The managerial revolution: the transition to a new managerial thinking. The fourth management revolution (XVII - XVIII centuries A.D.) is associated with the emergence of capitalism and the beginning of the Silent management revolution

Abstract of the topic No. 3, No. 7, No. 15

1. Management revolutions in the history of management

Management revolutions in the history of management development:

Religious-commercial (5th millennium BC)

Essence: the birth of writing in Ancient Sumer, which led to the formation of a special layer of priests-businessmen, conducting trade operations, business correspondence and commercial settlements.

Secular-administrative (1792-175 BC)

Essence: the period of activity of the Babylonian king Hammurabi, who published a set of laws governing the state to regulate relations between various social groups society. Thus, a secular management style was introduced. Hence the name of this revolution.

Industrial and construction (605-562 BC)

Essence: during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, this revolution was aimed at combining state management methods with control over activities in the field of production and construction.

Industrial (17-18 centuries AD)

Essence: the emergence of capitalism and the beginning of the industrialization of European civilization. The result is the separation of management from property (from capital), the emergence of professional management.

Bureaucratic (late 19th-early 20th centuries)

The bottom line: it was based on the concept of a rational bureaucracy. The result is the formation of large hierarchical structures, the division of managerial labor, the formation of norms and standards, the establishment of job duties and managerial responsibilities.

2. Conditions and prerequisites for the emergence of management

The first works on management:

1. Ampere (1775-1836) wrote a treatise on government in Latin.

2. Bogdanov created a whole doctrine - tectology or general organizational sciences. In 1921. he published Essays on General Organizational Science in Samara. He outlined the principles that underpin cybernetics (the science of managing living organisms and society).

3. Wiener in 1948. substantiated cybernetics as a science. This is an abstraction science, which contains the universal principles of management.

4. In our country, the main propagandist of cybernetics was Admiral Berg. The scientific basis of management is understood as a system of scientific knowledge that constitutes the theoretical basis of management practice or the provision of management practice with scientific advice.

5. Robert Owen. At the beginning of the 19th century. dealt with management problems by implementing innovative social reforms at his factory in Scotland. 1) providing workers with housing; 2) improving working conditions; 3) the introduction of a fair open assessment of employees and material interest. Despite the high profitability, this reform did not receive widespread adoption.

An explosion of interest in management dates back to 1911, when Taylor published his second work, Principles scientific management". The first work was in 1903. - "Factory Management".

There are four important approaches that have made a significant contribution to the development of management theory and practice.

Management approaches

1) the approach from the standpoint of highlighting different schools of management, in fact, includes four different approaches.

School of Science Management;

Administrative approach;

A human relations or behavioral science approach;

A quantitative approach.

2) the process approach, considers management as a continuous series of interrelated management functions;

3) a systematic approach: characterizes an organization as a set of interrelated elements: people, structure, tasks and technology, which are focused on achieving different goals;

4) the situational approach is that the choice of the most effective method is determined by a specific situation.

School allocation management approaches

School of Scientific Management (1885-1920)

Its creators: Frederick Winslow Taylor, Frank and Lily Gilbert, Henry Gantt.

The conclusions of Taylor's governance mechanism are related to production management:

1) scientific research of the elements of any work is necessary for a good organization of management;

2) the selection of workers (workers and managers) should be carried out on the basis of scientific criteria;

3) there must be cooperation between the administration and the workers;

4) the principles of equal distribution of labor (conveyor system), which made it possible to establish norms and introduce a system of incentives for their overfulfillment;

5) providing employees with resources to effectively perform tasks;

6) the separation of management functions, deliberation and planning from the actual performance of the work.

Classical or Administrative School of Management (1920-1950)

Associated with the name of Henri Fayol.

His main work is General and Industrial Management. Fayolle supported and praised Taylor's principles, but went further by analyzing the governance itself.

The goal of the classical school is to create universal management principles. These principles covered two main aspects:

1) development of a rational organization management system. Fayol characterized management as a process consisting of several interrelated functions: planning and organization;

2) building the structure of the organization and management of employees.

Fayolle formulated 14 principles of management that are still useful in management today.

The teachings of Taylor and Fayol have not changed until now, with the exception of the additions made by the Americans Gyulik and Urvik Lindau. They codified the ideas of Taylor and Fayol and introduced the idea of ​​a range of control.

School of Human Relations or Sociological School (1930-1950) Behavioral Sciences (1950-present):

a) Sociological school: a more in-depth development of managerial ideas began to be associated with the problem of a person. Taylor also noted that one cannot see only the exploited in the worker, because they began to look at the economy in a new way. The main thing in production is not a machine, but a person, therefore it is necessary to create conditions so that he develops his internal capabilities to the end and gives them to the production process.

Transitional teaching was Max Weber (German), who developed a number of principles, partly borrowing them from Taylor and Fayol, but partly new, since Taylor and Fayol considered management only in industry, and Weber in a broader sense.

Weber's principles:

1) All management activities should be divided into simple operations that need to be investigated and improved.

2) The organization of management should be based on the principles of hierarchy (structure of power, subordination to superiors);

3) The manager must exercise management functions impartially;

4) The service should be viewed as a career, otherwise management efficiency is low.

The true founders of this school are Elton Mayo, Mary Parker Follett. The largest value was Herbert Simon.

Their principles:

1) Man in the field of management should be considered as a social animal. It is necessary to take into account his social and animal needs: to study the habitat, to create conditions for development, since it is a person who creates an intellectual product, and it is more important and more expensive than a material one;

2) A rigid hierarchy is incompatible with human nature, kills society and it goes to ruin;

3) Solving human problems is the business of businessmen.

A very prominent representative of this school is Chester Bernard... His work: "Functions of the administrator" (1948). His teaching is aimed at creating a holistic management system. Central to his teaching is his close attention to stimuli. He identified four types of incentives:

1. Incentives associated with ensuring the attractiveness of the job. To do this, it is necessary to study the aesthetics of management so that everything around is beautiful.

2. Working conditions must correspond to the views of a person, an employee. Views, philosophy, education - everything should be combined with working conditions.

3. Opportunity to personally participate in the event, ie. when a person is involved in decision-making, then it works differently.

4. Create an opportunity to communicate with other people on the basis of partnership and mutual support to create a management.

Output: Sociological researchers believed that if management shows greater concern for their employees, then the level of employee satisfaction should increase, which will lead to increased productivity. The development of the sociological school influenced A complex approach to management, which includes a combination of functional, social, technological ideas in order to provide, develop the most effective management structure.

b) School of Behavioral Sciences - After the Second World War, such sciences as sociology, psychology began to develop actively, research methods were improved. All this made it possible to study behavior in the workplace from a scientific perspective. This period is called behavioristic.

The most significant contributions were made by Chris Arjiris, Rensis Likert, Douglas McGreger, Frederick Herzberg.

Researchers of this period studied aspects of social interaction, motivation, the nature of power and authority, organizational structures, communication in organizations, leadership, changes in the content of work and quality working life... The School of Behavioral Sciences has departed significantly from the sociological school.

The main goal of this school is to improve the efficiency of an organization by increasing the efficiency of its human resources.

School of Management Science or Quantitative Approach. (1950 - present).

Such sciences as mathematics, statistics, technical sciences have made a great contribution to the theory of management. The impetus for the development of quantitative methods was World War II.

Such complex problems were solved by research d operations and modeling.

Having studied the problem of organization with the help of scientific research methods, a group of specialists develops a model of the situation, i.e. a simplified representation of reality. The models are then quantified to describe and compare various factors, represented as variables, their relationships and impacts.

The essence of management science is to replace verbal reasoning and descriptive analysis models, symbols and quantities.

A significant impetus to the use of quantitative control methods was given by the development of computers, which made it possible to construct mathematical models of increased complexity.

Since the 60s. technological principles began to be introduced in management. Stood out school of technological re-equipment of management. At the first stage, there was a belief that with the help of technological means it is possible to radically change the direction, but this is wrong.

In the late 80s. came to the conclusion that the technical means do not completely solve the problem, tk. only a person is capable of generating new ideas. Elton Mayo wrote about this back in 1972, i.e. control is a creative process.

The impact of the quantitative approach on the development of mentality was much greater than the behavioral one, because managers have to deal with problems of human behavior and relationships much more often than with the problems that are the subject of operations research. In addition, few executives are educated enough to understand and apply complex quantitative methods.

The main approaches to management: process, system, situational

In the 30s of this century, Western sociologists and economists created the theory of the managerial revolution. According to this theory, with a broad transition to a joint-stock form of enterprises, the power of the capitalist-owners over banks and corporations passed into the hands of specialists - managers, technocrats (highly qualified specialists - scientists, engineering and technical intelligentsia, managers taking part in production management) and bureaucrats ( a layer of the highest bureaucratic administration, often pursuing their own, selfish interests). Thus, Professor J. Galbraith stated: “Seventy years ago, the corporation was a tool of its owners and a reflection of their individuality. The names of these tycoons - Carnegie, Rockefeller, Harriman, Mellon, Guggenheim, Ford - were known throughout the country ... Those who now lead large corporations are unknown ... The people who run large corporations are not in any way owners a significant share of this enterprise. They are not elected by shareholders, but, as a rule, by the board of directors. "

In its development, management practice has undergone significant changes. Sometimes management changed so radically that one can speak of managerial revolutions, when a transition is made from one qualitative state of management to another. All management revolutions are examples of the separation of new activities and their isolation.

The most recent management revolution, which falls on the 20th century, is the transformation of managers first into a professional stratum, and then into social class... Administration and management stand out as an independent type of activity, and managers become the most important participants in economic and economic processes. Management turns into a specific branch of social practice, knowledge and skills that need to be accumulated, multiplied and transferred to workers in need of them.

In 1941, J. Bernheim in his book "The Managerial Revolution" expressed the idea that the capitalist class has practically been ousted by the managerial class. The owner-capitalist ceased to be a necessary prerequisite for the normal functioning of production, and managers turned into the same social class as the bourgeoisie or the bureaucracy. Managers-managers, having occupied key positions in production management, pushed the owners of enterprises and shareholders and in the performance of control functions. The idea of ​​transferring control over production to management personnel was developed by the sociologists P. Sorokin, T. Parsons, and P. Drucker. The growth of bureaucracy in the public and private sector in recent times has been the result of the inability of the entrepreneurial class to manage highly complex technological, economic and social processes.

In the middle of the twentieth century, interest in management reached its climax. The idea of ​​a managerial revolution encompassed the sphere of not only scientific, but also everyday thinking. In 1959, the renowned sociologist R. Dahrendorf declared that legal property and formal control were finally separated, and thus the traditional theory of classes lost any substantive value.

At the turn of centuries and millennia, mankind entered a qualitatively new period of its development. When solving any problems, more and more you have to reckon with the "outer limits" of the planet and the "inner limits" of the person himself (A. Peccei). The era of informatization and globalization has come, a time of rapid changes, when all processes are developing rapidly and at the same time contradictory. The global transformation of the world order, the systemic nature of the changes taking place on the planet make us think about the general laws of history, the deep logic of the change of eras. The past and the future do not exist on their own as completely autonomous spaces; they find themselves merged in a single stream of time, pulled together by the shores of history, being united only by the subject of historical action - man.

Cardinal changes in the worldview, social psychology and mentality seem to be no less important than changes in the material, eventful life of society, since it is the former that are the main factor of social revolutions that generate grandiose transformations of the economic and political status of the world. Development information technologies and communication capabilities, the entire powerful arsenal of civilization, significantly weakened in the twentieth century the role of geographic spaces and the restrictions imposed by them. A different, than before, perspective of global development has been formed, the configuration of civilizational contradictions has undergone certain metamorphoses. The new quality of the world - its globalization - also manifested itself in the fact that today almost the entire planet has been embraced by a single type of economic practice. There have also emerged new, transnational actors, weakly associated with the nation-states, in the territories of which they are deploying their activities. Accordingly, the principles of swarming have changed. international systems management tasks before them.

At the same time, global governance does not imply the unification of the social and economic life of the planet. The phenomenon of management gives rise to a management mindset. However, as many researchers believe, in the course of their evolution, the theory and practice of management have come to the point when it is necessary to integrate disparate models of the subject of research. It is necessary to build a managerial metatheory on the basis of a holistic concept that combines the methods and ideas of sociology, economics, psychology, cultural studies, philosophy, and management. The main problem that seems to stand in the way of turning management into a science is the person himself. His behavior is unpredictable, since it is determined by many factors and circumstances - values, needs, worldview, attitudes, the level of volitional efforts, i.e. those that cannot be foreseen and taken into account.

Modern social management is still far from meeting the requirements of the time. The need is ripe for its renewal, for fundamental changes that will allow influencing the main cause of the general crisis of management - the aggravating contradiction between the subject and the object of management. The most important condition for solving these problems is the growing role of cultural and socio-psychological factors. In a management culture, a rational principle, knowledge, modern concepts, and science-intensive technologies are of particular importance. It is quite obvious that a special managerial action begins with the knowledge of the essence of the ongoing processes, the advancement of new ideas, which characterizes, first of all, the content of management, the level of managerial thinking. Without the ability to push innovative goals and tasks, and then find adequate methods to solve them can not be effective management. Management ideas play an equally important role.

Today, for managers, it is becoming a priority to study human behavior in social organization, in society, comprehension of the laws of disclosing the creative potential of each employee, culture and psychology of human communication. In a word, knowledge and understanding of a person, the forms of his behavior in a social organization is the most important element of managerial culture and the essence of the managerial revolution that the world is going through. And managerial intelligence becomes the most important resource of humanity and a part of the general culture of both society and an individual.

In modern control systems, personalities are organized and interact, who act as carriers of knowledge and intelligence.In addition, they constantly improve their intellectual capabilities, therefore, it is illegal to ignore intelligence as a quality of a person neither from the point of view of science, nor from the point of view of organizational practice. management activities; after all, the organization is carried out not only for means, skills, skills, methods of interaction and organizational structures but also personalities.

Bearers of the new management and organizational culture are both society as a whole and its individual social groups, primarily educated strata, and finally, individuals. And today, the idea of ​​forming a modern political and administrative elite, which is capable of influencing public life, as it were, proactively, is particularly promising, relying on professional knowledge, creative imagination, unconventional perception and innovation.

However, the "managerial revolution" did not eliminate the contradictions between the economic and administrative authorities. This contradiction does not make itself felt if the management apparatus of corporations achieves a high and stable increase in the share price, and thereby the successful accumulation of capital - property (as it was in the 50-60s). But when stock prices fall (this was the case in the 70s), large investors (banks, firms, funds) through their managers express dissatisfaction with the activities of managers, change the personnel of the top management of corporations and dictate many management decisions.

One of the important consequences of the management revolution is a decisive change in the relationship of large business with the external market environment of microeconomics. We know that smallholders cannot influence the market price. Therefore, it obeys its regulatory role. Large corporations act differently. They seek to monopolize the market and determine the prices of their products. Mass production at large enterprises, equipped with a system of high-performance machines, requires to foresee in advance the release and sale of products for a long time, excluding the randomness of the market situation. That's why economic activity large business - in contrast to the spontaneous market - is planned in nature.

Moreover, the management of modern large-scale machine production acquires not only a planned, but also a scientific character. It is no coincidence that a large group of scientifically trained specialists is involved in the management personnel. Describing the management personnel of the corporation, J. Galbraith came to the conclusion: “As a result, not an individual, but a whole set of scientists, engineers and technicians, specialists in sales, advertising and trading operations, experts in the field of relations with the public, lobbyists, lawyers and people who are well acquainted with the peculiarities of the Washington bureaucratic apparatus and its activities, as well as intermediaries, managers, administrators. "

Such a significant change in the role and nature of management activities led to the emergence of a special branch of scientific knowledge and skills - management.

The concepts of "management", "management" are known today to almost every educated person. Their significance was especially clearly realized in the 1920s and 1930s. Management activity has become a profession, the field of knowledge has become an independent discipline. Today it is obvious that the high level of development of the modern world, for the most part, is explained by successful management methods. Any field requires competent managers, their social stratum has become a highly influential social force, and professional activity is often the most important key to success.

Strategic management ideas are a clear manifestation of the "quiet management revolution" that began in the American economy at the turn of the 1980s. Having discovered the inability of their managers to cope with the growing difficulties in the external environment during the most protracted economic crisis in the entire post-war period, American corporations faced a crisis of controllability of their economic systems. The search for a way out of it was carried out not only through improving the qualifications of management personnel, but also through the transition to a new "management paradigm", which is understood as a system of views arising from the fundamental ideas of the scientific results of a number of prominent scientists and determining the core of thinking of the bulk of researchers and managers - practitioners.

The following five components define the concept of strategic management:

* determination of the type of commercial activity and the formation of strategic directions for its development, i.e. it is necessary to outline goals and long-term development prospects;

* transformation of general goals into specific areas of work;

* skillful implementation of the selected plan to achieve the desired indicators.

* effective implementation of the chosen strategy;

* evaluation of the work done, analysis of the market situation, making adjustments to long-term main directions of activity, goals, strategy or its implementation in the light of the experience gained, changed conditions, new ideas or new opportunities.

The task of implementing the strategy is to understand what needs to be done in order for the strategy to work, and to meet the planned deadlines for its implementation. Strategy implementation work initially falls within the scope of administrative tasks, which includes the following main points:

* creation of organizational capabilities for the successful implementation of the strategy;

* budget management with the aim of profitable allocation of funds;

* determination of the policy of the company, ensuring the implementation of the strategy;

* motivation of employees for more efficient work; if necessary, modify their responsibilities and nature of work in order to achieve the best results in the implementation of the strategy;

* linking the amount of remuneration with the achievement of the intended results;

* creation of a favorable atmosphere within the company for the successful implementation of the intended goal;

* creation of internal conditions that provide the company's personnel with conditions for the daily effective execution of their strategic roles;

* use of the most advanced experience for continuous improvement of work;

* Providing the internal guidance needed to move the strategy forward and oversee how the strategy should be implemented.

Thus, the company's strategy consists of planned actions (planned strategy) and necessary adjustments in case of uncertain circumstances (unplanned strategic decisions). Hence, the strategy should be seen as a combination of planned actions and quick decisions to adapt to new industrial advances and a new disposition in the competitive field. The task of developing a strategy involves developing an action plan or intended strategy and adapting it to a changing situation. The current strategy of the company is drawn up by the manager, taking into account the events taking place both inside and outside the company.

The potential of innovation management is fundamentally based on the performance of the following functions:

¦ synergistic function, reflecting search, research, heuristic nature;

¦ valeological function, which characterizes anti-crisis and preventive maintenance;

¦ sociocratic function, expressed in solidarity, person-centered orientation;

¦ communicative function associated with informational, social, cultural variables.

The need for a transition in management from a leadership model to a coordination model, from a technocratic management style to a sociocratic management style is dictated by the extreme aggravation of social problems in Russian society.

The social content of management within the framework of the new management concept has an advanced, revolutionary character. The progressiveness and revolutionary nature of this process is determined by the specificity of Russian conditions.

The history of the development of Russian society and economy over the past decades has not contributed to the emergence and spread of a new management mentality. Only the education system can create a massive new class of Russian managers, produce innovative leaders with a new market culture of management, organization of production and labor. As a result, the realities of Russian practice establish education as the only way to change the management mentality, which in turn also has serious disadvantages: lack of practical orientation, a significant gap between theoretical knowledge and actual experience, and an underdeveloped postgraduate level. Such a deplorable state of the system vocational education reinforces negative assessments of the prospects for the development of Russian society.

Despite the high complexity of the problems, education is not currently included in the priority areas of state policy. Domestic business is also not interested in providing employment, increasing qualification base labor, subsidizing vocational training. The new elite stratum of large Russian businessmen is far from the problems of the economic and social revival of the nation, the restoration of the economic and political status of Russia in modern world, is far from realizing the need to subsidize the education system, training, retraining and advanced training of personnel. As a result, the lack of professional training, the development, adoption and implementation of unqualified management decisions inevitably reduces the quality of management.

All the acuteness and complexity of the problem of forming a new management mentality by many specialists comes down to the absence of a market situation: there is no demand, and, accordingly, there is no preparation. However, in reality, this process does not depend on market laws, but is directly related only to the quality of strategic social management.

The presidential program for the training of management personnel for organizations of the national economy of the Russian Federation, in its idea, is designed to solve a number of problems associated with the redistribution of priorities in the field of production and labor management, organized on the basis of modern principles. The goals and objectives declared in the Program and plans for training top managers, including as a necessary component, take into account the production of a new management mentality. However, the assessment and forecasting of the results of the implementation of the Program from the point of view of the logic of construction and effectiveness of training (education) lead to a logical conclusion: it is practically unrealistic to achieve high quantitative and qualitative results. The main reason for the negative assessment of the effectiveness of the project is the lack of mass and scale in preparation. The dissemination of new, progressive, revolutionary ideas through one employee in the organization is impossible due to their blockage and the erection of barriers by employees who do not have the appropriate system of knowledge and skills. In essence, the law of rejection of the new and resistance to innovation begins to operate.

In addition, the participation of a number of managers in the Program showed that the main contingent of trainees is made up of specialists and managers of the lower or middle level of management. In many organizations, these levels are not involved in the formation and development of the general goals, development strategy and policy of the organization. Accordingly, the acquired knowledge and skills cannot lead to qualitative changes in the management system of these organizations. Participation in the Program of such students in most cases is carried out only on the basis of own initiative to enhance opportunities for further career growth, and the successful completion of training makes them competitors in the eyes of the current management, which means that they require neutralization of their initiatives and innovations. As a result, their education and training, including through the organization of foreign internships in companies and firms of the countries participating in this project, lead to the complication of the processes of professional and socio-psychological adaptation when the already renewed specialist re-enters his organization. At the same time, there are no measures to promote and mitigate the adaptation processes in the organization within the framework of the Management Training Program. The whole complex of the identified problems, both in conceptual and practical terms, does not allow us to hope for successful implementation goals and objectives of the project.

Thus, summarizing the stated provisions, thoughts and judgments, we can make a reasonable conclusion that existing system management is a huge obstacle to the realization of the capabilities of Russian society and a new sociocratic philosophy of management is urgently needed, aimed at implementing national interests stability and development and shaping a new management mentality of senior management.

Modern management puts the consumer at the beginning production process based on individual, not impersonal, mass demand. With this understanding, profit appears as a result of the company's activities in the field of design, marketing, innovation, labor productivity, quality of after-sales service and important remedy control of customer feedback.

V last years interest in the problems of professional development has sharply increased. This is due not only to the eternal importance of professionalism and its development, but also to the specific patterns of walking the path to the highest achievements of a person both within the framework of professional life and within the framework of the integrity of life, the creation of research teams, an increasing number of dissertation developments that are devoted to identifying such patterns. The co-organization of research of this kind was facilitated by the emergence of an integral area of ​​scientific knowledge - "acmeology" and the corresponding creative groups, their department, institutional design (B.G. Ananiev, A.A. Bodalev, A.A. Derkach, N.V. Kuzmina, E.A. Klimov, A.K. Markova and others).

First of all, it is necessary to assume the level form of the "ladder of development" of the internal qualities of a person, including as a specialist, and the trajectory of life, which has ups and downs according to certain criteria and indicators. The ups show the rise to the peaks ("acme"), and the downs - the retreat from them, as well as preparation for a new rise and reaching a higher top. After the "graph" of the dynamics of quantitative indicators by materials life path a person has already been built, one can determine his highest peak, his vital acme. When tracking the dynamics of a living person who has his own life perspective, one can build hypothetical predictions of the acmeological type and create conditions for raising or lowering its main peak. For a pedagogical psychologist, acmeologist - proofreader and consultant, for a representative of the acmeological service, personnel development service, for a strategist and personnel policy, it is extremely important to know about the patterns of development dynamics, the impact of external and internal factors on changes in quantitative and qualitative indicators. This allows you to take measures that contribute to the maximum self-expression of a person on his path in life, within the framework of his usefulness for himself and society.

Since the time of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, it is well known that manifestations of any type are predetermined by a person's abilities, his arrangement and potential, relying on which a person somehow manifests what is inherent in him, internal and external. In special cases, he has the ability to change the potential and nature of all external and internal manifestations of his "essence". Hegel distinguished being “in-itself” as the maintenance of the arrangement, “for-the-other” as a manifestation of complete dependence on an external factor, “for-itself” as a manifestation, taking into account not only the external, but also the arrangement of oneself, and “for-in-itself” "As a response in the direction of changing properties, the acceleration of one's" in-itself "being. Consequently, the highest expression, the manifestation of oneself by a person depends on what is "in-itself" his being, what is the basis of his "I", and only then - on the external conditions of manifestation. If a person has a naturally conditioned change of himself, for example, in maturation, then in order to observe the phenomenon of "acme", it is only necessary to wait for the shift of the internal structure to the most developed state. If in socio-cultural conditions there are opportunities to seriously influence the internal qualities, the mechanism of a person, his mental whole, "I", etc., then one should only analyze the relationship between the internal dynamics of the mechanism and the qualities of the external environment that stimulates its changes. So, socialization has some capabilities in the transformation of a person, and ophthalmology, the intended introduction of universal qualities, has other, more ambitious capabilities. The general line of displacements of the internal mechanism of man is superbly shown in Hegel's "Philosophy of Spirit" and its accompanying details ("Philosophy of Law", "Philosophy of Religion", "Aesthetics", "Phenomenology of Spirit", etc.).

revitalization managerial thinking leader

Later, a number of similar analyzes of human development were carried out in developmental psychology and other areas of knowledge (for example, L.S.Vygotsky, A.N. Leontiev, J. Piaget, E. Meissen, etc.).

The specificity of acmeological analysis consists in the emphasis on being "for-in-itself", since in this being there are the leading prerequisites for achieving peak results. Until a person decides himself in favor of self-development and development, in favor of being "for-in-himself", he does not have great prospects, even while being in the most favorable conditions. So, a manager who solves strategic tasks and problems, developing strategies, correcting them, has objective operational conditions for rapid development and self-development, since the nature of the activity requires a qualitatively higher level of development of thinking, reflection, intellectual self-organization, consciousness, self-awareness, self-determination etc. than before the start of this activity. However, if the manager does not recognize the objective nature of these requirements, does not turn his self-determination in the direction of meeting the requirements, does not concentrate in self-organization to overcome internal obstacles to meeting requirements, then this objective opportunity will not be subjectively used. In fact, we observe just the failure to realize such opportunities in the vast majority of civil servants involved in direct public administration... Such failure is facilitated by the lack of acmeological services designed to quickly identify these opportunities and design the conditions for their implementation based on the value of maximizing the use of the real potential of managers and analytical assistants in management. However, acmeological science itself in the field of psychocorrection still uses very little knowledge about human development in activity structures and in socio-cultural environments and is often distinguished by significant empiricism, does not use the achievements of the mental culture of philosophy and methodology. This is partly justified by the initial stage of such a development line.

It is important for us to single out a specialist, manager, analyst, scientist, teacher, etc. against the background of the integrity of self-organization. a specific link in self-determination and that type of it when the proposal of this or that "way of life" acts as a pretext for self-determination. When it comes to lifestyle, it is not situational self-expression that is emphasized first of all, but specific traits self-movement, accompanying self-organization, persisting for a long time with a tendency to persist throughout life. Lifestyle change is based on re-self-determination and over-situational design of the life path. It is easy to see that each qualitative step in changing oneself, in development, each transition to a different stage of development changes the need and motivational prerequisites for organizing behavior. More or less noticeable lifestyle transformations are taking place.

For the organization of aspirations to being "for-in-itself" at all age stages, we see the following grounds. They follow from consideration of the ontology of the world of activity, the pre-activity of the worlds - vital, sociodynamic, socio-cultural, cultural - as well as from the abstract line of development with transitions from a lower to a higher type of world. The highest type of the world is “spiritual”. We believe that each person should acquire the experience of consistent mastering of being in each of the types of worlds, from the lowest to the highest, with a positive effect, “success”. In reality, everyone is placed in all or almost all types of worlds at the same time. Therefore, a "pseudo-natural" path along the ladder of development is required, which is usually carried out, albeit with varying degrees of spontaneity, in the education system. Outside of education, the professionalism of teachers is replaced by the amateurish chance of solving the pedagogical problem by “others”. Really education system most often it is largely similar to the preparatory form of the implementation of the specified attitude and function. This is due to the extremely poorly developed system of educational and pedagogical self-determination and professional development, professional development of teachers and those who serve them - methodologists, managers, etc. The criterion for the correctness of self-determination, and then self-organization, the external organization of activity is functional conformity. If functional analysis relies primarily on the higher forms and means of organizing thinking, constructing images of the "I", on the use of the most abstract concepts, categories and, consequently, on the culture of thinking, then this culture is precisely what is lacking in pedagogical activity and in the system of pedagogical education. Functional analysis is the antipode of situational analysis and cannot coincide with such types of analysis as analysis within the framework of setting and solving problems and problems, methodological analysis, etc. In other words, even in the education system, we do not have adequate forms of passing the path of development and methods of forming the ability for an essentially significant organization of self-development. At the same time, it was in Russia, and earlier in the USSR, that at the end of the 70s, developmental games arose, aimed primarily at the passage of their participants through the cycles of development. Being at first a place for modeling the development of external systems - activity and sociocultural ones - they inevitably included a reorientation towards the development of the abilities of adults and specialists. Outside of their development, the replacement of internal foundations, it was impossible to carry out either the development of external systems, or the implementation of the developed projects of a qualitatively different type. The very device of developmental games included the player's action, and the reflection of the action, and the criterional provision of reflection in the form of methodological consultations and corrections. Since the quality of thinking, reflection, self-determination, etc. was based on criterional support, on the methodological service of reflection, similar complications of the previously existing " business games"Would be impossible without methodology.

For these games, the most notable feature was the interaction of “ordinary” specialists with methodologists. In contrast to the usual discussion interaction within the framework of a character ensemble and a fixed plot, methodologists demanded from a specialist conceptually and categorically significant grounds, abstract forms of procedures, methods, constructions as a justification for the introduced thought. Since the main and the foundation were on different levels of abstractness, experts could not answer in a more or less organized manner to such questions and continued to introduce variations in answers of the same level of certainty, quality, etc. The emphasis and focus of the questions remained non-conceptual and provoked a negative reaction. At the same time, and due to the preservation of habitual thinking, the essence and depth of thought or its emptiness could not be identified, built. Apart from these contents, the “deep” statements of the methodologists became formal and even formalistic. Thus, at games in the interaction of bearers of empirical content and methodological culture, the problematic situation disclosed by Kant was reproduced.

For a qualitative growth in the understanding of contents, the discovery of “depths” and “surfaces” in them, a qualitative change in thinking, and then consciousness, self-awareness, to reach a different level of solving problems and problems, it was necessary to recognize the necessity, fundamental usefulness and inevitability of a new type of contents, methods actions, the entire work of methodologists, and then - the complication of their own ideas on the topic with the inclusion of both old and "new" ideas, the establishment of correlations, alignments, reversible re-emphasis. In other words, the old "world" is supplemented by a new one with a distinction between internally useful and neutral qualities of what is included in the content of thinking, reflection, and then in the form of thinking and reflection.

A positive attitude to the other and its integration, in turn, presuppose not only an attitude to the content, but also to the bearer of the content, and then to the functional place in which the bearer resides and on whose behalf he carries out mental action, reflection.

Thus, starting from external interaction with the methodologist, the specialist comes to the need for functional-positional, organizational-positional, and only then morphological-positional identification with a partner, which makes it possible to understand and take into account him, use his positive qualities for the benefit of the “work” being carried out, solutions to game problems and game problems.

Identification and coordination of actions with the methodologist, the use of his special advantages in the course of the game ensured the transfer of the entire cycle of relations with him outside the game space. At the same time, the manager, as the main person in the games in question, could successfully identify with the methodologist only through self-correction and its organization, through a change in its foundation. Both identification and self-correction became the basic process of self-change in the specific conditions of game interaction, organized in a game-technical way. Initially, the main initiative for launching and implementing self-change comes from the position of a game technique-methodologist. During this period, the self-determination of the manager was characterized by inertia and was aimed at defensive work. However, with the formation by the manager of such fragments of grounds, subjective attitudes, needs, directions that took into account the partner, created, as it were, his representation within the previous consciousness, self-consciousness, etc., inertia was overcome and rapid qualitative growth was carried out within the limits of the previous position. It gradually became consolidated, and the manager began to “not recognize” and evaluate his own actions and the actions of others of the same quality in a different way.

As in mastering any means or methods that presuppose a different level of development of subjective qualities, a step of development is accompanied by a change in the foundations of energy, aspirations, desires. But when mastering the means and methods of methodology, there is not just a qualitative shift in the existence of abilities, their transformation - the fundamental guidelines and supports change. Identification with a methodological position, its inherent intellectual and motivational foundations sometimes turns not only into a condition for the successful solution of previous tasks and problems, the implementation of the previous type-activity function, but also into an independent significance, more important than the previous type-activity being. There is a qualitative change in the activity "I" and a reassessment of the former type-active "I" of the integrity of the "I" of specialists. Already the former type-activity "I" turns into a service one for the new type-activity "I", although there may be a simple rejection of the old "I" leading to disharmony. To plan a life line, including a professional component, a person must identify his “I”, even if it has undergone a qualitative transformation. Then planning actions, ways of being outside the limitations of a particular situation and with submission to your new "I" leads to the creation of a new way of life. Having experience in its construction, a person can reflect on his corrections and enter into a special form of analysis of the phenomenon of "lifestyle", giving a concept, concept and even the category of "lifestyle". To realize this opportunity, you need an environment of those who regularly conceptualize, conceptualize, categorize. Most often, this is done either by theoretical scientists or by methodologists interested in understanding the vocabulary of activity theory. Along with identification and even coming to regular work specific to methodologists, a specialist studies YATD (the language of activity theory) and uses all the necessary categories and concepts, including “lifestyle”, as peripheral and close to a psychological set of categories and concepts.

The introduction into the practice of reflexive self-organization of such means of analysis as "I", "self-determination", "self-awareness", "way of life", etc. the characteristics of a particular person. By themselves, mental attempts at self-discovery are insufficient, and the use of ordinary life experience is associated with the risk of obtaining unnecessary, negative traces of these tests, an indefinite lengthening of the process of self-discovery. Therefore, developmental games are the most favorable forms of searching for their way of life, since the generation of options and their selection takes place in an accelerated and orderly manner, with the introduction of many grounds for the experience of reflection and oneself.

If we return to the general line of transformation of the professionalism of managers, the transformation of its internal subjective mechanism, and then to monitoring the manifestations of new states and levels, then interaction with the methodologist gradually creates a situation of choice for the manager:

1) ignore, close oneself from the influence of other qualities, stay in familiar way life, or

2) change the way of life, switch to new foundations and improve them by leaving the old way of life, or

3) temporarily change the way of life in order to sufficiently master the possibilities of the methodology and return to a changed, but former way of life, using new opportunities, or

4) consider temporary otherness as a condition for acquiring a new quality, but in the “old” way of being, or

5) to reincarnate into a different way of being while maintaining the possibility of temporary and adequate, but higher in quality, staying in the previous way of being. The choice in reality happens when a manager or other specialist, being involved in the methodologization of activities and abilities, has already been able to go through all the options and is able to distinguish and correlate them. In the beginning, the manager moves from one type to another, noticing only the next transition, seeing the prospect of another being as a threat or a blessing. Since the main criterion of differentiation is the opposition “pre-methodological-methodological”, then the shifts in the way of life are directed towards an ever greater departure from situationality, momentary, anxiety before the unexpected, unpredictability to oversituationality, eternally significant and eternal, calm and prudent being in thinking, analytics.

Each of the correlated positions has its own typology of being and the corresponding subjective manifestations. In management, pre-cultural and culture-corresponding forms of being are distinguished. In the methodology, the cultural, fundamental and applied, culturally influencing forms of being are distinguished. The highest level for a manager is the correct use of cultural means and methods of successfully achieving management goals and solving professional problems and problems.

1. An enterprise is an "open" system, considered in the unity of the factors of the internal and external environment.

2. Focus not on the volume of output, but on the quality of products and services, customer satisfaction.

3. Situational approach to management, recognition of the importance of speed and adequacy of reactions that ensure adaptation to the conditions of the organization's existence, in which the rationalization of production becomes secondary.

4. The main source of surplus value is people with knowledge and the conditions for realizing their potential.

5. A management system focused on increasing the role of organizational culture and innovations, on employee motivation and leadership style.

There are four main approaches:

1. Functional - management is seen as a continuous series of interrelated functions. They are the basis for the division of managerial labor, the organization of management principles, the formation of organizational structures and the creation of fundamental types of management.

2. Systemic - proceeding from the presence of the so-called "systemic effect" (the whole is always different from the simple sum of its constituent parts).

For the first time, the organization was presented as open system.

3. Situational - the central point of this approach is the situation (a specific set of circumstances that strongly affect the organization), i.e. Although the general process is the same, the specific techniques vary greatly by the manager to effectively achieve the organization's goals.

4 . Process - the consideration of an organization as an object of management in the form of a process, depending on a specific problem that is currently being solved (or decisions are made).

Management process begins from the moment of contacts with resource suppliers and ends with the moment of transferring the results of its activities to the consumer.

In the first half of the twentieth century, a number of clearly distinguishable management schools.

Schools are associated with the corresponding names of figures in scientific and practical thought.

Each of them contributed to the development of management science.

Today, even the most progressive organizations use certain concepts and techniques that arise within these schools.

Chronologically they can be listed

in the following order:

1. School of Science Management.

2. Administrative School of Management (Classical School of Management).

3. School of Human Relations (School of Social Problems).

4. School of Management Science or "New School"

The following provisions of the concept of a scientific direction can be distinguished:

creation of a scientific foundation that would replace the old one;

selection of workers on the basis of scientific criteria, their training training and fair labor incentives;

cooperation between management and workers in the practical implementation of a scientifically developed labor system;

equal distribution of labor and responsibilities between management and workers.

The goal of the classical school was to create universal management principles that, if followed, would lead an organization to success.

The main contribution of A. Fayolin management theory is that he considered management as a universal process, consisting of several interrelated functions (foresight, planning, organization, coordination, control).

L. Urvik developed and deepened the main provisions of Fayol.

M. Weber combined in his concept of "ideal type organization" such factors as the division of labor and the specialization of managers, the division of power based on status (hierarchy).

Representatives of this school tried to develop principles, recommendations and rules for creating a strictly defined productive system of work and to exclude the influence of individual workers by introducing appropriate strict rationing measures.

This school first considered the organization as a social system in which, along with the formal structure, the informal structure is considered. A person is viewed not only as a functionary, fulfilling certain social interests.

Empirical School of Management (30-50 years - present)

Peter Drucker, D. Miller, et al.

For the first time, representatives of this school point out that a modern manager should not be a narrow specialist in a technical or humanitarian profile. He must possess scientifically grounded and proven in practice methods and principles of management.

The new school is characterized by the desire to use the methods and apparatus of the exact sciences in management science. (Mathematics, statistics, engineering, cybernetics, etc.)

A key characteristic of this school is the replacement of verbal reasoning and descriptive analysis with models, symbols, and quantitative meanings.

The fourth administrative revolution (XVII - XVIII centuries AD) is associated with the emergence of capitalism and the beginning of the industrial progress of European civilization. This period is characterized by the separation of management from physical labor and its recognition as an independent professional activity. A significant contribution to the development of management belongs to the classic of political economy and management specialist Adam Smith (1723 - 1790). In his writings, he conducted an in-depth analysis of various forms of the division of labor, determined the norms of production and linked them to the remuneration system, and developed the concept of control.

The Englishman R. Arkwright (1732 - 1792) made a significant contribution to the development of the system of division of labor and coordination of collective work of personnel. By introducing hierarchy into the organization, using the fundamentals of planning and ensuring discipline, he achieved the continuity of technological processes, cost savings and advantages in competition.

The author of reformist ideas in management was the Englishman Robert Owen (1771 - 1858). Developing the idea of ​​achieving the goals of the organization with the help of the work of other people, he proved the need to use methods of motivating employees in management to increase labor productivity. His innovative ideas represent a new understanding of the nature and human perception of the role of leadership.

The fourth management revolution laid the foundation for the formation of management as a science, which was developed in the so-called schools of management. The fifth managerial revolution (late 19th - early 20th centuries) was called bureaucratic. Its theoretical basis was the concept of bureaucratization of management. Within the framework of theoretical research hierarchical management structures were formed, the system of division of labor was developed, the rationale for the application of norms and standards, job descriptions and consolidating the responsibility of management.

Within its framework, a scientific school of management was formed.

The sixth management revolution (from the middle of the 20th century to our time) was called the "quiet management revolution," or a new management paradigm, which will be considered in more detail.

Despite the enormous importance of revolutionary transformations in the field of management, the development of management is basically an evolutionary process. Management in one form or another has always existed where people worked in groups.

Although organizations have existed for almost as long as the world exists, until the 20th century, hardly anyone thought about how to manage them systematically.

People were interested in how, using organizations, to make more money, to acquire more political power, but not at all how to manage them.

Even the pragmatic manifestation of the benefits that flow from effective management of an organization has hardly sparked genuine interest in methods and means of management.

An example of this is the unsupported approach to the motivation of collective work, used in the early 17th century by Robert Owen.

Management is a science of the 20th century. For the first time, a systematic interest in management was noted in 1911 as a response to the problems of American reality associated with the explosion of industrialization. It was then that Frederick U Taylor published his book Principles of Scientific Governance, traditionally considered the beginning of the recognition of the governance of science and an independent field of research. However, this process was complex and ambiguous. The concept of systems management has evolved over the course of long period time, from the middle of the XIX century to the 20s of the XX century.

management management leadership leadership

Let us turn to the history of management as a social institution and the change in management types.

Let us choose only the key, the most important moments when management changed so radically that it’s time to talk about managerial revolutions.

Thus, under the managerial revolution we mean the transition from one qualitative state of management to another.

The first management revolution

The first revolution took place 4-5 thousand years ago - during the formation of slave-owning states in the Ancient East.

In Sumer, Egypt and Akkad, management historians have noted the first transformation - the transformation of the priestly caste into a caste of religious functionaries, i.e. managers.

This was done due to the fact that they successfully reformulated religious principles. If earlier the gods demanded human sacrifices, now, as the priests declared, they are not needed. They began to offer the gods not human life, but a symbolic sacrifice. It is enough if the believers confine themselves to the offering of money, livestock, butter, handicrafts, and even pies.

As a result, a fundamentally new type of business people was born - not yet a commercial businessman or a capitalist entrepreneur, but no longer a religious figure, alien to any profit. The tribute collected from the population, under the guise of a religious ceremony, was not wasted. She accumulated, exchanged and set to work.

The resourceful Sumerian priests soon became the richest and most influential class. They cannot be called a class of owners, since the sacrifices were the property of the gods, not people. It could not be explicitly appropriated for personal use. Money for the priests was not an end in itself, it was a by-product of religious and state activities... After all, the priests, in addition to observing ritual honors, were in charge of collecting taxes, managing the state treasury, distributing the state budget, were in charge of property affairs.

Business relationships and writing

Preserved clay tablets, on which the priests of Sumer carefully kept legal, historical and business records. Some of them, says the American historian and author of the famous textbook on management, Richard Hodgetts, related to the management practice of Sumerian priests. The priests diligently kept business documents, accounting accounts, carried out procurement, control, planning and other functions.

Today these functions constitute the content of the management process. A by-product of the management activities of the priests is the emergence of writing. It was impossible to remember the entire volume of business information, and besides, it was necessary to make difficult calculations. From a purely utilitarian need, a written language was born, which was later mastered by the lower strata of the population.

And again, the penetration of writing into the masses did not take place as a charitable action of the priests who decided to enlighten the Sumerians. Ordinary Sumerians mastered the skills of the written language to the extent that they had to constantly respond to various kinds of inquiries, official orders, conduct litigation, and calculate their budget.

So, as a result of the first revolution, management was formed as an instrument of commercial and religious activity, later turning into a social institution and a professional occupation.

Second management revolution

The second management revolution took place about a thousand years after the first and is associated with the name of the Babylonian ruler Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC).

An outstanding politician and commander, he subdued neighboring Mesopotamia and Assyria. To manage vast holdings, an effective administrative system was required, with the help of which it would be possible to successfully govern the country not by personal arbitrariness or tribal law, but on the basis of uniform written laws.

The famous code of Hammurabi, containing 285 laws of management of various spheres of society, is a valuable monument of ancient Eastern law and a stage in the history of management. The outstanding significance of the Hammurabi Code, which regulated all the diversity of social relations between social groups of the population, lies in the fact that he created the first formal system of administration.

Even if Hammurabi had not done anything else, writes R. Hodgetts, then in this case he would have taken a worthy place among the historical personalities of management. But he went further, according to the American historian. Hammurabi developed an original leadership style, constantly supporting: in his subjects the image of a caring guardian and protector of the people.

For the traditional method of leadership that characterized past dynasties of kings, this was a clear innovation.

So, the essence of the second revolution in management lies in the emergence of a purely secular manner of management, the emergence of a formal system of organizing and regulating people's relations, and finally, in the emergence of the foundations of the leadership style, and therefore, methods of motivating behavior.

The third uvravlencheskaya revolution

Only a thousand years after the death of Hammurabi, Babylon revives its former glory and again reminds of itself as a center for the development of management practice.

King Nebuchadonossor II (605 - 562 BC) was the author not only of the projects of the Tower of Babel and the Hanging Gardens, but also of the production control system in textile factories and granaries.

An outstanding commander, he became famous as a talented builder who erected a temple to the god Marduk and the famous ziggurats - cult towers. In textile factories, Nebuchadonossor used colored labels.

With their help, the yarn was tagged, coming into production every week. Such a control method made it possible to accurately determine how long a particular batch of raw materials was in the factory. In a more modern form, this method is used, according to R. Hodgetts, and in modern industry.

So, the achievements of Nebuchadonossor II - construction activities and development of technically complex projects, effective methods management and product quality control - characterize the third revolution in management. If the first was religious and commercial, the second was secular and administrative, then the third was industrial and construction.

A significant number of management innovations can be found in Ancient rome... But the most famous of them are the system of territorial government of Diocletian (243 - 31.6 AD) and the administrative hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, which used the principles of functionalism already in the second century. And now it is considered the most perfect formal organization in the Western world. Her contribution is highly appreciated in such areas of management as personnel management, the system of power and authority, specialization of functions.

Fourth management revolution

The fourth revolution in management practically coincides with the great industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, which stimulated the development of European capitalism.

Whereas earlier certain discoveries that enriched management occurred from time to time and were separated by significant periods of time, now they have become commonplace. The Industrial Revolution has had a much more significant impact on the theory and practice of management than all previous revolutions.

As the industry outgrew the boundaries of the first manufactory (manual factory) and then the old factory system (early 19th century machine factory), and the modern share capital system matured, owners increasingly retired from doing business as economic activity aimed at making a profit.

The owner-manager, that is, the capitalist, was gradually replaced by hundreds, if not thousands, of shareholders. A new, diversified (dispersed) form of ownership was established. Instead of a single owner, many shareholders appeared, that is, joint (equity) owners of capital.

Instead of a single owner-manager, there were several hired non-owner managers recruited from everyone, not just the privileged classes. The new ownership system accelerated the development of industry. It led to the separation of management from production and capital, and then to the transformation of administration and management into an independent economic force.

Fifth management revolution

The industrial revolution and classical capitalism in general still remained the time of the bourgeois. The manager has not yet become a professional or a protagonist.

Only the era of monopoly capitalism gave the first business schools and a system of professional training for managers. With the emergence of the class of professional managers and its separation from the capitalist class, it became possible to talk about a new radical revolution in society, which must be considered the fifth revolution in management.

Driving out the capitalist

The Industrial Revolution proved that purely managerial functions are just as important as financial or technical ones. Although many, including Adam Smith, doubted this: for them in the middle of the 19th century, the main character remained the manager-manufacturer (capitalist).

Already K. Marx, who wrote "Capital" in the late 1860s, did not believe in the historical perspective of the capitalist, in his ability to effectively manage a super-complex economy and high-tech production. However, over time, theorists and practitioners begin to realize that the capitalist in production management is by no means the most important figure.

Apparently, he should give up his captain's bridge. But to whom exactly? Marx believed that to the proletariat, and he was not mistaken, since it was the proletariat that won dominant positions in the socialist countries, including the USSR.

Max Weber saw him as a successor to the bureaucracy, and he was also right, because bureaucracy is a powerful factor in development in all countries of the world. The difference between the views of the sociologist M. Weber and the economist K. Marx is quite remarkable. Both Marx and Engels saw that the capitalist is a transitory figure.

Weber said the same thing. The rise of equity capital, the emergence of huge corporations, and the centralization of banks and transport networks made the individual owner superfluous. His place is taken by a bureaucrat - a government official. The enlargement of enterprises and the emergence of a joint-stock form of ownership contribute to the ousting of the individual capitalist from production in the same way as manual labor is supplanted by machine labor.

Engels and Marx call on the capitalist to "resign", to give way to the working class. The theory of the socialist revolution is being formed. Weber also invites the capitalist to resign, but give way to managers and bureaucrats. Weber laid the foundations for the theory of managerial revolution and the sociology of bureaucracy.

The origin of the theory of the managerial revolution

Weber's concept of bureaucracy served as the theoretical platform for the managerial revolution. Although some of its key provisions, according to the prominent American sociologist M. Zeitlin, go back to the ideas of Hegel and Marx about the essence and role of corporations in the capitalist world.

In the late 19th - early 20th centuries, when Weber was creating the sociology of bureaucracy, the theorists of German social democracy E. Bernstein and K. Schmidt put forward the hypothesis that property in its corporate form is a sign of the approaching process of alienation of the essence of capitalism.

According to this theory, the capitalist class is gradually being ousted by an administrative stratum, the interests of which are opposite to those of the owners.

Strengthening and domination of the Bureaucracy

By that time, M. Weber also wrote about the strengthening of the role of administration in the public and private sectors of the economy. The administration has already captured the commanding heights in public life and turned into an independent social stratum.

The class cohesion of the bureaucracy rests not only on the subjective sense of belonging to a given group, but also on completely objective processes. In a bureaucratic society, the social significance"Rank", a kind of reverence for the position, which is defended administrative and legal norms.

The growth of the bureaucracy actually reflected the fact that, in 20th century capitalism, production management ceased to be a direct function of ownership of tools. And property itself is losing its individual and private character, becoming more and more corporate and collective. “The people who dominate the bureau” monopolize the management technique and communication channels.

Increasingly, they classify information under the pretext of "official secrecy", create such mechanisms for maintaining the hierarchical structure that exclude competition, elections and employee assessment according to business qualities... Bureaucracy is incompatible with the participation of all or most of the organization's members in making managerial decisions.

She considers only herself to be competent in such actions, believing that the correction is the function of professionals. Officials are, first of all, those who have undergone special training and have been involved in management all their lives. The increasing complexity of production management leads to the monopoly seizure of key positions by the "status group", which has its own ideology and value system.

There is a total bureaucratization of the administrative apparatus. Bureaucracy is turning into the dominant element of the social structure, and moreover, into such a viable element that it is practically indestructible. Of all the variety social action in production, the only rational and legal ones are those that are carried out by the bureaucracy itself or serve to maintain its status quo.

Separating ownership from control

Ten years earlier, a similar thesis had been proclaimed by A. Berl and G. Means. Their work became the empirical source of the theory of managerial capitalism. In support of the idea that the disintegration of the atom of property destroys the foundation on which the economic order of the last three centuries was built, they cited the following data: 65% of the largest US corporations are controlled either by management or by a special mechanism that includes a small group (minority) of shareholders ...

Since then, the empirical evidence of Berle and Means has been the source of a significant number of theoretical generalizations in the study of the separation of ownership from control. The idea of ​​the managerial revolution (MP) received the fullest expression from Bernheim, who also introduced the term "managerial revolution".

If property means control, then their separation means the disappearance of property as a social phenomenon that has an independent existence, this scientist believed.

D.Bell expressed himself even more definitely in 1961: private property in the USA should be considered a fiction. In 1945, R. Gordon, using a secondary analysis, confirmed the data of Berle and Means, and a little later, R. Lerner, using the Berle-Means method itself in relation to 500 corporations, came to similar conclusions.

The idea of ​​the special role of managers in the corporation and the mission of management in society is expressed in his book The Concept of the Corporation (1946) by the leading theorist of modern management P. Drucker, who undertook the first, as far as we know, a monographic sociological study of the largest corporation Generalmotor.

Administrative revolutions in Russia

Let's try to consider the events that have taken place in our country over the past 80 years through the prism. In the XX century, Russia twice made a large-scale transition from one type of society to another.

In 1917 it passed from capitalism to socialism, and in 1991 it made the opposite movement — from socialism to capitalism. In both cases, the global transition was primarily a managerial revolution.

Changes in the social and economic foundations of society in 1917 and 1991 occurred "from above" and did not represent a natural-historical development, but a coup planned and controlled by the political elite. In the first and second governing revolutions, the benefits of the coup were primarily gained by a small group of people in power.

In 1917, it was the Bolshevik elite, focused on the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and rejecting the values ​​of Western society, and in 1991, the democratic elite, rejecting the values ​​of Bolshevism and trying to establish political pluralism of the Western type in the country.

Thus, the first and second administrative revolutions were carried out from diametrically opposite positions, pursued different goals, were guided by different ideals and principles. Both revolutions were carried out "from above" by a minority of the population. In both cases, the revolution was carried out by a group of intellectuals in opposition to the ruling political elite: in 1917, in opposition to the provisional bourgeois government, in 1991, in opposition to the Soviet party leadership.

After the revolution took place, opposition intellectuals seized power and became the ruling management elite. After some time (about 5-7 years), a serious departure from the proclaimed goals and ideals was outlined in the ruling elite. V. Lenin turned from the ideals of communism to the principles of capitalism and proclaimed the New Economic Policy (NEP). B. Yeltsin after the same number of years moved away from shock therapy and turned to a new social policy... It was based on the principles followed by the communists.

Thus, after the first and second governing revolutions, the opposition minority, which seized power in Russia, after a short time abandoned the initial ideological and sometimes political claims and turned into a group of ordinary functionaries and officials, for whom the main issues were retaining power in their hands and the solution of pressing economic issues. From a group of utopian projectors, the ruling elite turned into a group of pragmatists-realists dealing with economic and social issues... As soon as there was a turning point in the management elite towards pragmatism, courses for advanced training and training of managers in the basics of management science were immediately opened.

In the early 1920s, V. Lenin opened about 10 scientific management institutes and scientific institutions in the country, which within 5-7 years made a number of outstanding scientific discoveries and introduced thousands of leaders to the principles of Western management. In the early 90s, with the indirect support of Boris Yeltsin, hundreds of business and management schools were opened in Russia, in which thousands of Russian managers got acquainted with the modern achievements of Western management. Dozens and hundreds of managers went on internships to Europe and the USA. Management revolutions took place in other countries of the world as well. In 1941, Bernheim described the process of crowding out the capitalist-owner-class by the non-owner-managerial class and called it a managerial revolution.

This revolution marked an important milestone in the development of Western society - the transition from an industrial society to a post-industrial one, in which the key positions belong to engineers, programmers, employees and managers. Can we say that the same managerial revolution was taking place in Russia as described by Bernheim? In the United States, the managerial revolution meant the separation of property from control over production, the displacement of capitalists by managers from key positions in society.

What happened in Russia in 1917? The Bolsheviks removed the capitalist class from control over production and placed workers in control of enterprises, i.e. employees... From a formal point of view, the same thing happened in Russia as in the United States - the displacement of the owner class to the periphery of society.

However, in reality, there are serious differences between the American and Russian revolutions. The American revolution was peaceful, and the Russian revolution was military, which ended in a civil war and the destruction of several million people; the capitalist class and the old managerial stratum were destroyed.

Power in society in Russia, as in America, was given to non-proprietors. But this is only a formal similarity. In Russia, the capitalist class was destroyed, and in the United States, they left it alive. In Russia, after the revolution, property remained in the hands of the state, and in the United States, in the hands of citizens. As a result of the 1991 management revolution government became private again. A reverse revolution took place: the class of capitalist owners returned to Russia. Who are they?

In the modern management elite of Russia, 70% of the party nomenklatura, 15% of the intelligentsia who have become businessmen, 15% of the criminals ("shadowy"), who under socialism embarked on the path of illegal enrichment and entrepreneurship. The children and grandchildren of the Bolsheviks, who kicked out the capitalists in 1917, brought the capitalist class back to the country in 1991 and happily turned into capitalists themselves. Thus, as a result of the second managerial revolution, control over production was transferred from hired workers, whose role under Soviet rule was played by party officials, to private owners.

This process is the opposite of that described by Bernheim. The goals and objective results of the second administrative revolution in Russia were directly opposite to the goals and results of the first administrative revolution. However, the content of the first and second revolutions remained the same - the transfer of political and economic power from one part of the administrative elite to another. Neither the first nor the second revolutions in Russia led to the creation of a Western-style market society.

Despite the fact that in the course of the first and second revolutions, the staff of the managerial elite was renewed by 70 - 80%, the principles and methods of managing the economy and people remained the same. Thus, with all the managerial revolutions in Russia, the continuity of the type of management, methods and techniques of management has been preserved, but the continuity of the personnel structure has not been preserved. Not a single managerial revolution has destroyed the traditions of inertia and routine that have developed over a thousand years in the Russian mentality of leaders and which have become a stable tradition.

So, we examined five management revolutions, touching on the fate of Russia. Not all significant events in the history of management fall under the name “revolution”. For example, the first schools of managers originated in ancient Egypt, although professional training of managers began to be discussed only in the 20th century. Perhaps, Egyptian schools officials and did not make a revolution in management, but they undoubtedly deserve our attention.