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

Let us select only the key, most important moments when management changed so radically that it is time to talk about management revolutions.

Thus, by management revolution we will understand the transition from one qualitative state of management to another.

First management revolution

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

In Sumer, Egypt and Akkad, management historians noted the first transformation - the transformation of the priestly caste into a caste of religious functionaries, that is, 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 not human life to the gods, but a symbolic sacrifice. It is enough if believers limit themselves to offering money, livestock, butter, handicrafts and even pies.

As a result, a fundamentally new type was born business people- 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 performing a religious ceremony, was not wasted. She accumulated, exchanged and went into action.

The resourceful Sumerian priests soon became the wealthiest and most powerful class. They cannot be called a class of owners, since what was sacrificed was the property of the gods, not people. It could not be explicitly appropriated for personal use. Money for the priests did not serve as an end in itself; it was a by-product of religious and government 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, and managing property affairs.

Business relations and writing

Clay tablets have been preserved on which the priests of Sumer carefully kept legal, historical and business records. Some of them, says the American historian, author of the famous management textbook Richard Hodgetts, related to the management practices of Sumerian priests. The priests diligently kept business documentation, accounting accounts, carried out supply, control, planning and other functions.

Today, these functions constitute the content of the management process. A by-product of the managerial activities of the priests was the emergence of writing. It was impossible to remember the entire volume of business information, and complex calculations had to be made. Out of purely utilitarian need, a written language was born, which was subsequently mastered by the lower strata of the population.

And again, the penetration of writing into the masses did not occur as a charitable act of priests who decided to enlighten the Sumerians. Ordinary Sumerians mastered the skills of written language to the extent that they had to constantly respond to various kinds of requests, 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 professional occupation.

Second management revolution

The second revolution in management occurred approximately 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 subjugated neighboring Mesopotamia and Assyria. To manage vast domains, an effective administrative system was required, with the help of which the country could be successfully governed not by personal arbitrariness or tribal law, but on the basis of uniform written laws.

The famous code of Hammurabi, containing 285 laws for managing 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 Code of Hammurabi, which regulated all the diversity public relations between social groups population is that he created the first formal system of administration.

Even if Hammurabi had done nothing more, writes R. Hodgetts, even in this case he would have taken his rightful place among the historical personalities of management. But he went further, says the American historian. Hammurabi developed an original leadership style, constantly maintaining in his subjects the image of a caring guardian and defender 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 relationships, and finally, the emergence of the foundations of a leadership style, and therefore, methods of motivating behavior.

Third management revolution

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

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

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

With their help, yarn entering production every week was marked. This control method made it possible to accurately determine how long a particular batch of raw materials had been in the factory. In more modern form this method is also used, according to R. Hodgetts, in modern industry.

So, the achievements of Nebuchadnezzar II - construction activity and development of technically complex projects, effective methods management and product quality control - characterize the third revolution in management. If the first was religious-commercial, the second was secular-administrative, then the third was production 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 administration 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 advanced formal organization in the Western world. Her contribution is highly valued in such areas of management as personnel management, the system of power and authority, and specialization of functions.

The Fourth Management Revolution

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

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

As the industry outgrew the boundaries of first manufacture (the hand factory) and then the old factory system (the early 19th century machine factory), and the modern system of joint stock capital matured, the owners became increasingly removed from doing business as economic activity aimed at making a profit.

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

Instead of a single manager-owner, there were several hired managers-non-owners, recruited from everyone, and not just from the privileged classes. New system ownership 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.

The fifth management revolution

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

Only the era of monopoly capitalism gave rise to the first business schools and system vocational training managers. With the advent of class professional managers and by separating it from the capitalist class it became possible to talk about a new radical revolution in society, which should be considered the fifth revolution in management.

Displacement of the capitalist

The Industrial Revolution proved that purely managerial functions are no less important than 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” at the end of the 19th century, did not believe in the historical perspective of the capitalist, in his ability to effectively manage a highly 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 must give up his captain's bridge. But to whom exactly? Marx believed that it was the proletariat, and he was not mistaken, since it was the proletariat that won dominant positions in socialist countries, including the USSR.

Max Weber saw him as a successor to bureaucracy, and he also turned out to be right, because bureaucracy is a powerful factor of development in all countries of the world. The difference in views between 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 emergence of joint stock capital, the emergence of huge corporations, the centralization of banks and transport networks made the figure of the individual owner unnecessary. His place is taken by a bureaucrat - a government official. The consolidation of enterprises and the emergence of a joint-stock form of ownership contribute to the displacement of the individual capitalist from production in the same way as manual labor is being replaced by machine technology.

Engels and Marx call on the capitalist to “retire” and give up his place to the working class. The theory of socialist revolution is being formed. Weber also suggests that the capitalist resign, but give way to managers and bureaucrats. Weber laid the foundations for the theory of managerial revolution and the sociology of bureaucracy.

The emergence of the theory of 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. Tseitlin, go back to the ideas of Hegel and Marx about the essence and role of corporations in the capitalist world.

At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries, when Weber created 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 upcoming process of alienation of the essence of capitalism.

According to this theory, the capitalist class is gradually being replaced by the administrative stratum, whose interests are opposed to the interests of the owners.

Strengthening and dominance of the Bureaucracy

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

The class cohesion of the bureaucracy rests not only on the subjective feeling of belonging to a given group, but also on completely objective processes. In a bureaucratic society, the social significance of “rank” increases, a kind of reverence for the position, which is protected administrative and legal norms.

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

Increasingly, they classify information under the pretext of “official secrets”, create mechanisms for maintaining a hierarchical structure that exclude competition, elections and employee evaluation business qualities. Bureaucracy is incompatible with the participation of all or most members of the organization in making management decisions.

She considers only herself competent in such actions, believing that health 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 a “status group” that has its own ideology and value system.

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

Separation of ownership from control

Ten years earlier, a similar thesis was proclaimed by A. Berl and G. Means. Their work became the empirical source for the theory of managerial capitalism. To support the idea that the decay of the ownership atom is destroying 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 through a special mechanism that includes a small group (minority) of shareholders .

Since then, the empirical findings of Berle and Means have been the source of a significant number of theoretical generalizations in the study of the separation of ownership from control. The idea of ​​a managerial revolution (MP) received its most complete expression from Bernheim, who coined 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 spoke even more clearly in 1961: private property in the USA should be considered a fiction. In 1945, R. Gordon, using secondary analysis, confirmed the data of Berle and Means, and somewhat later R. Lerner, using the Berle-Means method itself in relation to 500 corporations, came to similar conclusions.

The idea about the special role of managers in a corporation and the mission of management in society is expressed in his book “The Concept of a 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 Generalmotore.

Managerial revolutions in Russia

Let's try to consider the events that have occurred in our country over the past 80 years through the prism. In the 20th century, Russia twice made a large-scale transition from one type of society to another.

In 1917 it moved 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 revolution planned and controlled by the political elite. In the first and second managerial revolutions, it was primarily the small group of people in power who benefited from the coup.

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

Thus, the first and second management revolutions were carried out from diametrically opposed positions, pursued different goals, and 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 standing 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 accomplished, intellectuals in opposition seized power and became the ruling managerial elite. After some time (about 5 - 7 years), a serious departure from the proclaimed goals and ideals was planned 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 one social policy. It was based on the principles adhered to by the communists.

Thus, after the first and second administrative revolutions, the opposition minority, which seized power in Russia, through a short time abandoned the initial ideological, and sometimes political, claims and transformed into a group of ordinary functionaries and officials, for whom the main issues were maintaining power in their hands and solving pressing economic issues. From a group of utopian projectors, the ruling elite turned into a group of pragmatic realists engaged in solving economic and social issues. As soon as a change in the direction of pragmatism occurred among the managerial elite, advanced training courses were immediately opened to train managers in the basics of management science.

In the early 20s, V. Lenin opened about 10 scientific institutes of management and information technology in the country, which within 5 - 7 years made a number of outstanding scientific discoveries and introduced thousands of leaders to the principles 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 became acquainted with the modern achievements of Western management. Dozens and hundreds of managers went on internships to Europe and the USA. Managerial revolutions also occurred in other countries of the world. In 1941, Bernheim described the process of replacing the class of capitalist owners by a class of non-owner managers 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 key positions belong to engineers, programmers, employees and managers. Is it possible to say that the same managerial revolution as described by Bernheim was taking place in Russia? In the USA, the management 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 put workers in charge 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, but the Russian Revolution was military, which ended in civil war and the destruction of several million people; the capitalist class and the old stratum of managers were destroyed.

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

The modern managerial elite of Russia consists of 70% of the party nomenklatura, 15% of the intelligentsia who became businessmen, 15% of criminals (“shadow workers”), who even under socialism embarked on the path of illegal enrichment and entrepreneurship. The children and grandchildren of the Bolsheviks, who drove out the capitalists in 1917, returned the capitalist class to the country in 1991 and happily became capitalists themselves. Thus, as a result of the second management revolution, control over production passed from hired workers, whose role was played by party officials under Soviet power, to private owners.

This process is the opposite of that described by Bernheim. The goals and objective results of the second management revolution in Russia were directly opposite to the goals and results of the first management 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 managerial 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 during the first and second revolutions the personnel of the managerial elite was updated by 70 - 80%, the principles and methods of managing the economy and people remained old. Thus, with all management revolutions in Russia, the continuity of the type of management, methods and techniques of management was maintained, but the continuity was not preserved staffing. Not a single management 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 turned into 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 label “revolution.” For example, the first schools of managers originated in Ancient Egypt, although they began to talk about the professional training of managers only in the 20th century. The Egyptian bureaucratic schools may not have revolutionized management, but they certainly deserve our attention.

In the 30s of our century, Western sociologists and economists created the theory of managerial revolution. According to this theory, with the widespread transition to the joint-stock form of enterprises, the power of capitalist owners over banks and corporations passed into the hands of specialists - managers, technocrats (highly qualified specialists - scientists, engineering and technical intelligentsia, managers involved in production management) and bureaucrats ( layer of the highest bureaucratic administration, often pursuing their own selfish interests). Thus, Professor J. Galbraith stated: “Seventy years ago, a corporation was an instrument 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 head large corporations are unknown... People who manage large corporations are not owners at all significant share of this enterprise. They are not chosen by shareholders, but, as a rule, by the board of directors.”

In its development, management practice has undergone considerable changes. Sometimes management has changed so radically that we can talk about management revolutions, when a transition occurs from one qualitative state of management to another. All management revolutions are examples of the identification of new types of activities and their isolation.

The most recent management revolution, which occurs in the twentieth century, is the transformation of managers first into a professional stratum, and then into a social class. Administration and management are identified as an independent type of activity, and managers become the most important participants in economic processes. Management becomes specific industry social practice, knowledge and skills that need to be accumulated, multiplied and transferred to workers who need them.

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

In the mid-twentieth century, interest in management reached its apogee. The idea of ​​a managerial revolution has embraced the sphere of not only scientific, but also everyday thinking. In 1959, the famous sociologist R. Dahrendorf declared that legal ownership and formal control had finally separated, and thus the traditional theory of classes had lost any meaningful value.

At the turn of centuries and millennia, humanity entered a qualitatively new period of its development. When solving any problems, we increasingly have to take into account the “external limits” of the planet and the “internal limits” of the person himself (A. Peccei). The era of informatization and globalization has arrived, a time of rapid change, when all processes are developing quickly 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 general patterns history, the deep logic of changing eras. The past and 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.

Fundamental changes in worldview, social psychology and mentality seem no less important than changes in the material, eventful life of society, since it is the former that are the main factor in social revolutions, giving rise to grandiose transformations of the economic and political status of the world. Development information technologies and communication capabilities, the entire powerful arsenal of civilization, was significantly weakened in the twentieth century by the role of geographical spaces and the restrictions imposed by them. A different perspective of global development has emerged than before, and the configuration of civilizational contradictions has undergone certain metamorphoses. A new quality of the world - its globalization - is also manifested in the fact that today almost the entire planet is covered by a single type of economic practice. New, transnational actors have also emerged, loosely connected to the nation-states in whose territories they operate. Accordingly, the principles of building international management systems and the tasks facing them have changed.

Global governance does not at all imply the unification of social and economic life planets. The phenomenon of management gives rise to a managerial way of thinking. However, as many researchers believe, in the course of their evolution, management theory and practice have come to the point where it is necessary to integrate disparate models of the subject of research. It is necessary to build a management metatheory based on a holistic concept that combines 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 man himself. His behavior is unpredictable, since it is determined by many factors and circumstances - values, needs, worldview, attitudes, level of willpower, i.e. that which cannot be foreseen and taken into account.

Modern social management still far from meeting the requirements of the time. There is a need to update it, to make fundamental changes that will make it possible to influence main reason a general management crisis - a worsening contradiction between the subject and the object of management. The most important condition for solving these problems is the increasing role of cultural and socio-psychological factors. In management culture, rationality, knowledge, modern concepts, high technology. It is quite obvious that a special management action begins with understanding the essence of ongoing processes, putting forward new ideas, which characterizes, first of all, the content of management and the level of management thinking. Without the ability to put forward innovative goals and objectives, and then find adequate methods for solving them, there cannot be effective management. Management ideas also play an equally significant role.

Today, it is becoming a priority for managers to study human behavior in social organization, in society, understanding the laws of unlocking 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 management culture and the essence of the management revolution the world is experiencing. And managerial intelligence becomes the most important resource of humanity and part of the general culture of both society and the individual.

In modern management systems, individuals who act as carriers of knowledge and intelligence are organized and interact. In addition, they are constantly improving their intellectual capabilities, therefore, ignoring intelligence as a personality quality is unlawful either from the point of view of science or from the point of view of the practice of organizing management activities; after all, not only the means, abilities, skills, methods of interaction and organizational structures, but also personalities.

The bearers of the new management and organizational culture are both society as a whole and its individual social groups, primarily the educated strata, and finally, individual individuals. And today, the idea of ​​​​forming a modern political and managerial elite, which is capable of influencing public life as if proactively, based on professional knowledge, creative imagination, non-traditional perception and innovation, is especially promising.

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

One of the important consequences of the management revolution is a decisive change in the relationship big business with the external market environment of microeconomics. We know that small farming is not able to influence the market price. Therefore, it submits to 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 anticipate in advance the production and sale of products for a long period, excluding the accidents of market conditions. Therefore, the economic activities of large businesses - in contrast to the spontaneous market - are planned.

Moreover: the management of modern large-scale machine production is acquiring 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, the thinking center that determines the actions of the company becomes not an individual person, 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 familiar with the peculiarities of the Washington bureaucracy 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” and “management” are known today to almost every educated person. Their significance was especially clearly realized in the 20s and 30s of this century. Management has become a profession, and a field of knowledge has become an independent discipline. Today it is obvious that the high level of development of the modern world is, for the most part, due to successful management methods. Any field requires competent managers, their social class has become a very influential social force, and professional activity is often the most important key to success.

The ideas of strategic management are a clear manifestation of the “quiet management revolution” that began in the American economy at the turn of the 80s. Having discovered the inability of their managers to cope with the growing difficulties in external environment During the most protracted economic crisis in the entire post-war period, American corporations faced a crisis in the 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 “managerial 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 defining the core of thinking of the bulk of researchers and managers -practitioners.

The following five components define the concept of strategic management:

*species definition commercial activities and the formation of strategic directions for its development, i.e. it is necessary to identify goals and long-term development prospects;

*transformation of general goals into specific areas of work;

*skillful implementation of the chosen 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 acquired experience, changed conditions, new ideas or new opportunities.

The task of implementing a strategy is to understand what needs to be done to make the strategy work and to meet its deadlines. Work on implementing the strategy initially falls within the realm of administrative tasks, which includes the following main points:

*creating organizational capabilities for successful implementation of the strategy;

*budget management for the purpose of profitable allocation of funds;

*defining the company's policy to ensure the implementation of the strategy;

* motivating employees to work more efficiently; if necessary, modifying their responsibilities and nature of work in order to achieve the best best results on strategy implementation;

* linking remuneration levels to the achievement of intended results;

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

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

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

*providing the internal leadership necessary to move the strategy forward and overseeing how the strategy is to be executed.

Thus, a company's strategy consists of planned actions (intended strategy) and necessary adjustments in case of uncertain circumstances (unplanned strategic decisions). Therefore, strategy should be viewed as a combination of planned actions and quick decisions to adapt to new industrial developments and new dispositions in the competitive field. The task of strategizing involves developing a plan of action 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 events occurring both inside and outside the company.

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

¦ synergetic function, reflecting the search, research, heuristic nature;

¦ valeological function, characterizing anti-crisis and preventive content;

¦ 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 social problems in Russian society.

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

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

Despite the high complexity of the problems, education is not currently a priority area of ​​government policy. Domestic business is also not interested in providing employment, increasing the qualification base of labor, or subsidizing vocational training. New elite layer of large Russian businessmen far from the problems of the economic and social revival of the nation, restoration of the economic and political status of Russia in the modern world, 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, development, adoption and implementation of unqualified management decisions inevitably reduces the quality of management.

The entire severity and complexity of the problem of forming a new managerial mentality by many specialists comes down to the lack of market conditions: 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 training 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 system, organized on the basis of modern principles. Goals and objectives declared in the Program and training plans senior managers, including taking into account the production of a new management mentality as a necessary component. However, assessment and forecasting of the results of the Program implementation from the point of view of the logic of construction and effectiveness of the training (training) lead to a logical conclusion: it is practically impossible to achieve high quantitative and qualitative results. The main reason for the negative assessment of the project’s effectiveness is the lack of mass and scale in preparation. The dissemination of new, progressive, revolutionary ideas through one employee in an organization is impossible due to their blocking 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 students consists of specialists and managers of lower or middle management levels. In many organizations, these levels do not take part in the formation and development of general goals, development strategies and policies 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 their own initiative in order to expand opportunities for further career growth, and successful completion of training makes them competitors in the eyes of the current management, and therefore requires the 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 participating countries of this project, lead to a complication of the processes of professional and socio-psychological adaptation when an already updated specialist re-enters his organization. At the same time, no measures are provided to promote and mitigate adaptation processes in the organization within the framework of the Management Training Program. The entire complex of identified problems, both conceptually and practically, does not allow us to hope for the successful implementation of the goals and objectives of the project.

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

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

IN last years interest in the problems of professional development has sharply increased. This is due not only to the eternal significance of professionalism and its development, but also to the specific patterns of the path to the highest achievements of a person both within the framework of professional life and within the integrity of life, the creation of research teams, and the 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 field of scientific knowledge - “acmeology” and the corresponding creative groups, their departmental, institutional design (B.G. Ananyev, A.A. Bodalev, A.A. Derkach, N.V. Kuzmina, E.A. Klimov, A.K. Markova, etc.).

First of all, it is necessary to assume a level form of the “development ladder” of a person’s internal qualities, including as a specialist, and a life trajectory that has ups and downs according to certain criteria and indicators. Ascents demonstrate the arrival at the peaks (“acme”), and declines demonstrate the departure from them, as well as preparation for a new ascent and reaching a higher peak. After the “graph” of the dynamics of quantitative indicators based on the materials of a person’s life path has already been constructed, it is possible to determine its highest peak, its life acme. When monitoring the dynamics of a living person who has his own life perspective, one can build hypothetical forecasts of the acmeological type and create conditions for an increase or decrease in his main peak. For an educational 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 makes it possible to take measures that promote maximum self-expression of a person on his life path within the framework of his usefulness to himself and society.

Since the times of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, it is well known that manifestations of any type are predetermined by a person’s abilities, his structure and potential, relying on which a person in one way or another manifests what is inherent in him, internal and external. In special cases, he has the opportunity to change the potential and character of all external and internal manifestations of his “essence”. Hegel distinguished being “in-itself” as maintaining structure, “for-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 structure of oneself, and “for-in-itself” “as a reaction aimed at changing properties, accelerating one’s “in-itself” existence. Consequently, the highest expression, the manifestation of oneself by a person depends on what his being is “in-itself”, what is the basis of his “I”, and only then on the external conditions of manifestation. If a person has a naturally conditioned change in himself, for example, in maturation, then 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 sociocultural 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 stimulate its changes. Thus, socialization has certain capabilities in transforming a person, and ocularization, the supposed introduction of universal qualities, has other, larger-scale capabilities. The general line of shifts in 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.).

activation managerial thinking leader

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

The specificity of acmeological analysis lies in the emphasis on being “for-in-itself”, since this being contains the leading prerequisites for achieving peak results. Until a person determines himself in favor of self-development and development, in favor of being “for-in-itself,” he does not have great prospects, even being in the most favorable conditions. Thus, a manager who solves strategic tasks and problems, developing strategies, adjusting them, has objective activity 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, and does not concentrate in self-organization to overcome internal obstacles to meeting the requirements, then this objective opportunity will not be subjectively used. In fact, we observe precisely the non-realization of such opportunities among the absolute majority of civil servants involved in direct public administration. Such non-implementation 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 real potential of managers and analytical assistants in management. However, acmeological science itself in the field of psychocorrection still makes very little use of knowledge about human development in activity structures and in sociocultural environments and is often distinguished by its significant empiricism and does not use the achievements of the mental culture of philosophy and methodology. This is partly justified initial stage similar line of development.

It is important for us to highlight a specialist, manager, analyst, scientist, teacher, etc. against the background of the integrity of self-organization. a specific link of self-determination and the type of it when the reason for self-determination is the proposal of one or another “way of life”. When talking about lifestyle, what is emphasized first of all is not situational self-expression, but character traits self-motion, accompanying self-organization, persisting for a long time with a tendency to persist throughout life. Lifestyle change is based on re-self-determination and supra-situational design of the life path. It is easy to notice that every qualitative step in changing oneself, in development, every transition to a different level of development changes the need and motivational prerequisites for organizing behavior. More or less noticeable lifestyle transformations occur.

For organizing aspirations towards being “for-in-itself” at all age stages we see the following reasons. They stem from a consideration of the ontology of the world of activity, the pre-activity of the worlds - life-activity, sociodynamic, sociocultural, 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 world is “spiritual”. We believe that every person should gain the experience of successively mastering existence in each type of world, from lower to higher, 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” passage along the development ladder 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 a pedagogical problem by “others”. In reality, the educational system is most often largely similar to the pre-educational form of implementation of the specified installation 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, external organization of activity is functional compliance. If functional analysis relies primarily on the highest 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 teacher 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, in the education system we do not have adequate forms of passing the development path and methods for forming the ability to essentially significant organization self-development. At the same time, it was in Russia, and earlier in the USSR, in the late 70s that educational games arose, aimed primarily at the passage of development cycles by their participants. Being at first a place for modeling the development of external systems - activity and sociocultural - they inevitably included a reorientation towards the development of the abilities of adults and specialists. Without their development, replacement of internal foundations, it was impossible to carry out either the development of external systems or the implementation of developed projects of a qualitatively different type. The very structure of educational games included the player’s action, reflection of the action, and criteria for providing reflection in the form of methodological consultations and corrections. Since the quality of thinking, reflection, self-determination, etc. was based on criterion support, on the methodological service of reflection, such complications of pre-existing “business games” would have been impossible without methodology.

For such 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 foundations, abstract forms of procedures, methods, and constructions as justification for the introduced thought. Since the main and the basis were on different levels of abstraction, specialists could not answer such questions in a more or less organized manner and continued to introduce variations of answers of the same level of certainty, quality, etc. The emphasis and direction of the questions remained unclear and caused a negative reaction. At the same time, and due to the preservation of habitual thinking, the essentiality and depth of thought or its emptiness could not be recognized or constructed. Without connection with these contents, the “deep” statements of methodologists became formal and even formalistic. Thus, through games of interaction between carriers of empirical content and methodological culture, the problematic situation revealed by Kant was reproduced.

For a qualitative increase in the understanding of contents, the discovery of “depths” and “surfaces” in them, a qualitative change in thinking, and then consciousness, self-awareness, in order to reach a different level of solving problems and problems, it was necessary to recognize the need, fundamental usefulness and inevitability of a new type of contents, methods actions, all the work of methodologists, and then - the complication of their own ideas on the topic with the inclusion of both previous and “new” ideas, the establishment of correlations, combinations, reversible re-emphasis. In other words, the old “world” is complemented 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 towards the other and its integration, in turn, presupposes not only an attitude towards the content, but also towards the carrier of the content, and then towards the functional place in which the carrier resides and on whose behalf he carries out mental action and 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 the partner, which allows us to understand and take into account him, to 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 during the game ensured the transfer of the entire cycle of relations with him outside the playing 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, by changing its basis. Both identification and self-correction became the basic process of self-change in specific conditions of game interaction, organized through game technology. Initially, the main initiative to launch and implement self-change comes from the position of a gaming 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 foundations, subjective attitudes, needs, directions that took into account the partner, created, as it were, his representation within the previous consciousness, self-awareness, etc., inertia was overcome and rapid qualitative growth was achieved within the limits of the previous position. It gradually became consolidated, and the manager began to “not recognize” and differently evaluate his own actions and the actions of others of the same quality.

As with mastering any means or methods that imply a different level of development of subjective qualities, the step of development is accompanied by a change in the basis of energy, aspirations, and 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 and 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 independent significance, more important than the previous type-activity being. There is a qualitative change in the activity-based “I” and a revaluation of the previous type-activity “I” and the integrity of the “I” of specialists. Already the former type-activity “I” turns into a service for the new type-activity “I”, although there may also be a simple rejection of the former “I”, leading to disharmonization. To plan a life line, including a professional component, a person must recognize his “I”, even if it has undergone a qualitative transformation. Then planning actions, a way of being outside the limitations of a specific situation and with subordination to your new “I” leads to the creation of a new way of life. Having experience in its construction, a person can reflect on its corrections and enter into a special form of analysis of the “lifestyle” phenomenon, which gives the concept, concept and even the category “lifestyle”. To realize this opportunity, we need an environment of those who regularly carry out conceptualization, understanding, and categorization. Most often, this is done by either theoretical scientists or methodologists interested in understanding the vocabulary of activity theory. Along with identification and even coming to regular work specific to methodologists, a specialist studies YTD (the language of activity theory) and uses all the necessary categories and concepts, including “lifestyle”, as peripheral and close to the 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”, “lifestyle”, etc., creates the prerequisites for finding the type of lifestyle that most closely matches not only the aspirations, but also characteristics of a particular person. Mental attempts at self-detection by themselves are insufficient, and the use of ordinary life experience is associated with the risk of obtaining unnecessary, negative traces of these tests, indefinitely prolonging the process of self-detection. Therefore, educational games are the most favorable forms of searching for one’s way of life, since the generation of options and their selection occurs in an accelerated and organized manner, with the introduction of many bases for the experience of reflection and oneself.

If we return to the general line of transformation of managers’ professionalism, 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 yourself off from the influence of other qualities, remain in your usual way of life, or

2) change your lifestyle, move to new foundations and improve them by leaving your previous lifestyle, or

3) change your lifestyle for a while to sufficiently master the capabilities of the methodology and return to a changed but previous lifestyle, 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) reincarnate into a different way of being while maintaining the possibility of temporary and adequate, but higher quality stays in the previous way of being. Choice in reality occurs 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. At first, the manager moves from one type to another, noticing only the immediate transition, seeing the prospect of a different existence as a threat or a benefit. Since the main criterion for differentiation is the opposition “pre-methodological-methodological”, shifts in the way of life are directed towards an increasingly greater departure from situationality, immediacy, anxiety before the unexpected, unpredictability towards supra-situationality, eternally significant and eternally imaginative, calm and prudent being in thinking and analytics.

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

Module 1. Management as a science. 3

1.1. Governance 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 roles and contents of management. 8

1.2.1. “Silent” management revolution abroad... 8

1.2.2. Changing the management paradigm in Russian Federation. 12

Module 2. Organization as an object of management. 15

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

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

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

2.2. Grouping homogeneous organizations and identifying them common features. 18

2.2.2. Organizational and legal forms of organizations. 19

2.2.3. Size of the organization. 20

2.2.4. Attribution of organizations to economic sectors. 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 enterprises 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. Management of organizations. 33

2.3.7. Efficiency of management of organizations. 34

Module 3. Manager in an organization.. 42

3.1. Managerial work and its specifics. 42

3.2.1. Division of managerial labor. 44

3.2.2. Features of work managerial workers various categories. 44

3.3. Managers in the organization.. 47

3.3.1. Types of managers. 47

3.3.2. Managers top level. 48

3.3.3. Middle level managers. 48

3.3.4. Lower level managers. 49

3.3.5. Manager functions. 51

3.3.6. Roles of a manager in an 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. Perspective manager model. 58

3.5.1. New problems of organizations. 58

3.5.3. Criteria for evaluating managers. 66

Module 4. Goals, strategy and tactics of managing an organization... 68

4.1. Goals of the organization.. 69

4.1.1. Vision and mission. 70

4.1.2. Goals, their grouping and content. 72

4.1.2. Goals, their grouping and content. 74

4.1.3. Tree of goals and management functions. 79

4.2. Strategy and strategic planning. 84

4.2.1. Model of strategic management. 84

4.2.2. Strategic planning: principles and processes... 84

4.2.3. System of strategy implementation plans. 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 decision. 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. Quality of decisions and quality of process. 105

5.2. What problem 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. Methods for analyzing decisions under many criteria. 111

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

The following consideration serves to illustrate and confirm this. If the possible “loss” and “gain” when carrying out 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 insignificant, although calculations of the variance may provide grounds for other conclusions. 113

5.3.4. Graphic methods for presenting and analyzing information. 118

Module 6. Organizational management structure... 123

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

6.1.1. The concept of management structure. 124

6.1.2. Principles of constructing management structures. 125

6.1.3. Evolution of management structures. 126

6.2. Types of organization management structures.. 129

6.2.1. Choosing a management structure. 129

6.2.2. Types of management structures. 130

6.3. Management structures at different stages of organizational growth.. 138

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

Module 1. Management as a science

The twentieth century has experienced the 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 summarize 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 understanding of management as an independent field 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, and religion; they are actively used in art and politics, which until recently was considered almost impossible. At the same time, there is growing recognition of the fact that management is the field of professionally trained people who master the art of management. Consequently, the most important role in management is given to the person, his talent, abilities, knowledge and skills.

The transition of our country from a socialist-oriented economy to market type 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 emerged 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 examine 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 the mind,

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

The last two approaches to revealing the essence of management and management are associated with people who form a specific body - the management apparatus. The control apparatus is integral part any organization and is associated with the concept of its management. The hardware approach to management focuses attention 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 occupying different positions (positions) in the apparatus. People employed in it are obliged to ensure the effective use and coordination of all 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 interrelated actions

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

The team as a special social group

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

Using the factors of communication, 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 importance of analyzing the external environment for the organization Making decisions taking into account the current situation

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

Continuity of interaction between the organization and environment and development of an organization development strategy

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 changes in the organization

A radical change in the relationship between staff and management

Note. The years that characterize the beginning of active development in these areas are given in brackets.

Table 1.2

Principles of Management (20s)

1.2. Modern interpretations of the role and content of management

1.2.1. "Quiet" management revolution abroad

1. An enterprise is an “open” system, considered in the unity of internal and external environmental factors.

2. Focus not on output volumes, 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 existence of the organization, under which the rationalization of production becomes secondary.

4. The main source of added 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 innovation, employee motivation and leadership style.

There are four main approaches:

1. Functional - management is viewed 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 – based on the presence of the so-called “systemic effect” (the whole is always different from the simple sum of its constituent parts).

The organization was first introduced as open system.

3. Situational - the central point of this approach is the situation (a specific set of circumstances that greatly influence the organization), i.e. although the general process is the same, special moves varies significantly by the leader to effectively achieve the organization's goals.

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

Management process begins from the moment of contact 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 schools of management thought.

The schools are associated with the corresponding names of figures of 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 arising from these schools.

They can be listed chronologically

in the following order:

1. School of Scientific 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 the scientific direction can be distinguished:

creating a scientific foundation that would replace the old one;

selection of workers based on scientific criteria, their training and fair incentives;

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

equal distribution of labor and responsibility between the administration and workers.

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

A. Fayol's main contributionin management theory is that he considered management as a universal process consisting of several interrelated functions (foresight, planning, organization, coordination, control).

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

M. Weber combined in his concept of the “ideal type organization” such factors as the division of labor and specialization of managerial workers, 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 eliminating the influence of individual workers by introducing appropriate strict standardization measures.

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

Empirical school of management (30–50–our time)

Peter Drucker, D. Miller and others.

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

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 values.

Control- a type of human activity that represents a purposeful impact on people, activating their joint activities.

The history of management goes back several thousand years. Management developed under the influence of the change technological structures, drastic changes in labor activity. There are many managerial revolutions that radically changed the role and significance of the phenomenon under consideration in the life of society. The origin of writing in ancient Sumer, dating back to the fifth millennium BC, is taken as the starting point in literature. It is believed that this revolutionary achievement in the life of mankind led to the formation of a special layer of priest-businessmen associated with trading operations who led business correspondence and commercial settlements. Therefore, in the literature on the history of management this first management revolution characterized as religious-commercial.

Second management revolution associated with the activities of the Babylonian king Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC), who issued a set of laws of government to regulate social relations between various social groups of the population. These laws introduced a secular style of management and increased control and responsibility for the performance of work. That is why the second managerial revolution is considered secular-administrative.

Third management revolution known as production and construction, since it was aimed at connecting government methods management with control over activities in the field of production and construction. It happened during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC).

The birth of capitalism and the beginning of industrial progress of European civilization are the main factors fourth management revolution ( XVII - XVIII centuries). Its result is the separation of management from property (capital) and the emergence of professional management.

Fifth management revolution (late IX - early XX c.) is known as bureaucratic: its theoretical platform was the concept of “rational bureaucracy.” Its main results: the formation of large hierarchical structures, the division of managerial labor, the introduction of norms and standards, the establishment job responsibilities and managerial responsibility.

As a result, the following management approaches were formed:

management - science - a system of ordered knowledge in the form of concepts, theories, principles, methods and forms of management;

management - art - the ability to effectively apply data from management science in specific situations;

management - function - targeted information impact on people and economic objects, carried out with the aim of intensifying their actions and obtaining the desired results;

management - process - a set of management actions; which ensure the achievement of set goals by transforming resources at the “input” into a product at the “output”;

management - apparatus - a set of structures and people that ensures the use and coordination of all resources of social systems to achieve their goals.

The new system of views on management is known in the literature as sixth- "quiet management revolution" , and this is not accidental, since its main provisions can be applied without leading to immediate disruption and destruction of existing structures, systems and management methods, but, as it were, supplementing them, gradually adapting them to new conditions. Thus, management systems based on anticipating changes and flexible, emergency solutions are becoming increasingly used. They are characterized as entrepreneurial, since they take into account the probabilistic nature of future development.

Organizations are increasingly turning to methods strategic planning and management, considering sudden and drastic changes in the external environment, in technology, in competition and markets as a reality of modern economic life, requiring new management techniques. Governance structures are also changing, with preference given to decentralization. Organizational mechanisms are more adaptable to identifying new problems and developing new solutions than to controlling existing ones. Maneuver in the distribution of resources is valued higher than punctuality in their expenditure.

Despite the enormous significance of the revolutionary Transformations, management development is mainly an evolutionary process. It is characterized by the continuity of changes occurring in the economy, in the entire system of socio-economic relations.

Considering the formation paths and stages of development of management theory and practice, many researchers identify several of the most important historical periods in this evolutionary process.

The first period is ancient or historical ,- was the longest in the development of management. It lasted from the 9th-7th millennium BC. until about the second half XVIII century ad.

At this time, there was a transition from an appropriative economy (hunting, fruit gathering, etc.) to a fundamentally new form receipt of products - their production (producing economy). The transition to a producing economy became the starting point in the emergence of management, a milestone in the accumulation by people of certain knowledge in the field of management.

Second or industrial period - this is the period of industrial capitalism (1776-1890). It was at this stage that the emergence and improvement of the market economy gave rise to the need for creative managers who knew how to manage organizations. Faced with competition and a volatile external environment, managers developed a system of knowledge about how to Shchh coordinate the joint work of people and make more efficient use of limited resources.

Third period in the development of management is called the period of its systematization (1856-1960). The science of management, which began to take shape during this period, is constantly evolving. Its new directions, schools, concepts, trends are being formed, the scientific apparatus is changing and improving. Over time, managers change their focus: from studying the needs of a specific organization, they move on to studying the management methods operating in their environment. Some of them solved management problems in ways that seemed to have worked in past periods. Others sought more systematic approaches to management.

During the period of systematization of management, the formation and development of its basic scientific schools, concepts and trends were influenced first by industrial capitalism (1776-1890), and then by financial (1890-1933) and national capitalism (1933-1950) that replaced it. If in the era of industrial capitalism researchers focused on optimizing the management of industrial production, and under financial capitalism the main emphasis was on management financial resources and expansion of the banking system, then in the era of national capitalism the management paradigm shifted towards the study government regulation economics and justification of ways to establish a balance of interests in society. In addition, it was during this period that the institutionalization of management took place, the result of which was the transformation of management into an independent form professional activity, on your own academic discipline and area of ​​scientific knowledge.

The development of management thought revolved mainly around three postulates - task, person and management activities. Depending on how/how the theory (concept) was developed - in relation to one of them or considered them as a whole, one-dimensional and synthetic teachings are distinguished.

The most famous Western theories of the first group are the school of scientific management, the school of human relations, the administrative school and the theory of “ideal bureaucracy”.

The second group includes the empirical school of management, the quantitative school, the concept of management by objectives, the “7- S "(McKinsey's systematic approach is presented in Fig. 1.1), " Z "(holistic approach of V. Ouchi, based on the joint ethical values ​​of the organization's employees), "organizational culture", as well as various situational theories of management.

The most fruitful in the development of domestic management thought of this period were the 20s XX century, when during the period of the New Economic Policy (NEP) a certain freedom was allowed not only in the sphere of entrepreneurship, but also in scientific thought in a number of areas not directly related to problems of politics or ideology.

Figure 1.1. McKinsey's systems approach

According to modern researchers, at this time two main groups of management concepts were clearly identified: organizational, technical and social. The first is the concept organizational management A.A. Bogdanov (Malinovsky); physiological optimum O.A. Yermansky; narrow base A.K. Gasteva; production interpretation by E.F. Rozmirovich. The second group includes the concept of organizational activity by P.M. Kerzhentseva; social and labor concept of production management N.A. Vitke and the theory of administrative capacity F.R. Dunaevsky.

However, despite certain successes, the theoretical development of management problems was curtailed in the late 30s XX V. and was practically not implemented for a long time. This could not but lead to major miscalculations and mistakes in socio-economic activity, which could only be avoided in the process of progressive development of the theory and practice of management, and the development on this basis of rational management decisions in all spheres of social activity and, above all, in the economy.

In subsequent years, the sectoral, or national economic, approach began to predominate in domestic management research. At the level of individual organizations, they focused mainly on solving technical problems. And only from the beginning of the 60s did interest in the organization as a primary economic link begin to gradually revive. The impetus for this was two circumstances. Firstly, widespread implementation automated systems management of organizations (ASUP) and, secondly, the deployment of “Kosygin reforms”. In their course, organizations were given a certain independence within the framework of a centralized plan, based on the introduction of economic accounting and economic methods management.

As a result scientific research 60-80s XX V. the idea was formed integrated approach to management and the concept of the economic mechanism as a unity of organizational, economic and social systems management. The most important development of this period is the substantiation of management principles that take into account such features of the socialist economic system as centralization and direct management of the production and economic activities of organizations by state bodies.

Taking these principles into account, approaches to the formation of organizational structures and management processes in organizations and in government agencies, as well as elements of the system of management methods and management activities.

However, most of the interesting scientific developments of domestic researchers in the field of management, including the principles of managing socialist production, have not been fully implemented in practice. Scientifically based management of organizations (and indeed the entire economy of the country) was replaced by party leadership and was identified mainly with executive activities. This, naturally, could not but affect the pace of socio-economic development of organizations, regions and the country as a whole. The fourth or information period (from 1960 to the present) is characterized by intensive development of management theory and practice. This period of management development, influenced by managerial (1950-1990) and entrepreneurial (90s of the last century) capitalism, coincided with the entry of a developed society into the information stage. To replace the traditional direction in management based on American model management, and a new (informal) scientific direction has come to the relatively new (behavioral) direction embodied in the Japanese model. According to researchers, it is usually characterized as renovationist (individualist or informational), built on a new philosophy of management, which D. Mercer called the theory of “ I".

The main task of the new management philosophy began XXI V. is to “make knowledge” productive. Its main provisions are characterized by the following points:

· the emphasis is on a professional and corporate person (as opposed to an economic person and a hierarchical person). The evolution of ideas about a person in an organization as an object of management is given in Table. 1.1;

· the organization is viewed as a living organism consisting of employees united by common values;

· the organization must be characterized by constant renewal, fueled by internal desire and aimed at adapting to external factors, the main one being the consumer.

Table 1.1

Vision of a person in an organization as an object of management

Leading management researchers believe that the new management philosophy requires significant changes in management systems to make them simpler, more flexible, more efficient and more competitive. Modern control systems must have:

· small units staffed by qualified workers;

· a small number of management levels;

· adaptive structures formed according to the type of groups (or teams) of specialists;

· the most consumer-oriented nature and quality of products and services, procedures and work schedules of organizations.

In addition, many modern researchers consider management as the only institution common to all, which has already crossed the boundaries of national states, since it is it that ensures the socio-economic development of human society. Modern management has a pronounced interdisciplinary character and is considered simultaneously as an exact and human science, as a sum of results that can be objectively verified and confirmed, and as a system of beliefs and practical experience. In a word, the history of the formation and development of management is the history of people planning, organizing, selecting personnel, leading and controlling their economic and social development.

General trends in the development of management science, the prevailing nature of certain management theories directly influence the formation of an organization's management system and, in particular, the formation of a personnel management system.

home » Useful » A quiet management revolution. "A quiet management revolution or a new management paradigm." They can be listed chronologically