Modern management concepts. Management revolutions in the history of mankind What is the essence of a quiet management revolution

Module 1. Management as a science. 3

1.1. Management and management: concepts and evolution. 4

1.1.1. Concepts: management and management. 4

1.1.2. Development of scientific approaches to the management of organizations. 6

1.2. Modern interpretations of the role and content of management. eight

1.2.1. "Silent" management revolution abroad .. 8

1.2.2. The paradigm shift of management in Russian Federation. 12

Module 2. Organization as an object of management. 15

2.1. Description of the organization as an object of management. 17

2.1.1. Definition of the concept and the role of organization in society. 17

2.1.2. Description of the organization as an object of management. 17

2.2. Grouping of homogeneous organizations and defining their common features. eighteen

2.2.2. Organizational and legal forms of organizations. 19

2.2.3. The size of the organization. twenty

2.2.4. The assignment of organizations to sectors of the economy. 21

2.3. Changes in the structure of the economy .. 22

2.3.1. General trends in connection with the transition to the market. 22

2.3.2. The role of small businesses in the country's economy .. 23

2.3.3. Integration of organizations. 24

2.3.4. Organization, management, efficiency. thirty

2.3.5. Basic models of organizations. 31

2.3.6. Organization management. 33

2.3.7. Organization management efficiency. 34

Module 3. Manager in the organization .. 42

3.1. Managerial work and its specifics. 42

3.2.1. Division of managerial labor. 44

3.2.2. Features of the work of managers of various categories. 44

3.3. Managers in an organization .. 47

3.3.1. Types of managers. 47

3.3.2. Top-level managers. 48

3.3.3. Mid-level managers. 48

3.3.4. Grassroots managers. 49

3.3.5. Manager functions. 51

3.3.6. The roles of the manager in the organization. 52

3.4. Requirements for managers .. 54

3.4.1. Evolution of requirements for managers. 54

3.4.2. Requirements for professional and personal qualities managers. 55

3.4.3. Requirements for Russian managers in the context of economic reform. 57

3.5. A promising manager model. 58

3.5.1. New problems of organizations. 58

3.5.3. Criteria for evaluating managers. 66

Module 4. Objectives, strategy and tactics of managing the organization .. 68

4.1. The goals of the organization .. 69

4.1.1. Vision and mission. 70

4.1.2. Objectives, their grouping and content. 72

4.1.2. Objectives, their grouping and content. 74

4.1.3. Goal tree and management functions. 79

4.2. Strategy and strategic planning. 84

4.2.1. Model strategic management. 84

4.2.2. Strategic planning: principles and processes .. 84

4.2.3. The system of plans for the implementation of the strategy. 92

4.2.4. Principles of Management by Objectives. 93

Module 5. Processes and methods of making management decisions. 100

5.1. The process of developing a management solution. 102

5.1.1. What is a problem situation? 102

5.1.2. Participants in the management decision-making process. 103

5.1.3. Stages of the solution development process. 105

5.1.4. Requirements for the solution development process. The quality of the solutions and the quality of the process. 105

5.2. What task are we dealing with? Typology of decision-making problems .. 107

5.2.1. Information about the problem situation. 108

5.2.2. Number of evaluation criteria and number of decision makers. 108

5.3. Formal procedures for analyzing a problem situation. 110

5.3.1. The role of formal techniques in the practice of making management decisions. Computer systems in decision analysis. 110

5.3.2. Multi-criteria decision analysis methods. 111

5.3.3. Methods for analyzing decisions under conditions of risk and uncertainty. 113

The following consideration serves as an illustration and confirmation of this. If the possible “loss” and “gain” in the implementation of a risky business transaction are insignificant in magnitude, then, regardless of the probabilities of individual outcomes, the level of risk will be perceived by managers as negligible, although the calculations of the variance may give rise to other conclusions. 113

5.3.4. Graphic methods for the presentation and analysis of information. 118

Module 6. Organization Management Structure .. 123

6.1. Concept, principles of construction and evolution of management structures. 123

6.1.1. Management structure concept. 124

6.1.2. Principles of building management structures. 125

6.1.3. Evolution of management structures. 126

6.2. Types of organization management structures .. 129

6.2.1. Choice of management structure. 129

6.2.2. Types of management structures. 130

6.3. Management structures at different stages of the organization's growth .. 138

6.4. Assessment of the organization's management structure .. 140

Module 1. Management as a science

The twentieth century has experienced a powerful influence of management on all aspects of the life of society, organizations and people. It was during this period that management emerged as a science that was able to generalize the rich practice of management and developed sound recommendations for its improvement. Numerous and diverse in their approaches and content, theories and schools have significantly expanded the concept of management as an independent area of ​​knowledge and the possibilities of its application. Therefore, the principles, forms and methods of management have spread from the sphere of business organizations to institutions of science, education, health care, religion; they are actively used in art and politics, which quite recently was considered almost impossible. At the same time, there is a growing recognition of the fact that management is the domain of professionally trained people who are proficient in the art of management. Consequently, the most important role in management is assigned to a person, his talent, abilities, knowledge and skills.

The transition of our country from a socialist-oriented economy to a market-oriented type of development required a radical revision of the concept and fundamental provisions of science, formed during the years of socialist construction. Therefore, in the introduction to general management organizations, we consider the following issues:

New interpretations of the role and content of management that took shape by the end of the 20th century;

Management principles that meet the modern understanding of the role of management in the development of society;

Management problems that domestic enterprises solve during the transition period;

Evolution of scientific approaches to management.

In development of these provisions, the subsequent elements of the module consider in detail the problems associated with:

With a variety of types of organizations as objects of management (element 2);

from the power of physical labor to the power of reason,

Management as a process focuses on the interconnectedness of individual management functions in space and time. At the same time, all management problems are considered through the prism of management processes, that is, through interconnected management actions (procedures), the task of which is to make decisions to achieve the goals of organizations.

The last two approaches to disclosing the essence of management and management are associated with people who form a specific body - the management apparatus. The administration is part of any organization and is associated with the concept of its management. The apparatus approach to management focuses on its structure and connections between links and levels, on the degree of centralization and decentralization in the distribution of functions, on the powers and responsibilities of employees holding different positions (positions) in the apparatus. The people employed in it are obliged to ensure the effective use and coordination of all the resources of the organization (knowledge, capital, technical systems, materials, labor, information) to achieve its goals. Therefore, they must:

Know how to plan, organize and manage an organization and people;

Management as a series of continuous interconnected actions

Schools of Human Relations (30s) and Behavioral Sciences (50s)

The collective as a special social group

Interpersonal relationships as a factor in the growth of the efficiency and potential of each employee

Using communication factors, group dynamics, motivation and leadership

Treating organization members as active human resources

Decision Theory and Quantitative Approach (50s - 60s)

Dividing the solution development process into stages and a series of steps

Application of quantitative measurement methods

Subjective approach to assessing the rationality of decisions

Using quantitative models, methods and measures in decision making

Systemic (50s) and Situational (60s) approaches

Interaction and interconnection of all parts of the organization

Consideration of the impact of environmental factors Analysis of situational variables

Consideration of the organization as an integral system The value of the analysis of the external environment for the organization Decision-making taking into account the current situation

Theories of Strategy (70s), Innovation and Leadership (80s - 90s)

Continuity of interaction of the organization with the environment and the development of a strategy for the development of the organization

Innovation as the basis for competitive development

Leadership instead of managerialism

Development of an organization's strategy as a factor of its competitiveness

An innovative approach to organizational change

A radical change in the relationship between staff and management

Note. The years in parentheses characterizing the beginning of active development in these areas.

Table 1.2

Management Principles (20s)

1.2. Modern interpretations of the role and content of management

1.2.1. "Quiet" managerial revolution abroad

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 origin 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, in which the universal principles of management are laid.

4. In our country, Admiral Berg was the main propagandist of cybernetics. The scientific basis of management is understood as a system of scientific knowledge, which 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, The 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 theory and practice of management.

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

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

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. Fayolle 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 it is impossible to see in the worker only the exploited, 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 for him to develop his internal capabilities to the end and give 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. For 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, upbringing - everything should be combined with working conditions.

3. The 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 increase 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 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 form of representation of reality. Then the model is quantified, which allows you to describe and compare the various factors, presented as variables, the relationship between them and the impact.

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 influence of the quantitative approach on the development of mentality was much greater than that of 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

The term "strategic management" was introduced into circulation at the turn of the 60-70s. XX century to indicate the difference between the management of the production and economic system at the production level ("current") and its management, carried out at the highest level. The need to fix such a difference is caused by changes in the business environment, the importance of shifting the focus of a particular business to the situation in its environment, in order to timely and appropriately respond to the changes taking place in it. The development of ideas for strategic management was reflected in the works of Frankenhofs, Grantger, Apsoff, Schönbed and Hattea, Irwin, and others.

SM ideas are a clear manifestation of the "quiet management revolution" that began in the American economy in the 1970-1980s. 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 (1973-1981), American corporations faced a crisis of controllability of their economic systems. The search for a way out of it was carried out not only on the path of improving the qualifications of management personnel, but also through the transition to a new "management paradigm", the essence of which is in a certain departure from managerial rationalism, from the initial conviction that the success of the company is determined by the rational organization of production, reducing costs by identifying intra-production reserves, increasing labor productivity and efficiency in the use of all types of resources.

The new paradigm is based:

> on systemic and situational approaches to management: a corporation is viewed as open system; the main prerequisites for the successful activity of a company are sought not only inside, but also outside it, i.e. success is associated with how well the company adapts to the external environment - scientific and technical, economic, social, political, etc .;

> on the concept of the firm as a social system. Not only the nature of strategies, the type of organizational structures, planning and control procedures, but also the style of leadership, the qualifications of people, their behavior, reaction to innovations and changes must be constantly analyzed and improved when building organizational management systems.

Within the framework of the "new paradigm", particular importance is attached to the factors organizational culture- the values ​​established in the organization, individual and group norms of behavior, attitudes, types of interactions, etc.

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

Let's 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. Side effect management activities priests - 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 extensive 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 collection 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 of Diversity public relations between social groups of the population, is 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 a 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 system production control 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. This 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 almost coincides with the great industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, which stimulated the development of European capitalism.

If 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 machine factory of the 19th century), and matured modern system share capital, owners were increasingly removed from doing business as economic activities 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 the 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 in 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 up his place 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 a 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 bureaucracy actually reflected the fact that, in 20th century capitalism, production management ceased to serve as 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 mechanisms for maintaining a hierarchical structure that exclude competition, elections and employee assessment. 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 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 becomes the dominant element 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 United States 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, 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, oriented towards 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 managerial 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 was over, 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 administrative 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 to retain 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 the 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 ownership 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, that is, hired workers, in control of enterprises. 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 administrative revolution, state power 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 became 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 during Soviet times 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 upon the fate of Russia. Not all significant events in the history of management fall under the name “revolution”. For example, the first management schools originated in ancient Egypt, although about vocational training managers began to speak only in the XX century. Perhaps, Egyptian schools officials and did not make a revolution in management, but they undoubtedly deserve our attention.

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 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 general process is the same, special techniques vary greatly by the leader to effectively achieve the goals of the organization.

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

Management process starts from the moment of contacts with suppliers of resources 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 coaching 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 responsibility 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 viewed the organization as social system, in which, along with the formal structure, an informal structure is considered. A person is considered 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 sciences, cybernetics, etc.)

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