental brake on improving quality).

Only the competition that arose and the desire to establish more profitable production gave rise to the desire to create the most advanced organizational structures.

Course subject and content

The essence and objectives of the organization of production

Organization of production and enterprise management OPiUP (exam)

Subject, content and objectives of the course

1) The organization of production is a set of forms, methods and techniques of scientifically based connection of the labor force with the means of production, as well as the establishment of the relationship and interaction of the elements that form a specific production system in certain conditions of space and time, based on the given goals of the system and the unity of the functions of its elements.

The main goal of the organization of production is: coordination and optimization in time and space of both material and labor elements of the production process (PP) in order to obtain the most effective result at minimal cost.

The main tasks of the organization of production are:

Ensuring the release of competitive quality products;

Selection of the main production processes and their effective organization in space and time;

Reducing the time from launch to product release (reducing the duration of product release);

Reducing the material and energy consumption of products.

Because many production tasks are solved by technology, it is important to distinguish between the functions of technology and the functions of the organization.

The functions of technology determine the methods and options for manufacturing products. The functions of the organization determine the specific values ​​of the parameters of the production process and the choice of the most effective one according to the goals and conditions of production.

Problem solving is possible only on the basis of a systematic approach, which involves a comprehensive study of the course object (industrial enterprise).

A systematic approach to the study of the course provides for the optimization of the entire production system as a whole, and not its individual parts.

2) The OP&UP course studies the production relations that develop between people in the production process. The subject of study is the study of methods and means of the most rational organization of production. The object is an industrial enterprise, which is considered as a production system. The production system consists of at least three blocks:

Resources pr-e production result

The production system has the ability to self-regulate.

The main principles of system analysis used in the systems approach:

Management decision-making should begin with a clear formulation of the ultimate goals and objectives of the enterprise;

The whole problem is considered as a single system and the influence of each incoming element and possible alternatives are identified;

The tasks of individual elements of the system should not conflict with the goals of the entire system.

3) Stages:

Stage 1 of emergence (until the 30s of the 20th century)

The father of the science of OP&UP is the American engineer Frederico Taylor (1856-1915), who began researching the problems of production rationalization in 1885. Through practical experience and experiments at enterprises, he managed to solve a number of important management issues related to increasing productivity and labor intensity. His main publications: "Scientific management" in 1902, "Principles of scientific management (management)" in 1911. In them, he formulated the basic scientific principles of the organization of production:

Analysis - decomposition of the production process into operations with their subsequent study;

Measurement - quantitative determination of the parameters of the operation;

Design - the development of a technological process, the execution of operations and the binding of its implementation to jobs for the planned period;

Incentives - remuneration of performers for the level of implementation of the planned task.

The same period includes the work of American scientists Livia and Frank Gilbert, Henry Gandt. Henri Fayol (fr.) - the main merit - considered management as a continuous universal process, consisting of several interrelated activities: technical, commercial, financial, activities to protect property and people's lives, analysis of statistical data and administrative activities. Henry Ford (1863-1947) - in 1913 he implemented the step-by-step detailing of the production process of manufacturing a car on the assembly line and, based on the in-line form of labor organization, achieved a significant increase in productivity.

The rationalization of labor and management required technical means of measurement and control. A method of timing the movement of a worker during the performance of labor operations was invented, a movie camera and other devices were used, which made it possible to observe and analyze the progress of work and to find the most rational methods and methods of labor. There was a search for the most rational methods of management, the possibility of material rewards for the most intensive and productive work.

Stage 2 of formation (30-60 years of the 20th century)

After the deep and prolonged financial crisis of 1929-1933, the old scientific and classical approaches to production management were unable to ensure the growth of labor productivity. New ways of managing an enterprise were required, which would take into account the initiative of employees. A new direction "School of Human Relations" appeared. It was headed by Elton Mayo (1880-1949). He turned human thought in the direction of focusing on the person and the social aspects of the production process, as well as on the role of the entire team in the successful operation of the entire enterprise.

Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) developed a theory known as the "Pyramid of Needs"

Douglas Maggregar (1906-1964) developed a theory of two types of human behavior at work, and in accordance with this, two ways of managing employees. "Theory X" was designed for performers who are inherently lazy, lack of initiative and tend to avoid unnecessary work, work only under duress and desire to be controlled. "Theory Y" proceeded from the fact that it is necessary for creative-minded performers to provide sufficient freedom within the framework of their functions.

The main merit of this stage is the proof that well-designed operations and good wages do not always lead to high labor productivity. An equally important factor is the strength of mutual understanding between people, their needs, which can only indirectly be satisfied with the help of money. The main step to an effective organization is the application of effective methods of managing human relations.

3 Stage of further development or a systematic approach (60s of the 20th century to the present)

At this stage, OP&UP became an object of modeling using modern means of communication and mathematical methods of information processing. Management thought is constantly evolving, more and more new ideas are being put forward on how effective management should be conducted. Three trends prevail in modern management:

Awareness of the importance of the material and technical base of modern production and services;

Increased attention to organizational culture and to the democratization of management;

Strengthening the international character of management.

The mentality of each country occupies an important place in the system of modern management.