home
Psychological games
Organization in the works of representatives of the school of scientific management. The main principles of the school of scientific management and their use in modern conditions

Organization in the works of representatives of the school of scientific management. The main principles of the school of scientific management and their use in modern conditions

11.10.2019

Course work

by discipline:

"Control Theory"

on the topic of:

"Schools of Scientific Management"

Introduction

The relevance of the topic I have chosen is as follows: any science is based on the use of historical experience. Studying the lessons of history makes it possible to avoid the contradictions and mistakes encountered in the early stages of the development of science. The science of management differs little from other sciences in this respect. Like any science, it is interested in the past, present and future. Analysis of the past allows you to better understand the present in order to predict future development. Knowledge of the history of the past is necessary for the following main reasons:

.always interesting and necessary;

.allows you to make up for the lack of your own thoughts and the amount of your knowledge;

.makes it possible to analyze the main milestones in the evolutionary development of science and systematize them;

.allows you to learn relevant lessons from the past so as not to repeat the mistakes in the future.

Knowledge and understanding of the past contributes to a better understanding of the current state of science, as well as the emergence and formation of new ideas. The development of management science shows that non-life concepts perished, and only the most valuable, proven by practice and time, remained. As the previous experience of the development of many countries of the world shows, turning to history often took place in critical, fateful periods in the life of society, in periods of searching for ways out of the current crisis situation.

The creation of a fundamentally new management system in Russia adequate to market relations is an integral part of building a new society.

This work contains a description of the evolution of managerial thought. It is shown how management developed before it was formed into a systematized scientific discipline and profession. There are no universal techniques or firm principles that would make management effective. There are, however, approaches that help managers increase the likelihood of effective achievement of the organization's goals. Each of the approaches outlined below has made significant contributions to our understanding of management and organization.

Development as a scientific discipline was not a series of successive steps forward. Rather, it was several approaches that often overlapped.

The world is becoming an arena of rapid change. Scientific and technological innovations became more frequent and significant, and governments began to become more determined in their attitude to business. These and other factors have made representatives of managerial thought more aware of the existence of forces external to the organization. New approaches have been developed for this purpose.

To date, four major approaches are known that have made a significant contribution to the development of the theory and practice of management.

The approach from the standpoint of identifying different schools in management actually includes four different approaches. Here management is considered from four different points of view.

Process approach - considers management as a continuous series of interrelated management functions.

The systems approach emphasizes that managers should view the organization as a set of interrelated elements, such as people, structure, tasks and technology, which are focused on achieving different goals in a changing external environment.

The situational approach focuses on the fact that the suitability of various management methods is determined by the situation. Because there are so many factors, both in the organization itself and in the environment, there is no single “best” way to manage an organization. The most effective method in a particular situation is the method that best suits the situation.

In the first half of the twentieth century, four distinct schools of managerial thought developed. Chronologically, they can be listed in the following order: scientific management school, administrative school, behavioral school, quantitative school.

Thus, the purpose of this work is to study the evolution of managerial thought, including the School of Scientific Management.

Therefore, the objectives of the course work are:

· study of the stages of development of managerial thought

· study of the main schools of managerial thought (in particular scientific).

1. The evolution of managerial thought

1.1 Development of management in Russia

The development of management in the 17th century.The beginning of the development of management in Russia was laid in the 17th century, when the process of merging regions, lands and principalities began. There was a merger of fragmented regional markets into a single nationwide market.

A.L. played an important role in the development of the public administration system. Ordin-Nashchokin (1605-1680), who made an attempt to introduce urban self-government in the western border cities of Russia, thus A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin is considered one of the first Russian managers who raised the issue of developing not only strategic, but also tactical (at the micro level) management.

A special era in the development of Russian management is made up of Peter the Great's reforms to improve economic management. The range of managerial actions of Peter I is very wide - from changing the chronology to creating a new state administrative apparatus. Detailing and concretizing the administrative aspects of the period of the reign of Peter I, we can distinguish the following transformations in the central and local government:

o development of large-scale industry and state support for handicraft industries;

o promoting the development of agriculture;

o strengthening the financial system;

o activation of the development of foreign and domestic trade

Legislative acts of Peter I - decrees, regulations, instructions and control over their implementation - regulated various spheres of state activity, in fact it was state management.

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

The development of managerial thought in the XVIII century.First quarter of the 18th century was the period of Peter the Great reforming the management of the economy, both at the macro and micro levels. The control system created by Peter I was irreversible.

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

In the second half of the eighteenth century management thought developed in the spirit of the reforms of Catherine P. In order to improve the management of the Russian economy, on the instructions of Catherine P., the “Institution for the Administration of the Provinces of the Russian Empire” was published.

Features of the management of the Russian economy in the XIX century.By the beginning of the XIX century. the impossibility of managing the Russian State by the old methods, the need for reforms was realized by the highest authorities.

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

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

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

Considering the development of the theory and practice of management, there are several historical periods.

1.2 Historical periods of governance

I period - ancient period:the longest was the first period of development of management - starting from 9-7 thousand years BC. until about the 18th century. Before separating into an independent field of knowledge, humanity has been accumulating management experience bit by bit for thousands of years.

The first, simplest, rudimentary forms of streamlining and organizing joint labor existed at the stage of the primitive communal system. At this time, management was carried out jointly, by all members of the clan, tribe or community. The elders and leaders of clans and tribes personified the guiding principle of all activities of that period.

Around 9-7 millennium BC. in a number of places in the Middle East, there was a transition from an appropriating economy (hunting, fruit picking, etc.) to a fundamentally new form of obtaining 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 of certain knowledge in the field of management by people.

In ancient Egypt, rich experience in managing the state economy was accumulated. During this period (3000-2800 BC), the state administrative apparatus, which was quite developed for that time, and its serving layer (officials-scribes, etc.) was formed.

Socrates (470-399 BC) was one of the first to characterize management as a special field of activity. He analyzed various forms of management, on the basis of which he proclaimed the principle of universality of management.

Plato (428-348 BC) gave a classification of forms of government, made attempts to distinguish between the functions of government.

Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) developed the theory and practice of command and control.

The materials presented do not cover all the events and dates that in one way or another characterize the process of accumulation of knowledge in the field of management.

II period - industrial period (1776-1890):the greatest merit in the development of ideas about public administration in this period belongs to A. Smith. He is not only a representative of classical political economy, but also a specialist in the field of management, as he made an analysis of various forms of the division of labor, gave a description of the duties of the sovereign and the state.

The teachings of R. Owen had a great influence on the formation of many scientific directions and schools of management that have formed to date. His ideas of humanization of production management, as well as the recognition of the need for training, improving working conditions and living conditions of workers are relevant today. The first revolution in the theory and practice of management is associated with the creation and use of computer technology. In 1833, the English mathematician C. Babbage developed the "analytical engine" project - a prototype of modern digital computing technology, with the help of which even then management decisions were made more quickly.

III period - the period of systematization (1856-1960):management science is in constant flux. New directions, schools, currents are being formed, the scientific apparatus is changing and improving, and finally, the researchers themselves and their views are changing. Over time, managers have changed their focus from the needs of their particular organization to the study of the forces of control operating in their environment. Some of them solved their managerial problems in ways that seemed to work in past periods. Other researchers have looked for more systematic approaches to management. Their individual successes and failures can provide valuable lessons for today's managers.

In fact, what we call management originated during the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. The emergence of the factory as a primary type of production and the need to provide work for large groups of people meant that individual owners could no longer oversee the activities of all workers. For these purposes, the best workers were trained - they were trained so that they could represent the interests of the owner in the workplace. These were the first managers.

IV period - information period (1960 to the present):later theories of management were developed mainly by representatives of the quantitative school, often called managerial. The emergence of this school is a consequence of the use of mathematics and computers in management. Its representatives consider management as a logical process that can be expressed mathematically. In the 60s. a broad development of management concepts begins, based on the use of a mathematical apparatus, with the help of which the integration of mathematical analysis and subjective decisions of managers is achieved.

The formalization of a number of managerial functions, the combination of labor, man and computer required a revision of the structural elements of the organization (accounting services, marketing, etc.). New elements of intra-company planning have appeared, such as simulation modeling of decisions, methods of analysis under conditions of uncertainty, and software for evaluating multi-purpose management decisions.

In modern conditions, mathematical methods are used in almost all areas of management science.

The study of management as a process has led to the widespread use of system analysis methods. The so-called systems approach in management was associated with the application of general systems theory to solve managerial problems. It suggests that leaders should view the organization as a collection of interrelated elements such as people, structure, tasks, technology, resources.

The main idea of systems theory is that no action is taken in isolation from others. Each decision has implications for the entire system. A systematic approach to management avoids situations when a solution in one area turns into a problem for another.

On the basis of a systematic approach, control tasks were developed in several directions. This is how the theory of contingencies arose. Its essence is that each situation in which the manager finds himself may be similar to other situations, but it will have unique properties. The manager's task in this situation is to analyze all the factors separately and identify the strongest dependencies (correlations).

In the 70s. came up with the idea of an open system. The organization as an open system tends to adapt to a very diverse internal environment. Such a system is not self-sustaining, it depends on energy, information and materials coming from outside. It has the ability to adapt to changes in the external environment.

Thus, following systems theory, we can assume that any formal organization must have a system of functionalization (ie, various forms of structural division); a system of effective and efficient incentives to encourage people to contribute to group action; power system; logical decision making system.

From the point of view of the economics of the organization, the most significant results in scientific and methodological terms were obtained within the framework of the situational approach. The essence of the situational approach is that the forms, methods, systems, styles of management should vary significantly depending on the situation, i.e. the situation must take center stage. This is a specific set of circumstances that strongly affect the organization at this particular time. In other words, the essence of the recommendations on the theory of a systematic approach is the requirement to solve the current, specific organizational and managerial problem, depending on the goals of the organization and the prevailing specific conditions in which this goal must be achieved. Those. the suitability of different management methods is determined by the situation.

The situational approach has made a great contribution to the development of control theory. It contains specific recommendations regarding the application of scientific provisions to management practice, depending on the current situation and the conditions of the external and internal environment of the organization. Using a situational approach, managers can understand what methods and means will best contribute to the achievement of the organization's goals in a particular situation.

2. Scientific schools of management

2.1 School of Scientific Management

The emergence of modern management science dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. and is associated with the names of F.U. Taylor, Frank and Lilia Gilbert and Henry Gantt. An important merit of this school was the position that it is possible to manage "scientifically", relying on an economic, technical and social experiment, as well as on a scientific analysis of the phenomena and facts of the management process and their generalization.

This research method was first applied to a single enterprise by the American engineer F.W. Taylor, who should be considered the founder of scientific production management.

The term "scientific management" was first proposed in 1910 by L. Bridays. Since Taylor's death, the name has gained general acceptance in relation to his concept.

Taylor's research method consisted in dividing the process of physical labor and its organization into its component parts (performing labor and managerial labor) and the subsequent analysis of these parts. Taylor's goal was to create a system of scientific organization of labor based on experimental data and analysis of the processes of physical labor and its organization.

Creating his system, Taylor was not limited only to the issues of rationalization of workers' labor. Taylor paid considerable attention to the best use of the production assets of the enterprise. The requirement for rationalization also extended to the layout of the enterprise and workshops.

The functions of carrying out the interaction of elements of production were assigned to the planning or distribution bureau of the enterprise, which was given a central place in the Taylor system.

Taylor's important contribution was the recognition that management work is a specialty. Taylor considered the convergence of the interests of all the personnel of the enterprise to be the main task of the system proposed by him.

The philosophical basis of Taylor's system was the concept of the so-called economic man, which became widespread at that time. This concept was based on the assertion that the only driving stimulus of people is their needs. Taylor believed that with the help of an appropriate wage system, maximum productivity could be achieved. Another false principle of the Taylor system was to proclaim the unity of the economic interests of workers and managers. The goals were not achieved.

The ideas of F. Taylor were developed by his followers, among whom, first of all, Henry Gantt, his closest student, should be mentioned. Gantt made a significant contribution to the development of leadership theory.

Frank Gilbert and his wife Lillian Gilbert were engaged in the rationalization of the work of workers and the study of opportunities to increase output through increased labor productivity.

G. Emerson made a significant contribution to the development of the Taylor system. Emerson explored the principles of labor activity in relation to any production, regardless of the type of its activity.

Henry Ford continued Taylor's ideas in the field of industrial organization. Taylor's system was dominated by manual labor. Ford replaced manual labor with machines; took a further step in the development of the Taylor system.

2.2 Classical school (administrative school) of management

The classical or administrative school in management occupies a period of time from 1920 to 1950. The founder of this school is Henri Fayol, a French mining engineer, an outstanding practical manager, one of the founders of management theory.

Unlike the school of scientific management, which was mainly concerned with the rational organization of the labor of an individual worker and increasing the efficiency of production, representatives of the classical school began to develop approaches to improve the management of the organization as a whole.

The goal of the classical school was to create universal principles of government. Fayol and others belonged to the administration of organizations, which is why the classical school is often called the administrative school.

Fayol's merit lies in the fact that he divided all management functions into general, related to any field of activity, and specific, related directly to the management of an industrial enterprise.

Fayol's followers, who developed and deepened the main provisions of his doctrine, are Linda Urwick, L. Gyulik, M. Weber, D. Mooney, Alfred P. Sloan, G. Church.

Based on the developments of Fayol and his followers, a classical model of organization was formed, based on four main principles:

a clear functional division of labor;

transmission of commands and orders from top to bottom;

unity of command (“no one works for more than one boss”);

observance of the "range of control" (management by a limited number of subordinates).

All the above principles of building an organization are valid for the present, despite the fact that the achievements of the scientific and technological progress have left a certain imprint on them. Thus, the widespread use of electronic computers in practical activities has simplified the links between the management bodies (links) in the organization by accelerating the processing of information.

In general, the classical school of management is characterized by ignoring the person and his needs. For this, representatives of the school are justly criticized by theorists and practitioners of management. .

2.3 School of Human Relations Psychology

One of the shortcomings of the scientific management school and the classical school was that they did not fully understand the role and importance of the human factor, which, ultimately, is the main element in the effectiveness of the organization. Therefore, the school of psychology and human relations that eliminated the shortcomings of the classical school is often called the neoclassical school.

The first attempt to apply psychological analysis to practical problems of production was made by G. Munsterberg, a professor at Harvard University in the USA.

In the 20-30s of our century, a school of human relations was born, in the center of which is a person. The emergence of the doctrine of "human relations" is usually associated with the names of the American scientists E. Mayo and F. Roethlisberger, who are known for their research in the sociology of industrial relations.

One of the main differences between the school of psychology and human relations is the introduction of behaviorism into it, i.e. theories of human behavior.

One of the founders of the School of Psychology and Human Relations is Harvard Business School Professor Elton Mayo.

Representatives of the "human relations" school recommended that serious attention be paid to changing the informal structure while restructuring the formal structure of the organization. A formal manager should strive to become an informal leader, having won the “affections of people”. This is not an easy task, but a "social art".

The disadvantages of the school of psychology and human relations include ignoring the issues of self-government and self-organization of workers in production; scientists clearly overestimated the level of impact on workers using socio-psychological methods.

However, despite the criticism that the school of psychology and human relations was subjected to, its main provisions were subsequently reflected in new, more complex and modern concepts of management.

A large place in the research of scientists adjoining the school of psychology and human relations is occupied by the problems of motivating people in an organization. Among the researchers who paid considerable attention to these problems are: A. Maslow, F. Herzberger, D. McClelland, K. Alderfer.

The most consistent concept of motivation was developed by a prominent representative of the school of psychology and human relations, Professor of the School of Management at the University of Michigan Douglas McGregor. McGregor made a significant contribution to the development of the content of the theory of human resources, focusing on issues of leadership, leadership style, and the behavior of people in organizations.

2.4 School of Management Science (Quantitative School)

The formation of the school of management science is associated with the development of mathematics, statistics, engineering sciences and other fields of knowledge related to them. The most famous representatives of this school are R. Ackoff, L. Bertalanfi, S. Beer, A. Goldberger, D. Fosrester, R. Luce, L. Klein, N. Georgescu-Regan.

The School of Management Science was formed in the early 1950s. and is still operating successfully. The school of management science distinguishes between two main areas:

Consideration of production as a "social system" using systemic, process and situational approaches.

Study of management problems based on system analysis and the use of a cybernetic approach, including the use of mathematical methods and computers.

The system approach assumes that each of the elements that make up the system (the organization under consideration) has its own specific goals.

The process approach is based on the position that all management functions depend on each other.

The situational approach is directly related to the system and process approaches and expands their application in practice. Its essence lies in the definition of the concept of a situation, which means a specific set of circumstances, variables that affect the organization at a certain time.

The merit of the management science school lies in the fact that it was able to identify the main internal and external variables (factors) that affect the organization.

The second direction of the school of management science is associated with the development of the exact sciences and, above all, mathematics. In modern conditions, many scientists call this direction the new school.

The beginning of the application of mathematical methods in economic research in the XIX century. associated with the name of the French economist A. Caunot (1801-1877).

The possibility of using mathematics to solve economic problems has aroused great interest in Russia.

A number of prominent specialists, such as V.K. Dmitriev, G.A. Feldman, L.V. Kantorovich, made a great contribution to the development and development of economic and mathematical methods (EMM).

A special place belongs to D.E. Slutsky, known for his work on probability theory and mathematical statistics. In 1915, he published an article "On the Theory of Balanced Consumer Budgets", which had a great influence on the development of economic and mathematical theory. After 20 years, this article has received worldwide recognition.

The country's first Laboratory of Economic and Mathematical Methods was established in 1958 at the Academy of Sciences B.C. Nemchinov.

In 1930, in Cleveland (USA), the association "International Society for the Development of Economic Theory in Connection with Statistics and Mathematics" was formed, which included well-known bourgeois economists I. Schumpeter, I. Fischer, R. Frisch, M. Kaletsky , J. Tinbergen and others. The Association began to publish the journal "Econometrics". The formation of this association served as the starting point for the creation of the mathematical school of economists.

A distinctive feature of management science is the use of models. Models become especially important when it is necessary to make decisions in complex situations that require the evaluation of several alternatives.

Thus, the 50s. 20th century characterized by the formation of a new stage in the development of managerial thought. Based on the synthesis of ideas put forward in previous periods, researchers have come to understand the need for an integrated approach to management. In addition, the idea was formulated that management is not only a science, but also an art. .

3. Modern management

managerial scientific management school

3.1 Management concepts of modern management

Approaches based on the identification of different schools. In the first half of the 20th century, 4 schools were developed, which significantly influenced the development of managerial thought. The most staunch adherents of each of these directions (the school of scientific management, the classical school, the schools of human relations and the behavioral sciences) believed at one time that they had found the key to the most effective achievement of the goals of the organization. More recent research and unsuccessful attempts to apply the theoretical findings of schools in practice have shown that many answers to management questions were only partially correct in limited situations. And yet, each of these schools has made significant and tangible contributions to the field. Even the most progressive modern organizations still use certain concepts, principles and techniques developed within these schools.

Concepts and schools 1940-1960 somewhat expanded the understanding of management problems (the pragmatic school and the school of management science).

Process, system and situational approaches. The process approach in management arose already in the 20s of the last century (within the framework of the administrative school), but it was developed only in the second half of the 50s.

The process approach considers management as a single process, representing a continuous sequence of interrelated management functions (planning, organizing, stimulating and controlling).

The systems approach considers the organization as an open system operating in interaction with the external environment. The system approach directs managers to consider the organization as a set of interdependent elements of the organization (internal variables), such as people, structure, tasks and technology, the management of which should be aimed at achieving the goals of the organization in the face of changing environmental factors and the impact of these changes on the organization.

The situational approach focuses on the fact that the suitability and effectiveness of the use of various management methods is determined by the situation. The management process itself must be considered as a system of interrelated internal variables of the organization, environmental factors and specific management methods. Since there are many factors, both in the organization itself and in the environment, there is no single "best" way (method) to manage the organization. The most effective in a particular situation is the method that best suits the situation.

Development of the concepts of modern management. Period 1960-1990 was marked by a serious development of social production, in which effective management played a big role.

The development of scientific thought and practical management from the 60s to the present is commonly called modern management.

Conventionally, this period can be divided into two stages: 1960-1980s and 1980-1990s.

The management of the 1960s-1980s is characterized by the further simultaneous development of various approaches to management, including the process approach, systems and situational approaches, as well as the use of quantitative methods in management (quantitative approach), which originated in the 50s.

The management of the 1980s-1990s is characterized by the development of various concepts aimed at solving the problems of adapting the organization to changes in the external environment and improving the efficiency of modern management in a highly dynamic environment of modern society. Of paramount importance in the theory of organizational management are the problems of the organization's interaction with the external environment, taking into account changes in the external environment in the activities of individual companies, orientation and adaptation of the organization in the current conditions of its functioning.

The following modern management concepts are best known:

· adaptation concept,

· global strategy concept,

· target orientation concept.

The considered concepts of the modern manager indicate that at the present stage in the theory of management, the rational that was achieved in all previous phases of its development has been selected.

3.2 System concepts. System approach in management

The theory of systems was developed and applied for the first time in the exact sciences and technology. However, its application in management at the end of the 50s became a turning point in the development of managerial thought and in the development of practical management.

System concepts. Examples. Cars, computers, televisions, biological systems.

A system is defined (in systems theory) as a whole, consisting of interrelated parts, each of which contributes to the characteristics of the whole.

All organizations are systems. People are the social components of organizations, together with other internal components they constitute the socio-technical systems (subsystems) of the organization.

There are two types of systems: open and closed. A closed system has rigid fixed boundaries, its actions are relatively independent of the environment surrounding the system. An open system is characterized by interaction with the external environment. Possible objects of exchange with the external environment: information, energy, materials, etc. An open system depends on information, energy, materials and other factors that affect the system from the external environment. An open system has the ability to adapt to changes in the external environment and must do so in order to ensure its functioning.

The development of a systematic approach was a turning point in the development of managerial thought. Organizations also represent open systems, since the functioning and survival of any organization depends on the external environment. The organization has become impossible to consider as a closed system due to the fact that its activities can no longer be separated from interaction with the external environment.

The constituent parts (elements) of complex systems can themselves be systems. These constituent parts are called subsystems. Subsystems, in turn, can be composed of smaller subsystems.

Systems approach. The application of a systematic approach in management allows you to see the organization in the unity of its constituent parts, which are inextricably linked with the external environment. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that a systems approach is a way of thinking in relation to the organization and management, helping the manager to better understand the organization and more effectively achieve its goals.

The system approach is based on the idea of decomposition and integration of the system, its subsystems and elements in the analysis of the relationship of the organization with the external environment and the adoption of managerial decisions that provide an integrated approach to its functioning and obtaining the desired result, taking into account the combined impact of external and internal factors.

In a simplified form, “an organization can be represented as an open system (Fig. 1), which receives information, capital, human resources, materials and equipment (technology) from the external environment through inputs, and returns products or services to the external environment.

In the process of functioning of this system, the transformation of inputs (incoming resources) into outputs is carried out. With the effective transformation of resources, the added value of outputs in relation to inputs is formed, as a result of which additional outputs are formed: sales increase, profit is formed, market share increases, the social responsibility of the organization is realized, the needs of employees are satisfied, the organization grows, etc.

Figure 1. Organization as an open system

The process of managing an organization, carried out using management mechanisms, is a purposeful and rational process. As a result of this process, the initial situation at the input of the system (1) is transformed into the desired situation at its output (0), which is determined by strategic management aimed at achieving certain goals of the organization. For the optimality and purposefulness of the process, the implementation of the necessary control function must be ensured.

The decomposition of the system, implemented within the framework of the system approach, is the main way to penetrate into the essence of a particular object, problem, without violating the integrated approach in the formation of management decisions. The system approach allows taking into account the relationship between the elements of the system (that is, the organization) and specific environmental factors in their relationship. Decomposition and structuring of the system, its subsystems and elements, combined with the integration of the assessment of the consequences of decisions made, are the main tools of a systematic approach in the complex work of managing an organization.

3.3 Situational approach in management

The situational approach was developed in the late 1960s and made a great contribution to the development of control theory. The central point in it is the situation, which includes a specific set of internal and external situational factors in relation to the organization that significantly affect the effectiveness of its activities at the given moment in time. The situational approach does not contain prescriptive guidelines for the effective management of an organization. It is a way of thinking about organizational problems and their solutions.

The essence of the situational approach is that in each case of decision-making, management should concentrate on situational differences between organizations and within them, identifying and highlighting specific situational factors (internal and external) that are significant for a given situation and determine the effectiveness of a particular organization.

The methodology of the situational approach can be described as a four-link thinking algorithm for the manager:

Understanding the management process, group and individual behavior, tasks and content of system analysis, planning and control methods, including quantitative decision-making methods. Understanding should be formed in the process of familiarization (training) with the means of professional management, which have shown their effectiveness.

The ability to anticipate the likely consequences (positive and negative) when using a particular methodology or concept in a particular situation, based on a clear assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of known and applied management concepts and techniques.

Correct interpretation and analysis of a specific situation, aimed at determining the most important factors in this situation and assessing the likely effect that a change in one or more situational variables may entail.

The ability to link specific decision-making techniques (concepts, methods) that would cause the least negative consequences with the situation under consideration in order to achieve goals in the most efficient (rational) way.

The key element of the situational approach and the manager's action algorithm is the correct interpretation of a specific situation, the identification of relevant situational factors and their influence on the success or failure of the organization.

The situational approach represents the most satisfactory system developed to date for the effective management of an organization. At the same time, it is impossible to determine all the variables that affect the performance of an organization. For practical purposes, managers consider only the most significant factors for the organization that can affect its success. There are a limited number of such factors that can be divided into two groups: internal variables and external factors.

3.4 Modern management concepts

At the present stage, the problems of interaction with the external environment, taking into account changes in the external environment and the activities of individual companies, and the orientation of the enterprise in the current conditions are of paramount importance in management theory. The search for solutions to these problems has led to the formation of a number of modern management concepts aimed at ensuring the effective operation of organizations in the modern world.

The most famous (recognized) modern management concepts are: the concept of adaptation, the concept of global strategy and the concept of target orientation.

The concept of adaptation. The essence of the concept of adaptation (or adaptation strategy) is that in real economic activity, an organization's strategy is always a combination of the most beneficial actions, taking into account environmental factors. These actions provide strategies for maneuvering in the distribution and redistribution of production and goods between specific enterprises located in different countries, depending on the level of production costs, labor costs, economic growth rates, and the political stability of the host country.

Concept of global strategy. It provides for the concentration of management attention on the need to develop a unified strategy aimed at optimizing the activities of the entire organization (enterprise, corporation), and not its individual parts. Within the framework of the global strategy, there are various directions of this concept, including:

· the global concept can be aimed at the realization of many goals and is focused on maximizing profits as the main goal of the organization; this direction was called the theory of multiple goals;

· the global concept can be aimed at optimizing all activities (all types of activities) of the organization in order to maximize its profit;

· the global concept can be aimed at optimizing the organization's activities by better adapting its structure to the conditions of the external environment and more efficient use of its internal capabilities to maximize the organization's profit;

· the global concept can be aimed at improving the basic management functions in order to optimize (increase efficiency) of the organization's activities.

Target orientation concept. Orients the enterprise to the organization of its activities with the dominant role of goal setting at all stages of the management process (in the processes of planning, organization, control and motivation).

The given modern concepts and many other concepts of modern management, known from foreign publications, are aimed at improving the strategies of individual organizations in order to obtain the planned profits (achieving the goals).

At the heart of modern management as a concept of market management lies the objective process of socialization of production, as a result of which the largest companies have the opportunity: firstly, to influence the market by dividing it; secondly, to influence the nature and mechanism of economic relations that regulate the relationship between the market and the producer.

Management as a concept of market management is aimed at improving the organization of management of the activities of individual enterprises.

This concept, more than others, reflects the connection of individual enterprises with market relations, or rather, with the problem of regulating market relations.

Attaching great importance to the regulation of market relations, modern researchers and management theorists place special emphasis on the need to adapt the enterprise to market requirements for each specific product manufactured by the manufacturer. Therefore, the organizational and technical aspect of this theory is aimed at the so-called "product planning", which covers a system of measures for studying the market of a particular product, drawing up programs and forecasts, developing and introducing a new product to the market, as well as measures to enhance demand for goods and make a profit. from their implementation.

The establishment and regulation of market relations according to this concept is based on the economic strength and scientific and production potential of the participants in these relations. Each enterprise strives not only to maintain its market share, but also to change it in its favor, pushing competitors out, ruining them or subordinating them to its influence and control.

This concept of management not only provides a theoretical justification for the need to regulate the market in modern conditions, but also serves as a source of practical recommendations for the development of new forms and methods of economic activity of enterprises (corporations).

The implementation of management in the practical activities of enterprises acts as a management system.

Modern management as a science of management seeks to find and develop means and methods that would contribute to:

· the most effective achievement of the goals of the organization;

· increasing labor productivity and profitability of production based on the prevailing conditions in the internal and external environments of the organization.

This led to the emergence and development in modern management of new approaches to management, focused on solving the problems of large industrial organizations, including transnational corporations.

Conclusion

In this paper, the main stages of the evolution of managerial thought were considered. Thus, all of the schools listed above made important and tangible contributions to management, but because they advocated "the best way", considered only part of the internal environment of the organization, or ignored the external environment, none of them guaranteed complete success in all situations.

The School of Management Science uses quantitative methods. Its influence is growing as it is seen as complementary to the existing and widely used conceptual framework of the process, systems and situational approaches.

In this work, I have focused on the scientific schools of management. Therefore, in order to summarize the work, I will give their comparative characteristics, which include the features, advantages and disadvantages of these management schools (see Appendix).

The very first studies in management were made by the classical school.

The results of these studies have shown that it is impossible to determine parameters by character traits, that even such a thing as intelligence, in some cases, may not be of paramount importance in management. In the end, it was found that the concept of character traits simply did not work.

The first major step towards considering management as a science was made by F. Taylor (1856-1915), who led the scientific management movement. He became interested in the effectiveness of the organization, which marked the beginning of the development of the school of scientific management.

List of sources

1.Basovsky L.E. "Management" M.: INFRA-M. - 2003. - 352 p.

2.Vikhansky O.S., Naumov A.I. "Management" - M .: "Firma Gardika", 2000. - 560 p.

3.Gerchikova I.N. "Management": Textbook. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Banks and stock exchanges, UNITI, 1995. - 370 p.

4.Egorshin A.P. "Personnel Management". - N. Novgorod: NIMB, 1997. - 400 p.

.Kabushkin N.I. "Fundamentals of Management", Moscow: CJSC "Econompress", 2003 - 350 p.

7.Lukashevich V.V. "Personnel Management" Moscow 2001. - 420 p.

."Management of 100 exam answers", Express - a guide for university students: Rostov n. / D, 2002. - 350 p.

.Rifard L. Daft, "Management", Peter 2002. - 265 p. Send a request with a topic right now to find out about the possibility of receiving a consultation.

The efforts of the founders of the school of scientific management were aimed at creating universal management principles based on personal observations and aimed at rationalizing production, while ignoring social relations in the production process and not paying due attention to the human factor.

School of Scientific Management (1885 - 1920). The founder of management science is an American engineer and researcher Frederick Taylor. 1911 - F.Taylor's book "Principles of Scientific Management". The essence of the approach: “Management must have its own laws, methods, formulas, principles. It should be based on measurements, rationalization, systematic accounting.” Taylor and his contemporaries recognized that management work was a specialty. There are 4 groups of managerial functions: choice of purpose, choice of means, preparation of means and control of results. Taylor developed methods for rationalizing the work of workers. Henry Ford (mechanic, entrepreneur, organizer of mass production of automobiles in the United States). The organization of management is based on the following principles: maximum division of labor; specialization, widespread use of high-performance equipment and tooling, arrangement of equipment along the technological process; mechanization of transport operations, regulated rhythm of production. Harrington Emerson - developed an integrated systems approach to organizing management. 1912 - the main work "The Twelve Principles of Productivity".

The main provisions of the school of scientific management:

1. Using scientific analysis to determine the best way to accomplish a task.

2. Selecting workers best suited to the task and providing them with training.

3. Providing employees with the resources required to effectively complete tasks.

4. Systematic and correct stimulation to increase labor productivity.

5. Separation of planning and thinking from the work itself.

Questions for consolidation:

1. What is the essence of the school of scientific management?

2. What is the merit of F. Taylor in the development of management as a science?

3. What is the merit of G. Ford in the development of management as a science?

4. What is the merit of G. Emerson in the development of management as a science?

1. What were the efforts of the founders of the scientific management school aimed at?

A) creation of universal principles of management

B) social relations

B) the human factor

D) rationalization of production

2. Who is the founder of management as a management science?

A) E. Mayo;

B) G. Ford;

C) G. Emerson

D) F. Taylor

3. In what years did the school of scientific management exist?

A) 1880 - 1885

B) 1885 - 1920

C) 1920 - 1930

A) Harrington Emerson

B) Elton Mayo

B) Frederick Taylor

D) Henry Ford

5. What are the four managerial functions identified by F. Taylor?

A) choice of goal, choice of means, preparation of means, control of results

B) planning, organization, motivation, control

C) choosing a goal, developing a mission, completing tasks, monitoring results

D) planning, choice of means, motivation, control

SCIENTIFIC AND CLASSICAL SCHOOLSCHOOLS OF MANAGEMENT.

2.1. School of Scientific Management

2.2. classical school

Chronologically, the various schools of management thought can be listed in the following order: School of Scientific Management, School of Administration, School of Human Relations and Behavioral Sciences, School of Management Science (or Quantitative School). Adherents of each of these directions believed that they managed to find a way to most effectively achieve the goals of the organization. Subsequent research and unsuccessful attempts to apply the theoretical discoveries of schools in practice have proved only partially correct many answers to management questions in organizational situations. However, each of these schools has made significant contributions to management .

Schools intersect in matters of theory and practice. At the same time, the most progressive modern organizations still use certain concepts and techniques that have arisen within the framework of these schools. However, techniques that have been successful in some situations and at specific times are not always successful in others.

The School of Scientific Management was formed in 1885-1920. based on the work of American managers Frederick Winslow Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, Henry Lawrence Gantt, Henry Ford, Harrington Emerson and others.

Time and conditions of development: 1885-1920

Industrial and economic conditions contributed to the development of the school's ideas. The rapid pace of development of production, which made high demands on the results of the labor of the worker. This period is characterized by industrial growth, the beginning of the concentration of production, the division and specialization of labor, technological operations. The general situation in the late XIX - early XX centuries. demanded the blind fulfillment of their duties and unconditional submission to the administration, so the relationship between workers and managers was seen as antagonistic .

School development history. Spasmodic interest in management occurred in 1911 after the publication by an American engineer Frederick W. Taylor in his book Principles of Scientific Management. Since that time, it is traditionally considered the beginning of the recognition of management science and an independent field of study.

In that historical period there was boundless faith in the rational methods of cognition that have developed over the past three centuries. The successes of science and new technologies only confirmed this. Scientific and rational at that time meant the best. The scientific was understood as unambiguous, computable, decomposable into elements. It was seen that the application of strictly scientific principles to the questions of building an effective organization would make it possible to find the only correct answers to them.

FW Taylor was born into a well-known and wealthy Philadelphia family in Germentaun, Pennsylvania (USA). He received his secondary education in Europe. The busy business life of Philadelphia, the numerous acquaintances of the Taylor family - businessmen, industrialists, politicians, the color of the intelligentsia - undoubtedly influenced the formation of the personality of the one who glorified America so much in the future. FW Taylor graduated from the Stevens Institution in 1878 with a degree in mechanical engineering. In the same year he entered the mechanical workshop of the Midwell Steel Company (one of the largest metallurgical plants in Bethlehem), where he went through all the steps in the administrative apparatus: from foreman to chief engineer.

While working in the factory, F.W. Taylor began to conduct the first experiments in the field of high-speed metalworking methods, which later brought him fame. He devoted 26 years to his main invention; together with Bart, he designed a special ruler. With its help it was possible to operate with fourteen independent variables. After being appointed to the position of chief engineer, F.W. Taylor began to introduce speed methods into production, and here he faced the problem of opposition from workers.

In an effort to break this resistance, he used the methods of coercion traditional for that time, up to dismissal or lowering the level of wages, hiring new workers to replace those laid off, etc. Some workers, fearing punishment, increased the intensity of their work, which angered others. There was such pressure on the workers that they were forced to either reduce their production rates or leave the factory. F. W. Taylor was also threatened. Apparently, this confrontation between the workers and the administration was, among others, one of the reasons for thinking about the need to restructure the management system in such a way that the interests of the workers and the administration become identical.

From the very beginning of his career, engineer Taylor was most interested in the possibilities of introducing scientific methods of organizing work in production. Observing workers unloading coal at a steel plant, he noticed that the output of workers depended on how the shape of the shovel corresponded to the characteristics of the incoming coal. He suggested that the workers use shovels of various shapes. The results of this improvement in simple labor operations shocked him: the productivity of workers increased several times. A completely new area of application of creative efforts has opened up - the technology of labor operations. The previously invisible organizational aspect of work became the object of close attention for Taylor.

Since labor productivity has increased, it has become possible to select people who are most capable of working with a given productivity and dismiss those who are less capable, and use the released financial resources for additional material incentives. The contours of a new system of production management and work with personnel have been outlined, through closer attention on the part of managers to the organization of work of subordinates. And the analysis of production tasks made it possible to invent new mechanisms for managing people.

All of the above was reflected in F. Taylor's approach to the problems of people management, his basic principles and methods, which received the general name as the Taylor system.

The essence of the proposed system is based on the following four provisions:

1. Development of scientifically based knowledge about labor activity. Taylor notes that, in practice, managers usually do not know how much work a worker can do under optimal conditions. On the other hand, the workers themselves have a vague idea of what is actually expected of them. It is possible to achieve a correspondence between the requirements of managers and the expectations of employees through a scientific study of the elements of the labor process. If an employee performs a scientifically justified amount of work, he has the right to receive higher material compensation for his work.

2. Selection and training of employees. To make sure that the employee meets scientifically based standards in terms of his professional qualities, it is necessary to select workers using the criteria developed for this. Taylor believed that such selection would allow workers to excel in certain jobs and thus increase their own income without reducing the income of others.

3. Combination of knowledge about labor activity with increased labor opportunities of selected workers. The process of interaction between the leader and the employee subordinate to him, which is mediated by scientific methods of management, Taylor considered as a kind of "revolution in the minds", a new vision of the context of work activity. The two parties involved in the labor process need not be dividing the limited-sized pie into parts, but to focus on increasing the overall size of the pie.

4. Specialization of types of labor and organizational activities in the form of distribution of responsibility between managers and employees. The organization must have a strict distribution of personal responsibility. Managers are obliged to give employees a scientifically substantiated labor task and to continuously monitor its implementation. Employees are required to perform the assigned task using only scientifically based work methods. In such a system of distribution of responsibility, non-fulfillment of a labor task is excluded. For cases of overfulfillment, additional material remuneration is provided. If the distribution of responsibility between the manager and the employee is correct, the possibility of a labor conflict is completely excluded.

UGH. Taylor came up with the idea that enterprise management should be a system. Management must be carried out using developed and tested methods. The management system and organization of work can be designed. He developed a functional structure for managing the organization, according to which not one leader, but several, each according to his function, should control the progress of work and give instructions. UGH. Taylor showed that every manager must select, train and place workers in those places where they can bring the greatest benefit, set tasks for them, allocate material resources and ensure rational spending, motivate high productivity of workers, monitor their actions in a timely manner and encourage achievements. results.

Key points Taylor systems made it possible to formulate a number of general principles of labor organization.

They include:

The study of the labor process in order to design the most rational methods and actions;

Selection and training of people in rational methods of work in order to select a reference worker;

Defining a job task in order to develop proposals for economic incentives for employees.

It can be seen that the whole Taylor system is aimed at increasing the efficiency of production. Workers should work, Taylor believed, and managers should think. In themselves, these are important goals that contribute to the effectiveness of the organization, but the requirement to achieve these goals, through a rigid order, a clearly defined structure and externally set standards, can lead to the inability of employees and managers of the organization to adapt flexibly to changing external conditions.

UGH. Taylor for the first time divided the operation into its constituent elements - complexes of techniques, techniques, movements, and also conducted studies on the costs of living labor and its productivity when using various tools.

As the main UGH. Taylor formulated five managerial tasks. To determine the best (rational) way to perform a specific task, it is necessary:

Use scientific methods based on the study of the time of repetitive work operations and their elements, typification and standardization of working tools;

To carry out the selection of workers with not only physical qualities, but also mental abilities;

To carry out training, education and development of the abilities of the worker, allowing him to accurately follow the developed standard techniques and movements;

Develop economic methods of stimulating labor, which are designed to guarantee the quality and timing of the assignment;

Carry out planning and organization of work, the responsibility for which lies with managers, not workers.

The latter task is explained by the fact that in the pre-factory phase of the development of industrial production, workers independently organized their work, determined the time and duration of work, methods and intensity of performing specific tasks.

Therefore, F.U. Taylor identified as priority such functions, as the organization of labor, planning, accounting and control, and as a priority management methods- organizational-administrative and economic. The areas of managerial activity subject to improvement included production, labor resources (workers and managers), stocks, flows of resources and products in the internal environment (at the factory).

He considered control as the main function of management and believed that dividing the work task into elements allows eliminating unnecessary, irrational ones, changing the sequence of their implementation and strengthening control over the entire labor process.

The principles formulated by Taylor for analyzing labor activity, defining a labor task as a goal of activity, selecting and training employees, and economic incentives for labor have retained their relevance to this day. They are still important in such sections as the analysis of the mechanisms of motivation for labor activity and purposeful behavior, work with the personnel of the organization.

Among the followers of F. W. Taylor, the most prominent are Frank Gilbreth and his wife Lillian. They dealt with the issues of rationalization of the work of workers, the study of physical movements in the production process and the study of the possibilities of increasing output through the growth of labor productivity. The works of F. and L. Gilbreth significantly influenced the development of the organization and technical regulation of labor. In our country, their best-known books are "The ABC of the Scientific Organization of Labor and Enterprises" and "The Study of Movements" (1911), "Psychology of Management" (1916).

While still a bricklayer's apprentice, F. Gilbreth noticed that the people who taught him how to lay bricks used three basic combinations of movements. He pondered which of these movements was the most effective; so he methodically studied these movements as well as the instruments used. The result was an improved method that reduced the number of strokes required to lay one brick from 18 to 4.5, thereby increasing productivity by 50%.

At the beginning of the XX century. Frank and his wife Lillian began to study work operations using a movie camera in combination with a microchronometer. Microchronometer - a watch invented by Frank that could record intervals up to 1/2000 of a second. With the help of freeze-frames, F. and L. Gilbreth were able to identify and describe the 17 basic movements of the hand. They called these movements terbligs. This name comes from the surname Gilbreth, if it is read backwards.

A significant contribution to the development of the F. W. Taylor system was made by an American scientist Garrinton Emerson. His work "The Twelve Principles of Productivity" was widely known. In it, he outlined his views on the rationalization of production. “The ideal of the 12 principles of productivity,” G. Emerson noted, “is the elimination of losses. And it is for this purpose that they are formed. In what particular case to eliminate losses - this is of fundamental importance.

G. Emerson paid much attention to the study of the staff principle in management. G. Emerson was educated in Europe. His views were greatly influenced by the ideas of the Prussian general von Moltke, who developed the concept of the general staff, on the basis of which the Prussian army turned into a monstrous military machine of the second half of the 19th century.

G. Ford continued the ideas of F. W. Taylor in the field of organization of production. He formulated the basic principles of the organization of production, for the first time separated the main work from its maintenance. In G. Ford's system, the role and importance of production operational planning and quality control are increasing. According to the basic concept of G. Ford, the enterprise should develop as an integrated one. In social terms, he continued to develop the basic position of the F. W. Taylor system in harmony with the interests of the entrepreneur and the worker.

G. Ford was born in the family of a Michigan farmer, an immigrant from Ireland. Two of the most important events of his childhood made a deep impression on him. At the age of 12, he first saw a moving locomobile on the road, and in the same year he was presented with a watch. From childhood, he was a "born technician". The loco-bille he saw determined his future fate.

At the age of 15, G. Ford left school and decided on a student in a mechanical workshop in Detroit. In his younger years he had over 300 hours. At one time he even wanted to make watches, but came to the conclusion that not all people would buy them. He also wanted to establish the production of some products for the mass consumer. And he turned to the means of transportation. In 1891, he developed the design of a gasoline cart and worked on improving its engine for several years. For the first time, G. Ford managed to drive it in 1893.

On the basis of this gasoline cart, the Ford Model T car was subsequently created, which already had four cylinders, an automatic starting device and was simpler than its predecessor, with an increase in convenience and practicality in use.

Since 1903, G. Ford creates the Ford Signer Company, a controlling stake in which (51%) he acquires in 1916. In 1919, his son acquires the remaining 41% of the shares. Thanks to the creation of the “T” car model, G. Ford “broke” all the previous concepts that existed in the automotive industry. This model enjoyed unlimited popularity among buyers and for the period 1908-1927. over 15 million units have been sold. cars of this model.

G. L. Gantt in his research he paid special attention to the issues of labor stimulation, production planning. He made a significant contribution to the development of leadership theory. He proposed the method of the bonus system, and maps were drawn up for the convenience of planning. G. Gantt considered the human factor as the main engine for increasing production efficiency.

The concept of scientific management was a major turning point, thanks to which management became widely recognized as an independent field of scientific research.

Through the efforts of representatives of this school, the scientific foundations of production and labor management were created. In the 20s. this scientific direction singled out such independent sciences as the scientific organization of labor (SOT), the theory of production organization (including production methods), etc.

The initiator of the creation of a scientific organization of labor in Russia, the Russian economist A.K. Gastev, noted: “Taylor developed a certain organizational mechanics. Ford, with unusual technical revolutionism, resolved the question of Taylorism in such a way that he put pure technology in place of people. Ford replaced laborers-transport workers, all sorts of unsettled lower labor with machines. The Ford plant is the highest type of administrative machine. Therefore, Ford is the very last word of Taylorism, Ford is Taylor, replacing human organization with literally steel.

The creators of the school of scientific management believed that using observations, measurements, logic and analysis, many manual labor operations could be improved with more efficient performance. They own the ideas of determining the duration of tasks by elements of operations based on chronometric data and photographs of working time, methods of organization and planning used in modern production practice.

A significant contribution to the development of management science was made by G. Ford through the system of labor intensification and higher organization and management of production. Conveyor production was introduced for the first time at G. Ford's enterprises.

Main achievements of the School of Scientific Management:

Management of people is recognized as a science, an independent field of study;

The most important task of this science is to increase the efficiency of labor in the sphere of production;

The work of managing people requires special qualities from a person - the ability to think and take responsibility for organizing the work of subordinates;

A scientific study of each individual type of labor activity is necessary;

Using scientific analysis to determine the best ways to accomplish a task;

Separation of planning and thinking into a separate process;

Approval of management as an independent form of activity, science, formation of its functions;

Rational management of the enterprise "from below";

Selection of workers and managers based on scientific criteria, their professional selection and professional training;

Specialization of functions in production, the performance of each employee only those functions for which he is most suitable;

The system of material incentives for workers to increase their productivity (money, social innovations, etc.);

Accounting and control over the work carried out;

Separation of administrative and executive work; the introduction of the institution of masters leading workers;

Cooperation between the administration and workers in matters of practical implementation of innovations;

Equal distribution of responsibility between employees and managers;

Development of a number of methods for the scientific organization of labor based on the study of the movements of the worker with the help of timing, standardization of methods and tools.

Disadvantages of the school of scientific management:

The main drawback of Taylor's system is that it was oriented towards the economic man model, i.e. a person whose main incentive to work is monetary reward; those. the reduction of stimulating moments to the satisfaction of the utilitarian needs of people;

Mechanical approach to management;

The organization was considered as something consisting of independent elements isolated from each other;

Ignoring the real unity of the internal processes of the organization and the need for holistic management of them.

School of Scientific Management

It has been noted that organization and management become an independent subject of study for science at a time when the level of development of engineering and technology comes into sharp conflict with the established system of production relations. This was revealed with all obviousness in the era of the transition of classical capitalism to its highest, monopolistic stage, i.e. at a time when the objective prerequisites for the emergence of scientific management in the United States and the activities of its leader F.U. Taylor.

The emergence of modern management science dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. And associated with the names of FW Taylor, Frank and Lily Gilbreth and Henry Gantt. An important merit of this school was the position that it is possible to manage "scientifically", relying on economic, technical and social experiment, as well as on the scientific analysis of the phenomena and facts of the management process and their generalization.

This research method was first applied to a single enterprise by the American engineer F.W. Taylor, who should be considered the founder of scientific production management.

The term "scientific management" was first proposed in 1910 by L. Bridays. Since Taylor's death, the name has gained general acceptance in relation to his concept.

The functions of carrying out the interaction of elements of production were assigned to the planning or distribution bureau of the enterprise, which was given a central place in the Taylor system.

Frank Gilbreth and his wife Lillian Gilbreth dealt with the rationalization of the work of workers and the study of opportunities to increase output through increased labor productivity.

Second half of the 19th century - an era of significant changes in the structure and organization of business entrepreneurship in the United States: the creation of huge national and multinational corporations in transport and industry, which absorbed everything new and advanced.

On the contrary, the change in the organization of labor in the shop and at the enterprise proceeded extremely slowly. That was one of the contradictions that determined the need for the emergence of scientific management. However, within the factory system itself, no less contradiction was revealed. The transition from handicraft production of the 18th century to machine production of the 19th century was uneven and protracted. By the second half of the 19th century, a system of industry was generally formed, which historians call the first, or old factory system (the second factory system is called in-line production of the beginning of the 20th century). True, by the beginning of the 20th century, it no longer satisfied the needs of social production and did not correspond to the latest achievements of science and technology. The social organization of labor at the enterprise, the central figure of which was the foreman, was also outdated.

The basic principles of Taylor and his school can be formulated as follows:

Creation of a scientific approach (methodology) to the organization of the implementation of specific work. This approach included dividing the work into separate elements and determining a scientifically based way of doing it, based on the scientific study of each element, replacing the old traditional and practically established methods of work.

Selecting workers for a specific job based on scientific criteria, training them and teaching them new ways to do it.

Cooperation between the administration and workers in the practical implementation of a scientifically developed system of labor organization.

Equal distribution of labor and responsibility between management and workers.

An important contribution of this school was the systematic use of incentives to motivate workers to increase productivity and output. The key element in this approach was that people who produce more should receive higher rewards.

Thus, the concept of scientific management has become the initial stage in the formation and recognition of management as a science and an independent field of study. The beginning of the development of the school of scientific management was laid by Taylor's book "Principles of Scientific Management".

His power was practically unlimited: he was responsible for production management, production costs, and personnel management. The master single-handedly hired and fired workers, promoted them or demoted them, controlled the system of training workers, the distribution of tasks, was responsible for maintaining discipline, set working hours, attendance times and production rates. It is clear that his real role in production was not much inferior to that of a manager.

Classical (administrative) school in management

Fayol's merit lies in the fact that he divided all management functions into general, related to any field of activity, and specific, related directly to the management of an industrial enterprise.

Fayol's followers, who developed and deepened the main provisions of his doctrine, are Lindal Urvik, L. Gyulik, M. Weber, D. Mooney, Alfred P. Sloan, G. Church.

Based on the developments of Fayol and his followers, a classical model of organization was formed, based on the main principles:

Division of labor. Specialization is the natural order of things. The purpose of the division of labor is to do more and better work with the same effort. This is achieved by reducing the number of goals to which attention and efforts must be directed.

Authority and responsibility. Authority is the right to give orders, and responsibility is its opposite. Where authority is given, there responsibility arises.

Discipline. Discipline offers obedience and respect for the agreements reached between the firm and its employees. Establishing these agreements binding the firm and employees from which disciplinary formalities arise must remain one of the chief tasks of managers. Discipline also implies fair application of sanctions.

Unity of command. An employee should receive orders from only one immediate superior.

unity of direction. Each group operating within the same goal must be united by a single plan and have one leader.

Subordination of personal interests to the general. The interests of one employee or group of employees should not prevail over the interests of a company or organization of a large scale.

Staff remuneration. Workers should receive a fair wage for their service.

Centralization. Like the division of labor, centralization is the natural order of things. However, the appropriate degree of centralization will vary depending on specific conditions. Therefore, the question arises about the right proportion between centralization and decentralization. It is a problem of determining the measure that will provide the best results.

Scalar chain. A scalar chain is a series of individuals in leadership positions, ranging from the person holding the highest position in this chain to the bottom manager. It would be a mistake to abandon a hierarchical system unnecessarily, but it would be an even greater mistake to maintain this hierarchy when it harms business interests.

Order. A place for everything, and everything in its place.

Justice. Justice is a combination of kindness and justice.

Workplace stability for staff. High employee turnover reduces the efficiency of the organization. A mediocre manager who holds on to a position is certainly preferable to an outstanding, talented manager who leaves quickly and does not hold on to his position.

Initiative. Initiative means developing a plan and ensuring its successful implementation, this gives the organization strength and energy.

corporate spirit. Union is the force that results from the harmony of the staff.

Thus, according to A. Fayol, management is a universal process consisting of several interrelated functions. The implementation of the basic principles of management contributes to improving the efficiency of production management.

School of Psychology and Human Relations

One of the shortcomings of the scientific management school and the classical school was that they did not fully understand the role and importance of the human factor, which is ultimately the main element in the effectiveness of the organization. Therefore, the school of psychology and human relations that eliminated the shortcomings of the classical school is often called the neoclassical school.

The first attempt to apply psychological analysis to practical problems of production was made by G. Munsterberg, a professor at Harvard University in the USA.

In the 20-30s of our century, a school of human relations was born, in the center of which is a person. The emergence of the doctrine of "human relations" is usually associated with the names of American scientists E. Mayo and F. Roethlisberger, who are known for their research in the sociology of industrial relations.

One of the main differences between the school of psychology and human relations is the introduction of behaviorism into it, i.e. theories of human behavior.

One of the founders of the School of Psychology and Human Relations is Harvard University Business School Professor Elton Mayo.

Representatives of the school of "human relations" recommended that serious attention be paid to changing the informal structure while restructuring the formal structure of the organization. A formal manager should strive to become an informal leader by winning the "affections of the people." This is not an easy task, but "social art".

The concept of motivation was most consistently developed by a prominent representative of the school of psychology and human relations, Professor of the School of Management at the University of Michigan Douglas McGregor. McGregor made a significant contribution to the development of the content of the theory of human resources, focusing on issues of leadership, leadership style, and the behavior of people in organizations.

School of Behavioral Sciences and Human Resource Theory. The School of Behavioral Sciences emerged in the 1930s. The revitalization of the school's activity falls on the 1950-1960s. The school got its name from the well-known psychological terms "behavior", "behaviorism" (behavior, the science of behavior). The basic premise of behaviorism is that it is necessary to study not consciousness, but human behavior, which is a response to a stimulus.

In management, this approach was transferred to the working person and specifically to the relationship between managers and workers. The essence of these relations is based on the fact that the employee, receiving a good reward (material and moral) from the manager, responds to it with a positive reaction - a good job.

The school of behavioral sciences can be seen as a development and deepening of the concept of human relations, but at the same time, other concepts have emerged within the framework of the new school that are significantly different from the school of human relations.

The beginning of a new concept in the science of management was laid by W. Barnard, who published the work "Administrator's Functions" in 1938. Among the later followers of this concept, it should be noted: R. Likert, F. Herzberg, A. Maslow, D. McGregory. These and other researchers dealt with the issues of social interaction in the enterprise, the motivation of needs, the nature of management, forms of communication in the team, leadership in the organizational structure. The main goal of this school was to find ways to increase the efficiency of the organization by increasing the efficiency of its human resources. Therefore, the new concept was called the theory of human resources. The new approach was aimed at developing such management techniques that would contribute to a person's awareness of his capabilities based on the application of the basic concepts of the behavioral sciences to the management of an organization.

Within the framework of this theory, a number of concepts and provisions were developed about the individual and "cooperation", formal and informal systems, motivation and needs, and leadership in the organization.

Thus, the merit of the school is the study of the problem of motives and needs, as well as the possibilities of their effective use in management. Employee motivation has three levels: needs, goals, rewards. For the effective use of an employee, two more factors should be taken into account: the factors of human effort and ability.

The conclusion of this school that a person's work will be successful if positive motivation is accompanied by sufficient effort and certain abilities became the program for effective workforce management, and the scientific concept became known as human resource theory.

Schools 1940-1960s

1940-1960 characterized by the development of management within several schools other than the school of behavioral sciences. These schools were: the empirical or pragmatic school of management, the schools associated with the theories of technocratic management, and the school of management science. These schools left a certain mark in the development of managerial thought, but basically they were in the nature of a private development of certain areas and problems of managing an organization.

Empirical (pragmatic) school of management. The founders of the school: E. Petersen, G. Simon, R. Davis and others. Representatives of big business took part in the development of the school. The specialists of this school did not deny the importance of theoretical principles and the use of the achievements of specific sciences, but considered it more important to analyze the direct experience of management. The main contribution of the school to the development of managerial thought can be defined as follows:

1. Development of in-house management, including the development of recommendations on management structures, on the organization of line and functional services, technical and information management systems and other management issues.
2. Research and introduction into management practice of new, effective methods of training managers (example: Sloan school of managers).
3. The ideologists of the school made an attempt to develop a number of problems that became especially relevant in the 70-80s (issues of centralization and decentralization of management, the introduction of target management, the classification of management functions, the organization of work of managers, etc.).
4. Professionalization of management.

Theories of technocratic management. In the 1950s-1960s. the most famous were the concepts (schools): the theory of elites, the theory of technocracy and the theory of industrial society.

1. Theory of elites. This concept is based on the division of society into an omnipotent elite and a crowd subordinate to it; in management, this approach corresponds to the allocation of qualified leaders and unskilled masses.
2. Theory of technocracy. The essence of the concept: the coming era will be the era of the state of engineering and technical intelligentsia. The management of the future will be the management of the technocracy (representatives of science and technology).
3. The theory of industrial society. The provisions of the theory include two key points: the contradictions in society are explained by the different degrees of education of people, and the leading role in management is given to technocratic management. The factor of education is basic in the economic life of society. When solving the problem of effective management, preference is given to a group solution.

Theories of technocratic management have introduced new elements into management thought with their focus on improving the quality (educational) level of society and management.

School of Management Science. It was developed in the 50s as a result of the use of the achievements of applied mathematics and engineering sciences in the development of managerial thought. Attention should be paid to the difference in the translations of the two concepts scientific management (scientific management), which in American literature is directly associated with the Taylor school and his followers, and management science (management science), which is associated with the use of quantitative methods in management.

Quantitative methods under the general name "operations research" were developed to solve applied problems during the Second World War (effective use of air defense systems, submarine warfare while escorting convoys, mining Japanese ports, etc.).

Operations research, at its core, was the use of scientific research methods to solve management problems based on situation models. The use of models has made it possible to simplify complex problems for their deeper study and understanding.

A key characteristic of the school of management science is the use of mathematical models to quantify and analyze the processes and problems under study. The development of computer technology significantly influenced the development of quantitative methods in management, which made it possible to develop and use in practical research mathematical models of increasing complexity, approaching real processes.

Thus, we can draw the following conclusion on the considered chapter: the school of scientific management, the classical (administrative) school, the school of psychology and human relations, the school of management science (quantitative school), as well as outstanding representatives of these schools, such like F. Taylor, A. Fayol, E. Mayo and others.

Organization in the works of representatives of the school of scientific management. The main principles of the school of scientific management and their use in modern conditions

More on the topic 2. School of scientific management, its main provisions and principles. The development of management in the works of F. Taylor, G. Ford, G. Emerson.:

SCIENTIFIC AND CLASSICAL SCHOOLSCHOOLS OF MANAGEMENT.