Business management is a very multifaceted and diverse process, the support of which is both the personal experience, creativity and talent of the entrepreneur, and a whole complex of sciences about man, his behavior and thinking. It is also impossible not to mention the theoretical and applied disciplines related to the professional activity and direction of the entrepreneur’s business - be it financial, trading, production or any other operations.
Without professional knowledge and competencies, business management becomes problematic - especially in its small forms, where errors in decision-making by even one person can be very costly.
However, it is impossible to know everything. The huge block of sciences mentioned above cannot be thoroughly studied in a relatively short time. Stretching out training over decades is pointless and impractical, since new academic knowledge will, over time, begin to give less and less impact and even be simply forgotten.
Thus, theorists and practitioners of business management are faced with the question of what and how to study so that it brings maximum benefit, and the duration of the learning process does not go beyond what is reasonable. And, accordingly, what a practicing businessman needs to do from the point of view of management science in order to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of his business.
Depending on what answers are given to the questions posed, we can identify a number of enlarged areas of business management that have already been formed by now or will be formed in the near future. These areas are called management schools, whose followers adhere to similar views on business processes and identify leading management links according to their chosen priorities.
We will indicate the most significant schools of business management in the generally accepted classification.
Historically, the school of scientific management was the first to develop, also called Taylorism, after the name of its founder, Frederick Winslow Taylor (see Fig. 1).
However, it is not only Taylor who personifies the school of scientific management. Another of its prominent representatives is Henry Ford, who developed Taylor’s ideas and brought the “sweating system” to its extreme forms of rationalizing labor processes in the conditions of assembly line production at his automobile factories in River Rouge and Dearborn (USA). Improved and modified Taylorism was called Fordism.
We will dwell on the specific facts and circumstances of the formation of the school of scientific management in more detail in a separate section. Now we will only outline the most general principles and approaches of this area of business management. They are quite simple and easy to implement in practice:
It cannot be said that over time the school of scientific management has become obsolete. Its importance for production and all areas of business remains great. Therefore, it would be reckless to simply turn the page of history and say that the principles of Taylorism and Fordism are a thing of the past.
The next school of business management that emerged by the 1920s was the classical (administrative) school of management. Its largest representative, Henri Fayol, who, like F. Taylor and G. Ford, was a practical worker and head of the large mining and metallurgical company Comambo.
A. Fayol carried out work to rationalize and improve business not only at the grassroots level, forcing workers to work more intensively under piecework conditions, but began to consider management processes more comprehensively, shifting the emphasis to a higher level of management. Just as Taylor or Ford divided labor processes into separate movements, Fayol began to divide the management procedure into its components, highlighting such components as planning, organization, motivation, control and coordination. Summarizing the theoretical calculations made and transferring them to his production and administrative experience, Fayol formed the “theory of administration.”
The USSR, formed in 1922, gave a powerful impetus to improving methods of economic and business management. Management theorists most often associate the formation of the school of human relations with the Hawthorne experiment and the works of Mary Follett and Elton Mayo. However, this is only the visible part of the “managerial iceberg”, the huge mass of which is hidden from a superficial glance.
Before the eyes of the world community, a much more grandiose experiment took place in the 1920s and 1930s, which had an indelible impression on the minds and hearts of people. A huge country, ravaged by external interventions and civil war, with a destroyed economy and a predominant agricultural sector, contrary to all expectations, did not slide into the abyss of poverty and chaos, but demonstrated miracles of increased labor productivity, increased production potential, industrialization and innovation in all spheres of life. This phenomenon fascinated Western management specialists, forcing them to study the Soviet experience more closely and adopt its achievements.
The understanding that people can work with full dedication not only for money, but also under the influence of other incentives - the main one of which is the spirit of creativity, cohesion, and belonging to a team - led to the formation of a school of management that placed relationships and internal values at the center of attention workers.
The old idea of the utopian socialists about the harmony of labor and capital has sprouted again. Suffice it to recall how R. Owen, as manager of a factory in New Lanark, created the necessary social environment by building houses with gardens for workers, opening factory shops and canteens, savings banks, etc. At the same time, he limited child labor, reduced the working day from 17 to 10 hours, and abolished the system of fines. This was so unusual for the business of that time that Owen was considered a big eccentric by his colleagues.
The theoretical and practical developments of the socialists, their ideas about the absence of irreconcilable contradictions between hired workers and entrepreneurs, formed the basis of a new management concept, called the school of human relations.
During the same period, by the beginning of the 1930s, prerequisites for scientific economic management began to appear in the USSR. It started with the fact that carriers of construction materials turned to mathematicians for help (among whom was the future Nobel Prize winner in economics L.V. Kantorovich) with a request to help them reduce empty runs and increase truck loading. This is how the transport problem was formulated and solved for the first time. Similarly, the problem of using peeling machines for plywood trust was solved using linear programming.
In the mid-1920s, the first research was carried out on the development of economic and mathematical methods in the formation of an intersectoral balance, which put the economic management system on a scientific basis (later V.V. Leontiev would receive the Nobel Prize in Economics precisely for these developments).
Obviously, without computer technology, the application of mathematical management methods in economics and business was difficult. Therefore, the formation of this school is usually attributed to a later period - to the 1970s.
We conventionally designated the formation of the empirical school of management as the 1940s. By this time, the founder of experienced approaches to managing people and businesses, D. Carnegie, had brought his system to a high standard and institutionalized it in the form of the training company Dale Carnegie Training, which still operates in more than 80 countries around the world. Probably, the date of formation of the empirical school could be attributed to earlier periods, say, to the 1930s or even the 1920s, but we will focus on a relatively late period, when Carnegie’s main works had already been published - the books “Oratory and Delivery.” influencing business partners" (1926, revised 1931), "How to Win Friends and Influence People" (1936), "How to Stop Worrying and Start Living" (1948).
As for the school of behavioral sciences in the management of production processes, this direction developed practically without Russian participation. For ideological reasons, during the Soviet period we rejected the idea that people are controlled by certain forces that are inaccessible to direct observation and measurement. In this sense, the palm in the achievements of behaviorism belongs to American and European researchers. True, some of the works of I.P. Pavlov, written by him during the Soviet period, can with a stretch be classified as behavioral, but they still cannot be considered comprehensive and complete.
Below we will dwell in more detail on each of the mentioned areas of business management. Those who want to save time on the details can safely skip these sections.
The son of a small Welsh craftsman, R. Owen began his career as an apprentice, then became a small entrepreneur (with a capital of £100 borrowed from his father) in the field of paper making, quickly progressed through all stages of the business and by the age of 30 became the owner and director of a mill in New -Lanark in Scotland. Here he made people talk about himself both about technical improvements and about his patronage institutions. Here his ideas about educating people through changing attitudes began to be determined. His factory soon became a place of pilgrimage for aristocrats and famous people. (See: Zhid Sh., Rist Sh. History of economic doctrines: Translated from English - M.: Economics, 1995. - P. 188-191).
I believe that, despite a certain diversity in the identification of schools and directions, four main established schools can be distinguished:
1. School of Scientific Management.
2. Administrative or classical school.
3. School of human relations.
4. Mathematical school of management.
This classification is conditional, because within the framework of each of the named schools, a number of directions can be distinguished, and all of them are interconnected and mutually conditioned.
School of scientific direction
The emergence of the school of scientific management in many studies is determined by the theoretical and practical management system of F. W. Taylor (1856–1915). A. Smith's theory laid the foundation for all branches of political economy, and Taylor's system laid the foundation for all subsequent management. The famous management scientist P. Drucker believed that Taylorism is the rock on which we build our discipline.
Along with Taylor, the most prominent representatives of the school of scientific management can be considered F. and L. Gilbert, G. Gantt, K. Barth and others. The creators of the school of scientific management proceeded from the concept that, using observations, measurements, logic and analysis, it is possible to improve most manual labor operations, to achieve their more efficient implementation.
The formation of the school of scientific management was based on three main points, which served as the starting principles for the development of management:
· Rational organization of work.
· Developing a formal structure for the organization.
· Determination of measures for cooperation between manager and worker.
Thus, the foundations of a formal organization were formed, and management functions were separated from the actual performance of work. Taylor argued, obviously, that one type of man must first plan the work, and a completely different type of man must carry it out. This approach was in sharp contrast to the old system, when workers themselves planned their work and carried out what they planned.
When defining measures for cooperation between manager and worker, representatives of the school of scientific management noted the need for the systematic use of incentives for workers in order to interest them in increasing labor productivity and production volumes. Thanks to this school, management began to be recognized as a field of scientific research; methods and approaches used in science and technology can be effectively used in the practical achievement of organizational goals. According to Taylor, the main task of management should be to ensure the greatest prosperity of the entrepreneur, coupled with the maximum well-being of each employee. Unlike Taylor, G. L. Gant (1861–1919) believed that workers were the main variable in achieving maximum labor productivity and all other parameters should be adjusted to them. Another of Gantt's ideas was a system of incentive bonuses to support individual efforts.
The spouses F. Gilberg (1868–1924) and L. Gilberg (1878–1972) analyzed mainly physical work in production processes, i.e. studied movements using measuring methods and instruments, such as scale charts, filming, micro chronometer, etc. Their study of movements was used to establish more accurate working standards and eliminate unnecessary movements and efforts, to introduce their own system of reward and respect for workers. L. Gilbert laid the foundation for the field of management, which is currently called “personnel management”. She researched issues such as selection, placement and training.
Representatives of the school of scientific management mainly devoted their work to production management. They were engaged in improving labor efficiency at a level below management, the so-called extra-managerial level. The ideas laid down by the school of scientific management were developed and applied to the management of the organization as a whole, primarily by representatives of the administrative school of management.
Based on the information received, they modified work procedures to eliminate unnecessary, unproductive movements, using standard procedures and equipment to improve work efficiency. Taylor, for example, found that the maximum amount of iron ore and coal could be moved if workers used a scoop shovel with a capacity of up to about 21 pounds. 8.6 kg. Compared to the earlier system, this provided a truly phenomenal gain.
Scientific management did not neglect the human factor. An important contribution of this school was the systematic use of incentives to motivate workers to increase productivity and output. Allowance was also made for short periods of rest and the inevitable interruptions in production, so that the amount of time allocated to certain tasks was realistic and fairly set. This gave management the opportunity to set production standards that were achievable and to pay extra for those who exceeded the minimum. The key element in this approach was that people who produced more were rewarded more. Writers of scientific management also recognized the importance of selecting people who were physically and intellectually suited to the work they were doing, and they also emphasized the importance of training.
Scientific management also advocated the separation of the managerial functions of thinking and planning from actually doing the work. Taylor and his contemporaries essentially recognized that management work was a specialty, and that the organization as a whole would benefit if each group of workers focused on what it did best. This approach was in stark contrast to the old system, in which workers planned their own work. The concept of scientific management was a major turning point, thanks to which management became widely recognized as an independent field of scientific research. For the first time, managers - practitioners and scientists saw that the methods and approaches used in science and technology can be effectively used in achieving the goals of the organization.
Administrative or classical school of management
The development of the administrative school took place in two directions - the rationalization of production and the study of management problems. The main concern of representatives of the classical school is to achieve the efficiency of the entire organization as a whole. The goal of this school is to create universal principles of management, the implementation of which will certainly lead to success (we can highlight the works of G. Emerson (1853–1931), A. Fayol (1841–1925), L. Urwick (1891–1983), M. Weber ( 1864–1920), H. Ford (1863–1947). In our country, in the early 20s, active research work began in the field of scientific organization of labor, management in all sectors of the national economy and the state apparatus. Great contribution to the development of science The management was contributed by scientists A. A. Bogdanov (1873–1928), A. K. Gastev (1882–1941), P. M. Kerzhentsev (1881–1940), N. A. Voznesensky (1903–1950), etc.
G. Emerson, in his seminal work “The Twelve Principles of Productivity” (1911), examined the principles of enterprise management and substantiated them with examples from other industries. The concept of productivity or efficiency is the main one that Emerson introduced into the science of management. He was the first to raise the question of production efficiency in a broad sense. Emerson substantiated the question of the necessity and expediency, in modern terms, of using an integrated, systematic approach to solving multifaceted practical problems of organizing production management and all activities in general.
The French mining engineer A. Fayol made a significant contribution to management science. In his main work, “General and Industrial Management” (1916), he developed an approach to analyzing the activities of administration and formulated some strictly binding principles of management. The founders of the scientific direction in management developed production problems. Fayol pointed out the importance of the managerial role of the administrator. He wrote that management is significant in administrative activities - coordinating the affairs of large and small industrial, commercial, political, religious and any other organizations. Analyzing the administrative function, he identified five elements:
1) to foresee, i.e. take into account the future and develop a program of action;
2) organize, i.e. build a double – material and social – organism of the enterprise;
3) dispose, i.e. force staff to work properly;
4) coordinate, i.e. connect, unite, harmonize all actions and efforts;
5) control, i.e. make sure that everything is done according to established rules and orders. Fayol's merit is also the conclusion that not only engineering and technical workers, but also every member of society needs to understand the principles of administrative activity.
A representative of the classical administrative school, L. Urwick developed and deepened the main provisions of Fayol. He formulated the basic elements of administrative activities: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating and budgeting. He paid main attention to the development of principles for building a formal organization, which have not lost their relevance to this day: If Fayol explored the functional aspect of management, then M. Weber developed the institutional aspect. His main work, “The Theory of Society and Economic Organization” (1920), is devoted to an analysis of the problem of leadership and the bureaucratic structure of power in an organization. Weber identified three main types of organizations depending on the nature of the power that the leader has: charismatic, traditional and ideal (or bureaucratic). The characteristics of an ideal (bureaucratic) organization proposed by Weber made it possible to identify certain parameters of the organization and determine the directions for the formation of its activities.
In our country, studies have been carried out that can be attributed to the school of management. A. A. Bogdanov, in his work “General Organizational Science” (1913–1917), noted that all types of management in nature, society, and technology have common features. He sought to introduce a “special organizational science” into practice, to define its subject, laws, and main categories. A number of concepts developed by A. A. Bogdanov are used to construct mathematical models of economic processes and solve economic planning problems.
Another representative of domestic science, A.K. Gastev, emphasized that attempts to create a so-called organizational science without connection with specific trends in mechanized mass production are inevitably doomed to failure. He paid the main attention in his works to the rational organization and culture of work, laying the foundation for an integrated approach to management theory. P. M. Kerzhentsev developed the foundations of the scientific organization of labor in a somewhat different direction. He understood the scientific organization of labor as the study of organizational techniques and the most rational methods of organizational work. At the same time, he focused his research on managing people and teams, regardless of their field of activity.
Theoretical principles of management are reflected in the domestic literature. The monograph “The Theory of Management of Socialist Production” identifies 10 principles: the principles of democratic centralism, unity of political and economic leadership, planned economic management, material and moral incentives for labor, scientific management, responsibility, economy and efficiency, optimal combination of sectoral and territorial management, continuity of economic decisions.
The founders of scientific management and the administrative school recognized the importance of the human factor; they focused their main attention on two factors - fairness in pay and economic incentives. In the 20–30s. under the influence of the beginning of the transition from extensive to intensive methods of management, there is a need to search for new forms of management, more humane in relation to people, and a school of “human relations” is being formed. The school's researchers proceeded from the fact that if management shows greater concern for its employees, then the level of satisfaction among employees with their activities increases, which naturally leads to an increase in labor productivity. According to the American scientist P. Drucker, only human resources are capable of producing economic results; all other resources are subject to the laws of mechanics, they can be better used, but their output will never be greater than the sum of the inputs. He saw the main task in eliminating depersonalized relationships and replacing them with a system of partnership and cooperation.
The goal of the supporters of this school is to try to control by influencing the system of socio-psychological factors.
The classical school, like those who wrote about scientific management, was not very concerned with the social aspects of management. Moreover, their work was largely based on personal observations rather than based on scientific methodology. The "classics" tried to look at organizations from a broad perspective, trying to determine the general characteristics and patterns of organizations. The goal of the classical school was to create universal principles of management. In doing so, she proceeded from the idea that following these principles would undoubtedly lead the organization to success.
These principles covered two main aspects. One of them was the development of a rational system for managing an organization. By defining the main functions of a business, the “classical” theorists were confident that they could determine by rays the way to divide the organization into divisions or work groups. Traditionally, these functions have been finance, production and marketing. The definition of the main management functions was closely related to this. Fayol's main contribution to management theory was that he viewed management as a universal process consisting of several interrelated functions such as planning and organization.
The second category of classical principles concerned the construction of the organization's structure and employee management. An example is the principle of unity of command, according to which a person should receive orders from only one superior and obey only him alone. The example is a concise summary of Henri Fayol's 14 principles of management, many of which are still practically useful today, despite changes that have occurred since Fayol first formulated them.
Fayol's principles of management.
1. Division of labor. Specialization is the natural order of things.
The purpose of the division of labor is to perform work that is larger in volume and better in quality with the same effort. This is achieved by reducing the number of goals to which attention and effort must be directed.
2. Authority and responsibility. Authority is the right to give orders, and responsibility is its opposite. Where authority is given, responsibility arises.
3. Discipline. Discipline involves obedience and respect for agreements reached between the company and its employees. Establishing these agreements between the firm and the workers from whom disciplinary formalities arise must remain one of the main tasks of industry leaders. Discipline also involves fair application of sanctions.
4. Unity of command. An employee must receive orders only from one immediate superior.
5. Unity of direction. Each group operating within the same goal must be united by a single plan and have one leader.
6. Subordination of personal interests to general interests. The interests of one employee or group of employees should not prevail over the interests of the company or larger organization.
7. Personnel remuneration. In order to ensure the loyalty and support of workers, they must receive a fair wage for their service.
8. 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.
9. Scalar chain. A scalar chain is a series of individuals in leadership positions, starting from the person occupying the highest position in the chain down to the lowest level manager. It would be a mistake to abandon a hierarchical system unless absolutely necessary, but it would be an even greater mistake to maintain that hierarchy when it is detrimental to business interests.
10. Order. There is a place for everything and everything is in its place.
11. Justice. Justice is a combination of kindness and justice.
12. Stability of the workplace for staff. High staff turnover reduces the effectiveness of the organization. A mediocre manager who hangs on to his job is certainly preferable to an outstanding, talented manager who quickly leaves and does not hold on to his job.
13. Initiative. Initiative means developing a plan and ensuring its successful implementation. This gives the organization strength and energy.
14. Corporate spirit. Union is strength. And it is the result of staff harmony.
School of "human relations"
The "human relations" school was an attempt by management to view every organization as a "social system." The founder of this school, E. Mayo (1880–1949), believed that the organization has a unified social structure. And the task of management is to, in addition to formal dependencies between members of the organization, develop fruitful informal connections that affect performance results. According to the definition of one of the founders of the school of human relations, F. Roethlisberger, an informal organization represents actions, values, norms, beliefs and informal rules, as well as a complex network of social connections, types of membership and centers. W. French and C. Bell, for example, compare an organization to an iceberg, in the underwater part of which there are various elements of the informal system, and in the upper part - the formal aspects of the organization. This emphasizes the priority of this system over officially established relationships in the organization.
The achievement of Mayo and his followers in the analysis of informal structure was to demonstrate the need to expand the boundaries of organizational analysis beyond the boundaries of the job structure.
Within the framework of the school of “human relations” a number of theories have been formed. Among them, one can highlight, first of all, “Theory X” and “Theory Y” by D. McGregor (1906–1964). The author of this theory in the book “The Human Side of the Enterprise” put forward in 1960 the following two provisions characterizing managers’ ideas about the attitude of workers to work. One of them is “Theory X”. The average individual is dull, lazy, and strives to avoid work at the first opportunity, so it is necessary to constantly push him and threaten him with punishment so that he works hard to achieve the company's goals. The average person prefers to be led, tends to avoid responsibility, is relatively unambitious, and is most concerned about his own safety. "Theory Y" covers the production process somewhat differently. The expenditure of physical and mental effort of a person in the process of work is as natural as in games and on vacation. The average individual, given appropriate training and conditions, not only accepts responsibility, but strives for it.
Of particular interest is the theory of motivational hygiene of F. Herzberg, set out in his book “Work and the Essence of Man” (1960). It is based on the thesis that satisfying work contributes to a person’s psychological health. The most popular theory is the theory of the hierarchy of needs by A. Maslow, author of the book “Motivation and Personality” (1954). He proposed a classification of an individual's goals and ranking them in order of importance. He identified five types of needs: physiological need, need for safety, need to belong to a social group, need for self-respect, and need for self-esteem.
One of the first representatives of domestic management science who joined the school of human relations is N. A. Vitke. He believed that management consists of an appropriate combination of human wills. A leader, in his opinion, is first and foremost a social technician or engineer - depending on his position in the organizational system - a builder of human relations. The essence of management is to create a favorable socio-psychological atmosphere in teams, the so-called. "spirit of the hive."
A distinctive feature of the “human relations” school is analysis at the level of small groups, and even more often at the level of individuals. The shortcomings of Mayo and his followers, according to L. Urwick, are primarily expressed in the fact that the Mayonists discovered a loss of awareness of the specifics of large social and technological systems, adhered to the premise that workers could be manipulated into driving them into the existing industrial framework. They assumed that cooperation and collaboration were natural and desirable, bypassing the much more complex issues of social conflict. Moreover, they confused ends and means, suggesting that pleasure and happiness in the future would lead workers to harmonious balance and organizational success.
The first to combine the classical and behavioral directions of management into a single science was P. Drucker. He is the founder of the widely known school of rational management. According to Drucker's definition, management links three elements: the business area, the organization (firm) and the personality of the manager. This triangle is recognized by supporters of both rigid administration within the classical approach and flexible behavioral direction. At the same time, each side views the triangle from its own positions. Drucker's merit lies in the fact that he organically combined these approaches.
Mathematics School of Management
The mathematical school of management (sometimes called the theory of quantitative management methods) was formed in the early 40s, primarily in the management of troops during the 2nd World War. Then the tested quantitative methods were transformed in relation to the management of civil organizations. The school of mathematics is characterized by the use of operations research and modeling in management. Essentially this is a school of quantitative methods for solving management and production problems. Operations research in management is the application of quantitative methods to the operational problems of an organization. The authors of Fundamentals of Management point out that a key characteristic of this school is the replacement of verbal reasoning and descriptive analysis with models, symbols and quantitative indicators.
The formation and development of this school is associated with such names as R. Ackoff, S. Beer, D. Forrester, etc. Along with operations research and modeling, a systematic approach to management problems based on systems analysis is being developed within this school, which led to the creation "System Engineering" Mathematics, statistics, engineering and related fields of knowledge have made significant contributions to control theory. Their influence can be seen in F. Taylor's use of the scientific method in analyzing work. But before the Second World War, quantitative methods were not used enough in management. The British had to find a way to make the most effective use of their limited number of fighters and air defenses in order to avoid destruction during massive air strikes. Later, it was necessary to look for a way to maximize military supplies to support the Allied landings in Europe. Quantitative methods, grouped under the general name of operations research, were used to solve these and other problems, including submarine warfare and the mining of Japanese ports.
Research of operations and models. At its core, operations research is the application of scientific research methods to the operational problems of an organization. Once the problem is stated, the operations research team develops a model of the situation. A model is a form of representing reality. Typically, a model simplifies reality or represents it abstractly. Models make it easier to understand the complexities of reality. Models developed in operations research simplify complex problems by reducing the number of variables to a manageable number.
After creating the model, the variables are given quantitative values.
This allows each variable and the relationship between them to be objectively compared and analyzed. The key character of management science is the replacement of verbal reasoning and descriptive analysis with models, symbols and quantitative values. The biggest impetus for the use of quantitative methods in management came from the development of computers. Computers have enabled operations researchers to construct mathematical models of increasing complexity that more closely approximate reality and are more accurate.
Impact of the quantitative approach. The influence of management science or the quantitative approach has been much less than that of the behavioral sciences, in part because many more managers are confronted on a daily basis with problems of human relations, human behavior, than with the problems that are the subject of operations research. Moreover, until the 1960s, few managers had the education to understand and apply complex quantitative methods. This situation is changing rapidly as more and more business schools offer courses in computer-assisted quantitative methods.
The development of management as a scientific discipline took place in an evolutionary way. Clearly distinguishable schools of management thought developed in the first half of the 20th century. Chronologically they can be presented in the following order:
The founder of the school of scientific management, F. Taylor, tried to find an answer to the question: how to make a worker work like a machine? Representatives of this school created the scientific foundations of production and labor management. In the 1920s From this scientific direction, independent sciences emerged: scientific organization of labor (SLO), theory of production organization, etc.
The goal of the classical (administrative) school was to create universal principles and methods for successfully managing an organization. The founders of this school, A. Fayol and M. Weber, developed the principles and methods of managing an organization and wanted the entire organization to work like a machine.
The school of human relations placed the main emphasis on the team, on increasing attention to the social needs of workers. The school of behavioral science focused on methods of establishing interpersonal relationships, motivation, leadership, and the study of the individual abilities of individual workers.
A key characteristic of the quantitative school is the replacement of verbal reasoning with models, symbols, and quantities. It is based on the achievements of such sciences as mathematics, cybernetics, statistics; on the use of mathematical methods and models in the preparation of management decisions.
From the very beginning, we strived to find the most productive use of human and material resources.
The basis of the theories of this school is the idea of rationalization of all components of the organization, the orientation of all structural units of the organization towards its goals, and general expediency.
The achievement of general expediency and rationality in the organization is primarily served by a rigid hierarchy of management of all organs and positions of the organization, which facilitates the implementation of the tightest possible comprehensive control.
Frederick W. Taylor(1856-1915) is considered the father of the classical theory of scientific management. The formation of the school of scientific management is associated with the publication in 1911 of his book “Principles of Scientific Management”. He was the first to substantiate the need for a scientific approach to management for the most productive use of human and material resources. Taylor was not interested in the effectiveness of the individual, but of the organization. His approach to improving organizational management prioritizes engineering solutions.
His theory provided for the unilateral influence of the management system on the employee and his subordination to the manager. Taylor considered the incentive and driving forces of work activity to be receipt of material rewards for work and interest in personal economic gain.
Taylor put forward four scientific principles of management:
Taylor's ideas were developed by his followers - G. Gant, F. Gilbraith, G. Emerson.
The concept of scientific management was the turning point in which management was recognized as an independent field of scientific research.
The merits of the school of scientific management are that its representatives:
However, the human factor practically remained outside the scope of attention of this school.
She pursued goals such as increasing the efficiency of large groups of people and creating universal management principles that affected two main aspects:
Henri Fayol(1841 - 1925), French sociologist, is considered the founder of the administrative school of management. Fayol's merit was that he divided all management functions into general, related to any field of activity, and specific, related directly to the management of an enterprise.
According to Fayol, it is first necessary to create a well-thought-out structure, where there is no duplication of functions and unnecessary levels of management, and then look for suitable employees, i.e. the principle of employees matching the structure.
Classic organization model, formed on the basis of the developments of Fayol and his followers, is based on four principles:
Thus, according to the classical theory of organization, the latter must be built around the employees.
Max Weber(1864-1920), a German sociologist, at about the same time, analyzed the activities of bureaucratic systems, built a model of an ideal bureaucracy based on strictly regulated principles of a hierarchical structure, and formulated the concept of rational management. From his point of view, the ideal, most effective management system is bureaucratic. Bureaucracy in an organization is characterized by:
Weber's most important idea adopted in management was the concept of social action.
According to this concept, the basis of social order in society consists only of socially oriented and rational actions, and the task of members of the organization should be considered
their understanding of their own goals and subsequent optimization of their own activities. Every action of an employee in an organization must be rational from the point of view of both fulfilling his own role and achieving the overall goal of the organization. Rationality is the highest meaning and ideal of any enterprise or institution, and an ideal organization is characterized by extremely rational technology, communications and management.
However, the administrative school of management is characterized by ignoring people and their needs. Its proponents tried to increase the efficiency of the organization bypassing the person, by performing administrative procedures to manage the formal side of the organization. As a result, the administrative school, while recognizing the importance of the human factor, failed to recognize the importance of the effectiveness of labor motivation.
Concept ""- a new school of management theory - begins to develop in the 1930s. This school arose in response to the failure of the classical school to recognize the human factor as a fundamental element of effective organization and management. Lack of attention to the human factor had a negative impact on the performance of “lean organizations”, which were unable to improve efficiency despite the availability of resources.
Elton Mayo(1880-1949), an employee of Harvard University, has a special place in the creation of the theory of “human relations”. This American sociologist and psychologist conducted a series of experiments called the “Hawthorne experiments.” Studying the influence of such factors as conditions, organization, wages, interpersonal relationships, leadership style, he concluded about the special role of the human factor in production.
The “Hawthorne experiments” laid the foundation for research into: relationships in organizations, taking into account psychological influences in groups, identifying motivation to work in interpersonal relationships, identifying the role of an individual and a small group in an organization.
Thus, the beginning of the use of sociology and sociological research in personnel management was laid; in contrast to the approach to the employee from the standpoint of biologism, when mainly such employee resources as physical strength, skills, and intelligence are exploited (scientific and administrative schools of management), a member of the organization began to be considered from the point of view of a socio-psychological approach.
The motives for people’s actions are mainly not economic factors, as supporters of the scientific school of management believed, but various needs that can only be partially satisfied with money.
According to W. White, which he expressed in the book “Money and Motivation,” the classical concept is based on three false assumptions:
Mayo and his followers were convinced that the conflict between a person and an organization can be completely resolved if the social and psychological needs of workers are satisfied, and entrepreneurs will only benefit, since labor productivity increases sharply.
In general, the essence of the doctrine of “human relations” can be reduced to the following provisions:
M. Follett(1868-1933) was a prominent representative of this school. Her main merit is that she tried to combine the ideas of three schools of management - scientific management, administrative and the school of human relations.
The essence of M. Follett’s concept is as follows:
Follett believed that conflict in work groups is not always destructive; in some cases it can be constructive. She identified three types of conflict resolution:
The effectiveness of management, according to supporters of the concept of “human relations”, is determined by: informal structure and, above all, a small group, interaction of workers, general control, self-discipline, opportunities for creative growth, collective reward, rejection of narrow specialization, rejection of unity of command, democratic leadership style, compliance of the organization's structure with employees, and not vice versa.
Supporters of the concept of “human relations” were unanimous in the opinion that a rigid hierarchy of subordination and formalization of organizational processes are incompatible with human nature.
Thus, the human relations school focused on the human factor in achieving organizational effectiveness. But the problem has not been fully resolved.
School of Behavioral Sciences significantly moved away from the school of human relations, focusing primarily on methods for establishing human relations. The main goal of the school was to increase the efficiency of the organization by increasing its human resources.
R. Likert, D. McGregor, A. Maslow, F. Herzberg are the most prominent representatives of the behavioral (behaviorist) direction. They studied various aspects of social interaction, motivation, the nature of power and authority, leadership, organizational structure, communication in the organization, changes in the content of work and quality of work life.
According to A. Maslow, a person has one system (hierarchy) of needs, and according to F. Herzberg, two are qualitatively different and independent:
External factors can ease internal tension in an organization, but their influence is short-term and cannot lead to profound changes in employee behavior.
Herzberg considered the most powerful incentives for labor efficiency not “a good salary,” but interest in work and involvement in the work process. Without money, people feel unsatisfied, but with it they will not necessarily feel happy and increase their productivity.
Excessive division of work into fractional operations, according to Herzberg, deprives a person of a sense of completion and completeness of work, leads to a decrease in the level of responsibility, suppression of the employee’s actual abilities, a feeling of meaninglessness of work, and a drop in job satisfaction.
It is not the person who should be adapted to the work, but the work should correspond to the individual abilities of the person. This idea was subsequently embodied in adaptive, flexible organizations and network companies.
Main achievements Schools of behavioral sciences are considered:
This direction in control theory became possible thanks to the development of such sciences as mathematics, cybernetics, statistics.
Representatives of this school are: L.V. Kantorovich (Nobel Prize laureate), V.V. Novozhilov, L. Bertalanffy, R. Ackoff, A. Goldberger and others.
The school of quantitative methods proceeds from the fact that mathematical methods and models make it possible to describe various business processes and the relationships between them. Therefore, it is advisable to solve problems arising in an organization’s business processes on the basis of operations research and mathematical models.
The thesis “science reaches perfection only when it manages to use mathematics” is the basis for assigning another name to this school: “school of management science.” This school applied economics-mathematical methods, operations research theory, statistics, cybernetics and the like to solve management problems, thereby making a significant contribution to the development of management science.
Operations research— application of scientific research methods to the operational problems of the organization. With this approach, the problem is clarified at the beginning of the study. Then a situation model is developed. After its creation, the variables are given quantitative values and the optimal solution is found.
Currently, quantitative management methods are receiving new development due to the widespread use of computers. The computer has enabled operations researchers to construct mathematical models of increasing complexity that are closer to reality and therefore more accurate.
A key characteristic of the school is the replacement of verbal reasoning with models, symbols and quantitative values.
Further development of mathematical modeling methods was reflected in the emergence of decision-making theory. Initially, this theoretical direction was based on the use of algorithms for developing optimal solutions. Later, quantitative (applied and abstract) models of economic phenomena began to be used, such as the cost and output model, the model of scientific, technical and economic development, etc.
Contribution of the school of management science to management theory.
The influence of the management science school is growing as it is seen as complementary to the existing and widely used conceptual framework of process, systems and situational approaches.
To date, four important approaches are known that have made a significant contribution to the development of management theory and practice. Chronologically, the schools are arranged as follows: School of Scientific Management, School of Administration, School of Psychology and Human Relations, and School of Management Science (or Quantitative School).
Scientific management (1885-1920) is most closely associated with the work of Taylor, Frank and Lilia Gilbreath and Henry Gantt - who believed that by exploring observation, measurement, logic and analysis, many manual labor operations could be improved, making them more efficient.
Based on the information they received, they modified work procedures to eliminate unnecessary, unproductive movements and, using standard procedures, sought to improve work efficiency. They used incentives to motivate workers to increase productivity and production volumes. The school advocated the separation of the managerial functions of thinking and planning from the actual execution of work. This school recognized that management work was a specialty and that the organization would benefit if each group of workers focused on what it did best. Contribution of the school to the development of management theory:
1) Using scientific analysis to determine the best ways to complete a task.
2) Selecting workers best suited to perform tasks and providing them with training.
3) Providing workers with the resources required to effectively perform their tasks.
4) Systematic and correct use of financial incentives to increase productivity.
5) Separation of planning as an independent area of activity.
Classical (administrative) (1920-1950) Representatives: Henri Fayol, Alfred Sloan, Lyndall Urwick, etc. Representatives of this direction had experience as senior managers in big business. Their main concern was efficiency in relation to the work of the entire organization, improving the management of the organization as a whole. At the same time, they did not care much about the social aspects of management.
The goal of the school is to create universal management principles. In doing so, she proceeded from the idea that following these principles would undoubtedly lead the organization to success.
These principles affected two aspects: - development of a rational management system for the organization; - building the structure of the organization and employee management. Contribution to the development of management theory:
1) Development of management principles.
2) Description of control functions
3) Systematized approach to managing the entire organization
Human Relations School (1930-1950) The human relations movement arose in response to the failure to recognize the human factor as a fundamental element of effective organizations. It arose as a reaction to the shortcomings of the classical approach, which is why this school is sometimes called neoclassical. Representatives: Marie Parker Follett and Elton Mayo.
Follett was the first to define management as getting work done with the help of others.
Representatives of this direction concluded that the motives for people’s actions are different needs. Based on this, they believed that if management shows more concern for its employees, then the level of employee satisfaction should increase, which will lead to increased productivity. They recommended the use of human relations management techniques, including more effective action by supervisors, consultation with employees and providing them with greater opportunities for communication at work.
Behavioral Sciences. Developments in psychology and sociology have made the study of workplace behavior more scientific. Representatives: Chris Argyris, Douglas McGregor, Frederick Hertzbert.
Representatives of this direction studied social interaction, motivation, the nature of power, communications in organizations, and leadership. The main goal is to increase the efficiency of the organization by increasing the efficiency of its human resources. They advocated the “one best way”, which, as it turned out later, did not always work. Contribution to the development of management theory:
1) Apply interpersonal relationship management techniques to improve satisfaction and productivity.
2) Application of the sciences of human behavior to the management and shaping of organizations so that every employee can be utilized to his full potential.
Management Science (Quantitative Approach) (1950-...) The key characteristic is the replacement of verbal reasoning and descriptive analysis with models, symbols and quantitative values. Impact: 1. Increased understanding of complex management problems through the development and application of models 2. Development of quantitative methods to assist managers making decisions in complex situations.
A key characteristic of management science is the replacement of verbal reasoning and descriptive analysis with models, symbols and quantitative values.
The impetus for the development of the school was the advent of computers.
Operations research ultimately became an independent branch of science, which develops in 2 main directions:
1 Associated with the construction of mathematical models of phenomena most encountered in management.
2 - Attention to the system being studied, which led to the creation of the T system.
Subsequently, this school formed an independent scientific direction - the theory of management decisions. Currently, research in the field of this theory is aimed at developing:
1. Methods of mathematical modeling of decision-making processes in teams.
2. Algorithms for developing optimal solutions using the theory of statistical decisions of game theory.
3. Quantitative, applied and abstract mathematical models of economic phenomena
Modern views on management theory, the foundation of which was laid by scientific schools of management, are very diverse. The article will tell you about the leading foreign management schools and the founders of management.
Management has an ancient history, but management theory began to develop only at the beginning of the 20th century. The emergence of management science is credited to Frederick Taylor (1856-1915). The founder of the school of scientific management, Taylor, along with other researchers, initiated the study of the means and methods of management.
Revolutionary thoughts about management and motivation arose before, but were not in demand. For example, the project of Robert Owen (early 19th century) turned out to be very successful. His factory in Scotland was highly profitable by creating working conditions that encouraged people to work efficiently. Workers and their families were provided with housing, worked in better conditions, and were encouraged with bonuses. But businessmen of that time were not ready to follow Owen.
In 1885, in parallel with Taylor's school, an empirical school arose, whose representatives (Drucker, Ford, Simons) were of the opinion that management is an art. And successful leadership can only be based on practical experience and intuition, but is not a science.
It was in the United States at the dawn of the 20th century that favorable conditions arose in which the evolution of scientific schools of management began. A huge labor market has formed in a democratic country. Access to education has helped many smart people show their qualities. The development of transport and economics contributed to the strengthening of monopolies with a multi-level management structure. New ways of leadership were required. In 1911, Frederick Taylor's book, The Principles of Scientific Management, was published, marking the beginning of research into the new science of management.
The father of modern management, Frederick Taylor, proposed and systematized the laws of rational organization of work. With the help of research, he conveyed the idea that work needs to be studied
The system created by Taylor is considered more applicable to the lower management level when diversifying and expanding production. The Taylor School of Scientific Management created a scientific foundation to replace outdated practical methods of work. The school's supporters included researchers such as F. and L. Gilbert, G. Gantt, Weber, G. Emerson, G. Ford, G. Grant, O.A. Yermansky.
Frank and Lillian Gilbreth studied factors affecting productivity. To record movements during operations, they used a movie camera and a device of their own invention (microchronometer). Research allowed us to change the course of work, eliminating unnecessary movements.
The Gilbreths applied standards and equipment in production, which later led to the emergence of work standards that were introduced by scientific schools of management. F. Gilbreth studied factors influencing labor productivity. He divided them into three groups:
As a result of his research, Gilbert came to the conclusion that movement factors are the most significant.
The main provisions of the school of scientific management were finalized by Max Weber. The scientist formulated six principles for the rational functioning of an enterprise, which consisted of rationality, instruction, regulation, division of management, regulation of functions and subordination to a common goal.
F. Taylor's school of scientific management and his work were continued by the contribution of Henry Ford, who complemented Taylor's principles by standardizing all processes in production, dividing operations into stages. Ford mechanized and synchronized production, organizing it on the principle of a conveyor belt, due to which the cost decreased by 9 times.
Miss Follett was the first to come up with the idea that management is about getting work done through other people. She believed that a manager should not only formally treat subordinates, but should become a leader for them.
Mayo proved through experiments that clear standards, instructions and decent wages do not always lead to increased productivity, as the founder of the school of scientific management, Taylor, believed. Team relationships often surpass the efforts of management. For example, the opinion of colleagues can become a more important incentive for an employee than instructions from a manager or financial reward. Thanks to Mayo, a social philosophy of management was born.
Mayo carried out his experiments for 13 years at the Horton plant. He proved that group influence can change people's attitudes toward work. Mayo advised the use of spiritual incentives in management, for example, the connection between an employee and colleagues. He urged managers to pay attention to relationships in the team.
The Horton Experiments were the beginning of:
The end of the 50s is a period of degeneration of the school of human relations into the school of behavioral sciences. What came first was not the methods for building interpersonal relationships, but the efficiency of the employee and the enterprise as a whole. Behavioral scientific approaches and schools of management have led to the emergence of a new management function - personnel management.
Significant figures in this direction include: Douglas McGregor, Frederick Herzberg, Chris Argyris, Rensis Likert. The object of the scientists' research was social interactions, motivation, power, leadership and authorities, organizational structures, communications, quality of work life and work. The new approach moved away from methods of establishing relationships in teams, and focused on helping the employee to understand his own capabilities. Behavioral science concepts began to be applied to organization creation and management. Proponents formulated the goal of the school: high efficiency of the enterprise due to the high efficiency of its human resources.
The emergence of the school was due to the development of cybernetics and operations research. An independent discipline arose within the school - the theory of management decisions. Research in this area is related to the development of:
Modern scientific schools of management cannot be imagined without the achievements of the empirical school. Its representatives believed that the main task of management research should be the collection of practical materials and the creation of recommendations for managers. Prominent representatives of the school were Peter Drucker, Ray Davis, Lawrence Newman, Don Miller.
The school contributed to the separation of management as a separate profession and has two directions. The first is research into the problems of enterprise management and the development of modern management concepts. The second is a study of the job responsibilities and functions of managers. “Empiricists” argued that a leader creates something unified from certain resources. When making decisions, he focuses on the future of the enterprise or its prospects.
Any leader is called upon to perform certain functions:
Thus, the activities of a modern manager become complex. The manager must have knowledge from different areas and apply methods proven in practice. The school resolved a number of significant management problems that arise everywhere in large industrial production.
The social school applies the achievements of the school of “human relations” and considers the employee as an individual with a social orientation and needs that are reflected in the organizational environment. The enterprise environment also influences the formation of employee needs.
Prominent representatives of the school include Jane March and Amitai Etzioni. This trend in studying the position and place of a person in an organization has gone further than other scientific schools of management. The postulate of “social systems” can be briefly expressed as follows: the needs of the individual and the needs of the collective are usually far from each other.
Thanks to work, a person gets the opportunity to satisfy his needs level by level, moving higher and higher in the hierarchy of needs. But the nature of the organization is that it often conflicts with moving to the next level. Obstacles that arise in the way of an employee moving towards his goals cause conflicts with the enterprise. The school's goal is to reduce their power through research into organizations as complex sociotechnical systems.
The history of the emergence of “human resource management” dates back to the 60s of the 20th century. The model of sociologist R. Milles considered personnel as a source of reserves. According to the theory, well-functioning management should not become the main goal, as the scientific schools of management preached. Briefly, the meaning of “human management” can be expressed as follows: satisfaction of needs should be the result of the personal interest of each employee.
An excellent company always knows how to retain excellent employees. Therefore, the human factor is an important strategic factor for an organization. This is vital for survival in a challenging market environment. The goals of this type of management include not just hiring, but stimulating, developing and training professional employees who effectively implement organizational goals. The essence of this philosophy is that employees are assets of the organization, capital that does not require much control, but depends on motivation and stimulation.
