History of management thought and its formation. Lectures on the course “Management Theory: History of Management Thought”
For the first time, the process of genesis, formation and development of the centuries-old world history of management thought is reflected in domestic and foreign educational literature. The textbook presents both the origins of management thought dating back to the fifth millennium BC, and the latest concepts and management paradigms of the early 21st century. It outlines not only the history of management science, but also the history of management ideas, views, and theories that arose in order to solve real management problems. For students, teachers and researchers specializing in the field of management of state, public and private organizations. The textbook was prepared with the assistance of the NFPC - the National Fund for Personnel Training within the framework of the program “Improving the teaching of socio-economic disciplines in universities” of the Innovative Education Development Project.
A series: Textbooks of the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov
* * *
by liters company.
Chapter 1. Problems of historical and management research
Management deals not with future decisions, but with the future of today's decisions.
P. Drucker1.1. System of management sciences.
1.2. Problems of research in the history of sciences.
1.3. Specific problems in the history of management thought.
1.1. System of management sciences
At all times, managing organizations has been a complex task that combines elements of science and art. Today, this process has become even more complicated, primarily due to sudden, often unpredictable changes occurring both in the organizations themselves and in external environment. The growth in the volume of knowledge about individual behavior in organizations and social processes, the temporal and spatial extent of business processes, the constant expansion of the information field and the capabilities of information technologies in the management of organizations, the diversity of management decisions and the objective remoteness of their results - all these factors characterize the modern business environment. They, on the one hand, expand opportunities in the areas of activity of organizations, and on the other hand, they emphasize the need to increase the scientific validity of the choice and assessment of the consequences and aftereffects of decisions made. Thus, despite the slogan “Management is dead,” the role of the scientific component in the management of an organization still remains very significant. The epigraph to this chapter emphasizes the importance of minimizing errors in management decisions made today, which is largely ensured by their scientific justification.
This circumstance, in turn, requires both the further development of the methodological foundations of management science and the solution of fundamental problems of management science itself. These include, for example, the still controversial question of the subject of science, a number of categories and concepts of science; the problem of the relationship between management science and other sciences; problems of methods for organizing complex scientific research, the relationship between art and science in management; the problem of measurements in the management of socio-economic objects. Even a quick analysis scientific works and textbooks on management makes it possible to verify the presence of different interpretations of the category “subject of management science”, definitions of the terms “management”, “management”, “organization”, “management system”, “management functions”, “organizational structure”, “management mechanism” , “leadership”, “organizational culture”, “strategic management”, “organizational behavior”, “organizational development”, “change management”, “management effectiveness”.
Several reasons can be pointed out to explain the existence of such a multifaceted state of management science, which, naturally, does not contribute to its development and creates complete confusion in the minds of users of its recommendations. Let us point out only one, but the most important, in our opinion, methodological reason. This - lack of established (real and experimental) procedures for testing the truth of scientific hypotheses and ideas in management science. This reason, in turn, is justified by the methodological specifics of management science - the complexity (and sometimes impossibility) of conducting special repeated management experiments, the fundamental uniqueness, uniqueness of specific real conditions, the difficulty of measuring the characteristics and results of experiments.
This situation is observed in most social sciences. However, there is a way out of this situation; it was discovered a long time ago and it is quite successfully used by some sciences (political economy, history, demography, jurisprudence, etc.). It is as follows. Management research should consider real life process as material for experiment, as empirical material subject to special scientific processing for the purpose of use in the formation of science. At the same time, we do not equate the real life process, i.e., social practice, and management experiment. The relationship here is the same as between “data” and “information” (or between “heritage” and “heritage”). In other words, not every social practice (“data”, “heritage”) is a management experiment (“information”, “heritage”), but every experiment is a purposefully selected and scientifically processed part of social practice.
A managerial experiment requires specific procedures to be carried out on past social practices. In this case, on the basis of certain scientific concepts (or a pattern of reasoning) and in order to solve a given scientific problem, the researcher selects a certain era and region for “conducting” a management experiment, i.e., to collect certain data about social practice, about management activities with the aim of obtaining scientific or scientific-practical results. At the same time, the necessary “multiplicity” of this kind of experiment is realized, firstly, due to the unique property of management as an activity - the property of constant reproduction at all times, and secondly, through an appropriate special study of real facts and processes related to the subject of management science and that took place in various specific periods of time and in specific historical conditions.
Since management as a conscious human activity in organizing production in order to satisfy various kinds of needs has a long history, then, obviously, the knowledge, ideas, views and ideas about the organization of management that constantly accompanied this activity have an equally long history. Studying the history of both real management and management ideas is always necessary and relevant when it comes to the formation of management science, assessing the level of its achievements, and trends in its further development.
Unfortunately, we have to admit that management science is, perhaps, the only social science that still does not carry out targeted historical and management research. You will not find “historical” sections in any classification of the scientific foundations of organization management. In this regard, we believe that due to the uniqueness of the subject and objects of research, historical management research is one of the most important and richest sources for the formation of science and effective management practice. The most important task of management historians is to constantly transform the management heritage, i.e., the rich and largely untouched empirical and theoretical material accumulated by mankind in the field of management of organizations and economic activities, into a theoretical heritage, i.e., into a meaningful, systematized, complete historical and scientific representation (under the title “history of management thought”, IUM).
In table 1.1 provides a classification of the scientific foundations of management, which takes into account the above ideas about historical and management research.
Table 1.1. Classification of scientific foundations of organization management
The fundamental difference between the proposed classification and the previously known ones is the presence in its third part, along with the actual theory of organization management, of two more equal sections: the history of organization management and the history of management thought. Let's introduce key definitions.
Definition 1. The history of organization management is understood as either the process of emergence, development, struggle and change of specific organization management systems (or their individual elements) in specific historical conditions in the past, or a system of scientific knowledge about these processes.
Definition 2. The history of management thought is understood as either the process of emergence, development, struggle and change of teachings, concepts, theories, views, ideas, ideas about the management of an organization (as a whole or its individual functional areas) in various specific historical conditions, or a system of scientific knowledge about these processes.
This textbook will outline the goals, objectives, content and methods of forming the history of management thought, as well as the most important stages and results in the development of IUM. An assessment of the general state of management thought can be expressed in the famous words: “Management has a long past, but a very short history.” Indeed, on the one hand, it is obvious that from the moment the need arose to organize elementary production in order to satisfy human vital needs, the first thoughts and ideas about rational production management appeared. On the other hand, it is also obvious that the history of management thought is still too young as a science. Only in recent decades have special monographs begun to appear in this area, and even more recently, articles whose authors, using extensive historical material, try to determine some patterns, the cyclical occurrence and disappearance of management ideas. Previously, the main source and database of the history of social scientific thought was the history of political, legal, sociological, economic, and ethical teachings. The history of management thought should also take its rightful place in this series.
Based on the current understanding of the subject of management science as relationships that arise in the process of managing an organization, we can formulate some specific areas of historical and management research (see also Appendix 1):
Development of methodological problems of two historical and management sciences (subject, goals, objectives, methods, etc.);
Periodization and cyclicality in the history of management and the history of management thought;
Studying the history of control systems as a structure and process (in general and by individual characteristics and elements of the system);
Research into the organization of established procedures for recording and storing data on ongoing management activities (programs, reforms, transformations, experiments, etc.) with the aim, first of all, of conducting a multiple assessment of these activities before their implementation, during the implementation process and after those goals have been achieved or other results;
Exploring the history of the organization of management research.
Along with the fact that the development of the history of management thought is important for the theory and practice of management, the study of IUM has a very important ideological aspect, because it allows us to understand the nature of science as a phenomenon of universal human culture. The historicity of scientific thinking, the recognition of the situational, concrete historical nature of scientific truths - these are the premises from which historical and managerial research should begin and on the basis of which it should be carried out. Isn’t it interesting to identify the reasons for the emergence in recent decades of literally a flurry of scientific concepts, theories and even schools (such as the “ten schools of strategies” according to G. Mintzberg), many of which then disappeared, which is not the case in any other branch of human scientific and practical activity? In this regard, we will also be interested in the questions: “Who or what moves the minds of management gurus, creators of ideas and theoretical concepts of management? Why yesterday we proclaimed management by objectives, and today with no less enthusiasm - strategic management, yesterday - a systematic approach to management, and today - situational, yesterday - restructuring, and today - reengineering and change management, yesterday - training and advanced training of personnel , and today – a self-learning and learning organization, yesterday – cost-driven management, and today – value-based management and knowledge management?”
Perhaps this is due to the fact that management (or management) as a set of theoretical concepts has a purely applied purpose and even a service character, like knowledge constructed, for example, in the interests and at the whim of the pharaohs of an ancient city-state or the owners of a modern company?
Although, at the same time, the modern discussion about the state of health of management (on the topic “Is management alive or dead?”) suggests: isn’t there an analogy here with the continuous process of creating more and more new medications to treat the same human diseases? known for many millennia? It seems that goals and criteria are changing (from “just to survive” through “I want to be cured faster and more reliably” to “to live longer”), and new drugs are appearing. It's the same in business. I constantly want to just “do business”, to this criterion is added “earn money”, then “earn a lot”, then “get out of the crisis”, then “earn a lot, quickly and for a long time”, etc., etc. and each time corresponding management concepts appear. But one should not think that every goal has a means to achieve it. Most likely, each time the goal and criteria, as well as the corresponding means, are adjusted (most often it is necessary to abandon unattainable goals, “lower” the criteria), and “the appropriate time-appropriate means for the adjusted goal” is found, and it turns out that “any new means is a new combination of old, previously known remedies.”
Historiography of IUM. Human society has a large “legacy” in the form of “historical patterns” of management, which are the main material for the formation of management science. Not only should they be treated as illustrative examples of control, but they should also be used to verify theoretical control concepts.
Having some experience in conducting historical and scientific research, we can assert that in the history of social thought, repeated attempts have been made to begin to develop the history of management thought. The first works in this area appeared in the 18th–19th centuries. In the works of Russian and foreign scientists of the 18th century. and especially the 19th century. in civil history, legal history, sociology, economics, politics, state affairs, there are chapters and entire sections containing historical analysis of the development of management thought. It sometimes begins with an analysis of treatises by thinkers of the Ancient world, in which issues of organizing management of the state economy were posed and resolved.
Among the works of Russian authors, it should be noted, first of all, the works of N.N. Rozhdestvensky, I.I. Platonova, V.N. Leshkova, I.K. Babsta, I.E. Andreevsky, B.N. Chicherina, V.A. Goltseva, E.N. Berendtsa, A.V. Gorbunova, V.V. Ivanovsky.
At the beginning of the 20th century. the works of F. Taylor, F. and L. Gilbret, F. Parkhorst, G. Gant, D. Gartness, A. Fayol appeared, which together formed a new direction in management thought - scientific management. Naturally, the attention of Russian scientists and practitioners was attracted by these works, many of which were translated into Russian. At the beginning of the 20th century, journal articles and monographs containing assessments began to appear in Russia scientific management, which can be attributed to the historiography of the IUM. The authors of these works were A.K. Gastev, N.A. Vitke, O.A. Yermansky, V.V. Dobrynin, F.R. Dunaevsky and others.
Over the years, not many monographic works have appeared in Soviet scientific literature that could be classified as the historiography of IUM. Among them are the works of O.A. Deineko, D.M. Berkovich, D.M. Gvishiani, D.M. Kruka, Yu.L. Lavrikova, E.B. Koritsky. All of them are devoted to the history of Soviet management thought (ISUM), with the exception of the work of D.M. Gvishiani, dedicated to the history of foreign management theories of the 20th century, and the work of D.N. Bobrysheva and S.P. Sementsov, who also briefly described the trends of the pre-revolutionary period.
At the same time, many articles have appeared characterizing certain periods in the development of management thought. Of the major foreign works, it is worth mentioning the works of K.S. George “History of Management Thought” and D.A. Ren's The Evolution of Management Thought, written in a popular style, contains a lot of valuable information about little-known works on the theory of production management. Unfortunately, in these works K.S. George and D.A. Ren says nothing about the development of management thought in Russia.
The study of different periods of development of IUM was clearly not the same in terms of the depth and breadth of issues mastered. If we talk, for example, about Soviet authors, then, not surprisingly, they conducted the most in-depth research on foreign IUM and to a much lesser extent on domestic IUM. And if the history of Soviet management thought has received its rightful place in the science of organization management, then there is practically no research on the development of management thought in Russia before the 20th century. The main reason for such incompleteness of research on IUM is, as already noted, that the history of management thought has not yet become a historical-scientific direction recognized in the scientific world.
About the epistemology of IUM. The study of a specific management system (state, national economy, social production, organization) must necessarily follow the principle of scientific historicism, according to which the process of cognition is structured as follows.
First of all, it is necessary to identify the socio-economic reasons for the emergence of the management system under study (or its individual element), then to study its functioning and development depending on the identified reasons in specific historical conditions, and finally, to establish significant differences and similarities, functional connections and relationships of the present (studied) state of the system with the past, detect and evaluate their manifestations in subsequent states of the control system.
Depending on the objectives of scientific research, historical facts and management experience can be used for different purposes:
firstly, to illustrate the explanation of scientific thought, interpretations of practical details of management that elude a purely theoretical, abstract presentation of the research material;
secondly, to prove, confirm the possibility of the existence of any element (or system) of organization management and (or) the effectiveness of a scientific and practical tool;
thirdly, to assert the consistency (or vice versa) of any theoretical management concept.
The historical management experience used in the first case will be called historical model of management, in the second – historical evidence in third - historical prediction. Let us note that the methods of presentation and presentation of historical experience in scientific research are different in these three cases. In the first case, it is usually enough just to mention a historical fact, sometimes with some details. In the second, for proof it is enough to indicate a historical fact, but it must be reliable and plausible. In the third case, the most important for the development of management science, historical experience control must be deployed in detail and thoroughly in time and space, reproduced in the smallest details relevant to the stated and proven theoretical statement.
The epistemological meaning of the term “historical prediction” introduced by us is that the researcher, knowing a historically accomplished fact or the result of a process, turning to the past, restores in detail the specific historical conditions and environment and, relying on a certain theoretical scheme of reasoning, logically consistently predicts the accomplishment fact or result of a process as a necessary outcome of the analyzed process.
The term “prediction” is also justified because a theoretical management concept tested on historical material (if it is consistent) can be reasonably used in the future to predict the development of a management system, which is the practical meaning of management science.
Of course, the most complex and difficult for a researcher is the process of forming historical facts used in their third capacity. And one of the difficulties that awaits a modern researcher of the history of management along this path lies in the specifics of the main scientific method - “observation”, because basically only the text (often of a non-scientific nature) has to be “observed”. Let's consider ways to solve problems that arise at this stage of the study.
1.2. Problems of research into the history of sciences
Science is a sphere of human activity, the function of which is the development and theoretical systematization of objective knowledge about reality. In the course of historical development, it turns into a productive force. The process of transforming science in general and knowledge in particular into a direct productive force began at the end of the 18th century. with the development of capitalist relations in society and continues successfully to this day. Modern management paradigms - knowledge management, learning organizations, knowledge is power, knowledge-based management, etc. - confirm this.
Under these conditions, the process of changing the self-awareness of science that accompanies its development has become more intense and complex. Science itself becomes the object of complex scientific analysis. Naturally arises and develops scientific studies – a branch that is engaged in research and study of the development of scientific knowledge itself, analyzes the structure and dynamics of scientific activity, the relationship of science with other social institutions and spheres of the material and spiritual life of society.
Among a special set of disciplines, such as the theory of knowledge, psychology of scientific creativity, sociology and economics of science, which study the development of science in various aspects, the history of science occupies an important place.
In connection with the increasing role of science, interest in analyzing the history of science, elucidating the causes, patterns and trends of its development is intensifying. The history of science can and should serve as a starting point, a kind of empirical basis for generalizations of any type - both for creating a general theory of science and for practical recommendations in the field of science management and its organization. Therefore, at present, the development of the history of science as an independent discipline is becoming increasingly relevant.
The world's many years of experience in historical scientific research (HSR) allows us to formulate a number of general methodological problems. In this section we will briefly discuss the most important of them:
Let us characterize three traditional stages in the formation of any INI;
we will indicate the areas of expansion of the problem, we will dwell on the problem of sources;
Experts in the field of historical and scientific research believe that the history of science as an independent scientific discipline was recognized in 1892 in France, where the first special department for the history of science was created. According to data for 2000, there were already about 140 similar departments, 60 research institutes and scientific societies in the world. The number of scientists who have fully devoted themselves to research in this area, that is, professionals in the history of science, has increased significantly, thanks to whom historical and scientific research has turned into an independent branch of knowledge.
Three stages can be distinguished in the development and change of the main content of the history of science. At the first stage - stage of origin The dominant type of historical and scientific research is predominantly a chronological systematization of the successes of a particular branch of science. Almost all histories of science developed to date (histories of physics, mathematics, psychology, sociology, economic doctrines, political and legal doctrines, etc.) have passed through this objectively necessary initial stage of origin. At this stage, the logic of the development of science, the conditions and factors of its movement are usually not revealed. The results of the Institute of Scientific Research often represent a description and enumeration of the “acts” of individual scientists who allegedly worked outside of time and space, which hides the real complex process of development of the science being studied.
At the second stage - formative stage the main attention begins to be paid to describing the development of ideas and problems in a particular field of knowledge, but at the level of filiation of ideas. This is already a step forward in the development of the history of science. In the words of A. Einstein: “The history of science is not the drama of people, but the drama of ideas.” However, the entire complexity of science as a social phenomenon at this stage is still incomprehensible, since in science only the direct, linear, irreversible procession of the human mind is revealed, i.e. scientific ideas exist, as it were, independently of people, their world, relationships, etc. Historians of science at the second stage are completely or almost completely uninterested in either the social background or the personality of the scientist.
At the third stage - stage of development attention to the social and human element of science is increasing. Society, social production, the level of productive forces and the nature of production relations (including relations in the scientific community), the personality of the scientist become the dominant factors in explaining turns in the development of any science, in its history. Today, the goal of historical and scientific research is to clarify the patterns of development of science, taking into account all the causes, conditions and factors contributing to this.
At the same time growth social role science entailed a significant expansion and deepening of the problems of historical and scientific research.
The expansion of research issues in the field of history of science occurred in the following areas.
1. Changing the research task, which now involves not just recreating the past, but also studying it for the sake of better understanding the present and predicting the future. At the same time, the reconstruction of the past turns from the final goal of research into an intermediate stage on the way to achieving it. And the goal is to discover the laws of the development of science.
2. Historical and scientific works increasingly include the social aspect of the history of science: the genesis and development of science in connection with the development of society, change social functions science, its place and role in the history of mankind. Issues such as the interaction of science at different stages of its history with ideology, politics, economics, culture, etc. are covered.
3. An integral part of special historical and scientific analysis is the study of the internal laws of scientific knowledge. In this context, factors, conditions and essence of the process of formation and change of scientific theories, the evolution of the structure of science and its methods, changes in styles of scientific thinking, the language of science and the very concept of “science” are considered.
The history of science, as an actively developing branch of knowledge, gives rise to new methodological problems, the number and variety of which are great. The complexity of the work of a scientist-historian of science lies in the fact that he is forced to reconstruct a complete picture of a distant era in science using scattered and incomplete sources. Scientific work usually contains only the result of the creative research process, and the paths followed by the scientist and the motives for his activities are almost never documented. Even more vague, scattered throughout written materials, written “between the lines” are scientific thoughts, hypotheses, judgments. When studying the history of scientific thought, a researcher should not limit himself to highly specialized works; it is necessary to analyze the entire range of documents and materials that characterize the views of their authors related to a given scientific discipline. And if, moreover, the author is not a scientist, not an expert in the scientific (or scientific-practical) field of activity under study, then one can imagine how difficult the path of finding such sources - carriers of scientific thought, their collection, study, comparison and comparison by indirect data, analysis of selected materials and obtaining objective historical and scientific results from them. A historian of science must be prepared for such painstaking work, for this kind of “historian’s craft.”
In scientific-historical research, it is necessary to understand the originality of thinking of the era under study, to become imbued with its spirit, and to get used to the role of the author under study. And this “rebirth”, “change of roles” has to be done at least as many times as the thinkers of the past are studied. The methodological difficulty also lies in the fact that one cannot limit oneself to describing the development of scientific thought and social development as parallel series. The task, on the contrary, is to specifically reveal in each case the relationship between them, the forms of their interaction, to show how socio-economic, political, ideological, social and cultural-historical conditions, and the scientist’s worldview influence the style and direction of his scientific thinking.
The need to search for the conditions for scientific discoveries determines the inseparability of the historical path itself in the internal logic of the development of science, the interrelation of the historical and the logical.
What methodologically important points in the study of the history of science must be taken into account?
Let us consider how the understanding of the subject and goals of historical scientific research developed and changed in the methodology of the modern historical school in connection with changes in the understanding of both science as a whole and its individual disciplines. First of all, there was an expansion of the subject area by including new aspects of the development of science.
The most ancient and traditional subject in the history of science is development of scientific knowledge, including the development of knowledge of scientific methods.
For a more complete understanding of the development of science, it is necessary to study not only changes in the sphere of scientific knowledge. The subject of historical and scientific research also includes the development of specific relationships between members of the scientific community who are engaged in scientific activities and are in unique historically changing connections with each other. It must be emphasized that the object of consideration in this case is not the entire set of relations between members of the community, which constitutes the subject of sociology and the history of society, but only the development of specific relations that generate scientific knowledge.
From this follows a new definition of the subject of the history of science. It already includes not just the development of scientific knowledge, but development of the scientific community, the history of relations within it, the development of science as an independent institution. In this case, the development of forms of communication between scientists is studied; the history of logical, psychological, ethical and other aspects of the relationship between them; history of scientific schools and scientific publications; history of norms and criteria of value in the scientific community; history of scientific congresses, societies, scientific institutions; history of planning scientific activities, etc.
And finally, at present, science is understood as a functional whole that is included in society, serves its specific needs and is ultimately determined by socio-historical practice. Science is a subsystem of a specific social system, while retaining its specificity and peculiar internal tendencies. The unprecedented financial, economic, moral and political incentives that science receives from society for its development have an invaluable influence on its further progress towards new achievements of scientific and technical knowledge and, conversely, the development of all spheres of society increasingly depends on the development of science. From this follows a completely natural need when studying the history of science to investigate development of “science-society” relations in general and various aspect manifestations of these relations (for example, “science - production”, “science - technology”, “science - culture”, “science - traditions”, “science - national characteristics”, etc.).
Thus, we can distinguish three main subject levels of historical and scientific research:
1) history of scientific knowledge and methods;
2) history of the scientific community and social institute of sciences;
3) history of relations “science – society”.
The subject matter, as well as the goals and methods at each of these levels, differ significantly.
The differences in the subject matter were mentioned above. Let us also note that the subject identified at the previous level is included in the subject of the next level, which does not violate the certain specifics of each level. This circumstance reflects the integrity of the subject area and at the same time its complexity. In specific historical and scientific research, different subject levels are often difficult to separate; more precisely, it is difficult for a researcher to “stay” in one subject area. This complicates the work of historiographers of historical scientific research. In addition to the general goal of identifying patterns in the development of science, specific epistemological research goals are set at each level (for example, finding new scientists and teachings, new scientific communities and connections between them, assessing the influence of certain political, economic and other factors on the development of a particular science and so on.). These goals give rise to corresponding research tasks and methods, leading to changes in the ratio of the importance of the stages of the epistemological process.
Along with the expansion of ideas about the subject, there was a process of conceptualization of understanding the subject of historical scientific research - from vaguely realized intuitive ideas about the subject to a rational reconstruction of the process of development of science (in its history) on the basis of a carefully developed theoretical scheme of the process of development of science. The first attempts were based on a naive (by today's standards) desire to restore “what was,” what was the unique historical reality. The main method was empirical, however, the narrow understanding of the subject when solving more complex problems (to understand the patterns of development of science) inevitably led and leads supporters of a realistic approach to subjective relativism.
The next step in theorizing ideas about the subject of INI is the gradual introduction into the study of an increasing number of political, socio-economic, demographic, general cultural and other factors, identifying the causes of events, taking into account the general laws of the development of science (and not just the often obvious uniqueness of a particular scientific discovery ) and on their basis – a cause-and-effect explanation of the process of development of science. The subject area is specified, and hypothetical “concepts and models of the development of science” are used as research methods, which, in fact, are tested on historical material.
And finally, the very process of theorization, conceptualization of ideas about the subject AND NI can and does become the object of attention and scientific interest of the researcher, gradually turning into a complex and important scientific task. Thus, from identifying the causes and factors (socio-economic, etc.) influencing the development of science, the researcher moves on to their systematization, classification and other ordering processes. This inevitably introduces the researcher into the sphere of so-called extra-source knowledge, that is, into the area of his own ideological position, his ideological and socio-political attitude and class position, into his system of thinking. Differences in extra-source knowledge naturally affect the researcher’s understanding of the subject AND NI, the pattern of his reasoning, at the same time, they lead to the use of a large arsenal of research methods. This is perhaps the most difficult level and stage of generalization of knowledge in the development of a particular science.
A few words about the specific unique property science as an object of scientific research. The fact is that science is a system with reflection, i.e. a system containing its own awareness. Scientists, as creators of science, always try to combine specific research with awareness, comprehension and rational reflection of the essence of their scientific activity in the form of forming goals and setting research objectives, listing and discussing its methods, presenting the logic, stages and results of the research. These, so to speak, “related elements” of scientific research, in fact, represent the quintessence of the main results of the research, reflecting its specificity, novelty, difference from previous, old results, and, in the end, what the historian’s thought is primarily aimed at science (Fig. 1.1).
Naturally, the historian-researcher, who is at the second level of Fig. 1.1, the question arises: how to relate to the reasoning of the first-level researcher, to his assessment and awareness of the results he obtained? Should we ignore this, study and evaluate only the scientific result obtained at the first level in itself, or take into account the self-esteem of the author of the result, trust him, without fear of being captured by this self-esteem?
Rice. 1.1. The relationship between science and the history of science
The complexity of the questions and the importance of answering them are obvious, but the historian of science cannot escape these questions. In order to fully understand these epistemological problems, in addition to knowledge of general ideas about the study of systems with reflection, it is necessary to conduct specific historical and scientific research in order to accumulate experience in working with such systems. It seems to us that in each specific historical-scientific study there is both trust in the author of the scientific concept being studied, and a critical assessment and re-checking of the scientific results put forward. Thus, the historian of science constantly switches from one position to another, finding himself either inside the system with reflection (often consciously), or outside the system, observing this system from the outside. In essence, each time an opponent or reviewer of one or another plays such a dual role. scientific work, dissertation, diploma or course work.
The next level of research - the historiography of scientific studies - is sooner or later generated in the process of accumulating historical and scientific results. Thus, “the history of the history of physics” and “the history of the history of mathematics” are already known; historiographic works in sociology, law, and methodological works on the historiography of scientific knowledge have appeared.
For specialists in the history of management thought, this stage is still ahead, but they need to prepare for it by studying the results of colleagues and accumulating knowledge in the field of historiography of sciences. Let us only note that at this level the subject of research is already systems with double reflection, and this is a new quality, new problems. This textbook contains sections containing material related to the historiography of management thought, but, of course, this is only “material” and not “historiography” itself.
Auditorium of INI. Historical and scientific research is carried out by scientists in each specific field, but together they represent systematic knowledge about the emergence, development and formation of various sciences, which can be united under one concept “history of science”. The separation of the history of science into a scientific discipline has led to the fact that its audience is partly historians of science themselves. As in other disciplines, professionalization has given rise to a specialized literature and specific standards for the selection and training of researchers. To professionals, such standards (for example, careful examination of the primary source) seem obvious and absolutely necessary for a field of study to be scientific. At the same time, due to the abundance of detail and the degree of precision that these standards require, the audience for historians of science is extremely narrowed.
Another consequence of professionalization is the growing disagreement between historians of science and subject scientists of this science (natural scientists, economists, psychologists, lawyers, managers, etc.) regarding the goals of the history of science and who it is intended for, for whom it is being created. Simply put, historians complain that scientists attach less value to historical knowledge compared to natural science, economics, law, etc., and scientists accuse historians of not paying enough attention to what, in their opinion, is the core of science - the progress of true knowledge about nature, society, politics.
These disagreements are related to the dispute about the goals of scientific knowledge, which at one time divided historians and philosophers of science. The main reason was that historians of science, by focusing on collecting evidence about the past and explaining events and views from context, became closer to historians in general and moved away from philosophers, who explained the development of science as the progress of rationality and objective knowledge. While historians wrote about the past, philosophers of science used specific cases to support their epistemological arguments. If the former faced the danger of trivialization of knowledge, then the latter faced the danger of historical unreliability.
As a result, uncertainty about the audience for the history of science remains. This problem is not purely academic; the relationship between scientists and the public and the mediating role of the history of science in it is widely discussed. There is debate about exactly what image of science should be conveyed to a wider audience. This debate intensifies when, as in the case of museum exhibitions, the issue of the image of science has commercial, political or educational implications.
The complexity of the issue is well illustrated by the European Union's initiative to support the history of science. At a conference held in Strasbourg in 1998, entitled “History of Science and Technology and Education in Europe,” several groups with different interests were present. One of them proposed developing the history of science in order to help science teachers (lack of motivation among students is a constant worry for teachers). Another group proposed teaching the history of science to students studying humanities and social sciences, in order to create a generation literate in the history of science and technology in our technological age. Still others sought to teach the history of science to science students in order to instill in them a cultural sensitivity. Finally, the fourth group - the academic one - could be suspected of wanting to continue their highly specialized research and not train anyone at all.
As an example of the heterogeneity of the audience for the history of science, one can cite the process of reviewing books in this scientific field in Great Britain. When books submitted to the Times Literary Supplement (one of the leading book review magazines) land on the science editor's desk, he often selects natural scientists as reviewers, i.e., those who see the purpose of the story science is to serve science. Books on the history of other branches of the humanities are sent for review to historians specializing in relevant issues: for example, books on the history of art are sent to art historians, not artists, and books on the history of economic thought are sent to historians of economic thought, but to non-economists. As a result, historians of science sometimes complain that their reviewers are not interested in the subject, and reviewers accuse historians of not writing about real science.
Based on the uncertainty of the audience of the Institute, it can be argued that the status of historical and scientific research is heterogeneous throughout the world. For example, in Western countries the issue of the status of scientific and historical research was given much more attention than in Russia. This was part of professionalization, separation from the natural sciences, and the development of their own standards of practice and teaching. The new discipline looked critically at amateur interest in great men, discoveries and contributions to scientific knowledge, or in delving into details that are only local significance. During this positive development, many important studies emerged that transformed knowledge about the history of science.
1.3. Specific problems in the history of management thought
Management of various objects, including an organization, is a real, concrete, conscious activity of people to achieve certain goals and satisfy certain needs in each specific historical period. It follows that management science, which studies management relations, is a secondary education in relation to the real, specific management activities of people.
The history of management thought, in turn, deals with this secondary formation. She studies management thought in its historical development (in a broad sense), reconstructing the past, restoring the emergence and change of thoughts and reasoning, various views, views, management theories, transitions in them and the logic of each of these transitions, revealing their necessary nature. Moreover, it is very important to note that the subject of historical-scientific reconstruction is everything that happened in the history of management thought, that is, not only what was included in the subsequent development of science, but also what was discarded and left as an erroneous construction. Indeed, for the history of any science, including management, what is important is not so much a chronological presentation of the positive results of science, but rather the identification of the causes and, on the basis of this, an understanding of the course and patterns of its development, which involves an analysis of both the achievements of scientific thought and its errors, incorrect moves and trajectories in development.
Due to the dialectical connection between the subject and the method of science, the transition to the methodological problems of IUM allows us to simultaneously more specifically characterize its subject, which is not just a set of management ideas and theories, but precisely their history. Clarifying the meaning of this historicity is of great importance in terms of both the subject of IUM and its methodology. Below we will specify the directions for expanding the subject area of historical and scientific research in relation to IUM.
Factors in the development of IUM. Mental activity aimed at searching for rational forms and methods of organizing the management of society, economy, organization, production, has always been carried out as a type of concrete, historical in its essence, social activity. There is no science of management outside of society; it is social in nature, it is a product and an organic component of society. Moreover, management thought, management science has always served society, reflecting certain socio-cultural conditions in which it originated, developed and disappeared.
What is the basis of these socio-cultural conditions? Where is the source of the formation of the spiritual life of society, the origin of social ideas, theories, views?
There are different answers to these questions, one of them involves searching for the most significant factors in the development of social thought, including IUM. In our opinion, the totality of the objective material conditions of society and the corresponding material relations of production constitutes the “real basis” on which the political, social, legal and managerial superstructure rises and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond. This means that the source of the formation of all management ideas, theories, and views must be sought primarily in the conditions of the material life of society, in the level of development of production, in social life, of which these ideas are a reflection.
Consequently, the difference in theories, concepts, and judgments about management in different periods of the history of society is due and can be explained primarily by the difference in the conditions of the material life of society in these periods. We consider these conditions the first factor in the development of IUM.
At the same time, superstructural relations, being conditioned by the base, are distinguished by relative independence, interact with each other and experience mutual influence. They have an active reverse effect on the basis, promoting its progressive development or, conversely, inhibiting such development. Moreover, in the development of IUM there are known periods when management ideas, concepts and theories were ahead of the level of development of material forces in society, reflecting the state of scientific research, including in the field of management.
Based on the subject and dialectical method of studying IUM, based on the principle of historicism, it is necessary to celebrate the achievements of thinkers of the past, emphasizing at the same time the historical and class-class essence of their teachings, to evaluate the ideological position of the authors of these teachings. At the same time, nihilism and subjectivism are unacceptable when assessing the cultural heritage of the past in the field of management theories. This assessment must be objective and specific historical.
That is why as second factor in the development of IUM should consider the totality of demographic, religious, general cultural, ethnic and national characteristics, class-class structure of society, political and social strata of society and their relationship in society in a specific historical period.
The estate-class specific historical approach to managerial views allows us to identify not only the thoughts of the “past”, specific to their time, but also a lot of what turned out to be invariant with respect to historical periods, specific social formations and class structures. This circumstance must be taken into account when assessing the contribution of a particular author of a management idea to the overall development of IUM.
One of the tasks of the IUM researcher is to remember the important and undeniable significance applied aspect science of management, that at all times thinkers have tried to solve the most pressing issues of humanity - issues of rational management of society, the state economy, and a separate organization. The pragmatic significance of management concepts and theories has always played a decisive role in the development of various problems in the field of management. At the same time, we must not forget that theoretical constructs and practical proposals emerging from them in the field of management directly depend on the ideological position of the author, his worldview. In any teaching, one way or another, the worldview attitude of its author to the surrounding social reality, his ideological and political sympathies and antipathies, passions and aspirations, assessments of the existing state of affairs in the management of contemporary society and ideas about the ways of its effective development find their theoretical expression.
The objective dialectical relationship between the historical and logical, the presence in any subject of scientific research of the characteristics of the universal, the particular and the individual also require taking into account a number of external factors in the development of IUM. TO these factors include the level of development and state of social thought in the society (or country) being studied; internal and external public policy of the country under study in the field of economics, science, culture, international relations, etc.; the level of development and state of management thought in the society under study in previous periods; the level of development and state of global management thought in the previous and period under review. With this approach, the use of a historical-comparative research method is inevitable, since an adequate characterization and assessment of the place and significance of individual regional teachings and the views of an individual scientist are possible only in the context of the whole, within the framework of global management thought.
Thus, the following emerges diagram of the epistemological process in the IUM. To study a certain management doctrine, the essential factors in the development of IUM are studied: the specific historical situation of a given region or country, the socio-cultural conditions in which the management thought under study was born and developed (concept, doctrine, theory, scientific school), the socio-economic situation of the country, the entire set of objective material conditions of life of society and the state of other factors of the external (in relation to the author of the management concept) environment. The result of such an analysis represents a certain background for the emergence and development of the specific concept (theory, doctrine, scientific school) of management under study.
Next, you need to get acquainted with the personality of the author of the management concept: study his biography, find out his social origin, what class (or class) in society and the scientific community he belonged to. It is very important to know what place the scientist occupied in society, what his main activity was - was it just the development of scientific theories or was he engaged in practical management activities (in a state, public or commercial organization). Having this information, it is easier to understand and evaluate the worldview of the author of the doctrine, and knowing the sources of formation of the scientist’s views, it is easier to evaluate his ideological position.
It is also important to consider what forms, models and constructions of thought are reflected in the concept under consideration, whether they are leading and defining for a given thinker or whether they are introduced into theoretical circulation for the first time and are largely not worked out.
These results of the analysis must be taken into account in order to give an objective and strictly scientific assessment of the concept being studied, to determine its significance for the past (i.e. for the time when it arose and developed), for the present and the future.
It is impossible not to take into account the creative nature of the activities of thinkers in the field of management and the ideas of management themselves. After all, the larger she became organizational system society, the more important was the problem of its effective management. Humanity cannot develop without increased organization, without such a lever as management. All this required and will require from the authors of management ideas a creative approach to the development of new ideas, concepts and theories. And this creative nature of management concepts should not remain unnoticed by the historian of management thought. That is why one should be very careful about various kinds of utopian (for a given period) views. They often turn out to be very valuable and useful at a later date.
Particular attention should be paid to source study problem of IUM. The first acquaintance with the IUM object begins with the “observation” of sources. As noted, one basically has to “observe” only the empirics of historical-scientific research, i.e., only the text. Before making a decision about the reliability of the source and the plausibility of the observed fact, already related to the subject of IUM, painstaking, careful work with a large volume of texts (memoir, documentary, scientific, epistolary, archival and other types) is required.
Special written sources, which contain material characterizing the level of development of management thought, can be divided into two groups: those reflecting the direct economic activities of organizations and those representing an attempt to comprehend the management of economic activities. Written sources belonging to the first group reflected everyday economic activities, recorded the processes of making management decisions or the data necessary for the preparation, adoption, implementation of management decisions and monitoring their implementation, and regulated the processes of managing economic activities. These are numerous business reporting documents; minutes of meetings of collective management bodies of a particular organization; various legal acts formalizing property, contractual and other relations between the parties to the management process; population censuses, etc. Such documents have been formed since ancient times. Thus, the earliest written documents in the form of hieroglyphic inscriptions, reflecting economic activities in the states of the ancient kingdoms, date back to the Copper and Bronze Age, i.e., to the 5th-4th millennium BC. e.
Unfortunately, documents of the second group began to appear only in the 17th–18th centuries, which complicates the process of researching the ideas of management of previous eras, in particular management in the same ancient kingdoms where quite vigorous economic activity was carried out. At least, sources have not yet been found - such as special works of scientists of the past, published before the middle of the 19th century, which would be entirely devoted to the awareness and comprehension of management as a special field of activity. The most significant work is Lorenz von Stein’s 7-volume work “The Doctrine of Management,” published in the 60s of the 19th century.
However, this does not mean at all that figures in politics, science, economics and culture from different times and peoples did not generalize and systematize management experience or did not turn to well-known concepts of managing society, the state, an organization, or production. On the contrary, extensive material on management issues is contained in books and manuscripts on philosophy, sociology, military affairs, politics, law, political economy and other sciences, in fiction, memoirs and other sources.
Unfortunately, the source study problem is the least developed of the methodological problems of historical scientific research, and even more so of IUM. Therefore, here we will express only our idea of source study problems and ways to solve them. For IUM, traditional questions of IUM are very important: how to classify multiple sources of IUM? Are there specifics to studying different types of sources? Are sources - representatives of different species - comparable and what serves as a measure of their comparison? How to organize a rational search for sources? What does it mean to “receive new knowledge” from a source?
In search of management ideas, one has to work with many types of sources, each of which in turn consists of several subtypes. This is periodical literature (scientific, popular science magazines, newspapers), monographs; collections of scientific articles; materials of congresses, symposiums, conferences, etc.; legislative acts; regulations and statutes; works of scientific societies, state industry commissions; journals of ministries (including scientific committees of ministries and departments); protocols and materials of plant administrations; archival materials and documents; letters, memoirs and diaries; programs of political circles and societies; socio-economic statistics; fiction; curriculum plans, programs, courses, etc.
There are many different criteria for classifying sources. But one sign - specifics of research work with a source– should be highlighted. The fact is that there is a certain specificity of research, search work with various types of sources, immersion in the historical past of the source, which each time requires a kind of “switching” in the research mood, in the organization of the research work itself. Usually the “switching” is carried out from the state of a modern independent observer, reasoning from outside the analyzed system (and most importantly - in terms and achievements of modern management science), into a state of “immersion”, “dissolution” in the spirit and time of the analyzed system of economic society, the scientific community, everything environment of the bearer of management knowledge in order to reconstruct the past in all its diversity and uniqueness. In fact, both extreme positions of the researcher are options for translating the past into two languages. In the first case, there is a revaluation of the achievements of the past as modern science develops; in the second, there is a reconstruction of the past in the language of the past. Both extreme approaches are necessary, but clearly insufficient to solve the problems of IUM - to discover knowledge about management in the past and evaluate the development of this knowledge. Therefore, one should be in one or another research mode, and most often draw ambivalent conclusions about the concepts, teachings, theories, and thoughts being evaluated.
The first approach demonstrates the “advantage” of the present over the past; it allows at least to pay attention to the achievements of the past. In the end, it was precisely the first approach - the achievements and problems of modern management science - that served as the impetus for turning to IUM, or more precisely, it discovered the importance and necessity of forming IUM as a scientific direction. In turn, the second approach often demonstrates the complete helplessness of the present in attempts to explain the past only from the standpoint of modernity. The reason for this is the specific historicity and uniqueness of the past. In general, we give preference to the second approach and adhere to it in our research, but not in its pure form, of course, but using modern knowledge and the achievements of modern methodology of historical scientific research. The criterion for the truth of knowledge reconstructed when analyzing the past should always be the management practice of the same and subsequent periods.
As for the “relationship” of the subject of IUM with the subjects of other historical and scientific studies (primarily with the subjects of the history of economic doctrines, political and legal doctrines, sociology, psychology), the difference is obvious in the definition of the subject, as well as the methods and goals of the science of management itself, political economy , law, psychology, sociology, statistics, etc. However, due to the fact that before the beginning of the 20th century. There was no substantively and institutionally defined management science; the search for management thoughts, concepts and even teachings is still carried out by scientists (and often completed successfully) in works on related historical and social sciences. Therefore, one of the problems that a researcher of management thought faces is to find a reflection of the subject area of the history of management thought in a variety of sources of historical and scientific research, which have long been “rented” and even monopolized by representatives of other already established and specialized sciences. These include the history of such sciences as state improvement (welfare) and deanery (security), economic policy, practical economics (economics of various industries), branch legal sciences (police, state, public, financial, administrative law), administrative science, political science , public administration, political economy, sociology, statistics, military science, cybernetics, systemology, psychology, etc. As we understand the essence of management as a special professional activity and with an increasingly clear identification of the subject of management and IUM as sciences, the naturalness and specificity of this epistemological process became clear. This is explained by the fact that management is ontologically the most eclectic of all types of professional activity, and managers in their work use the achievements of all other sciences, giving rise to their own new and extremely complex subject of management science.
Of particular note is the relationship between management science and the process of management education, as well as management science and management consulting. The first pair of relationships began to be clearly defined with the realization that management is a special specific activity and profession that can and should be taught. In different countries, special training for managers (priests, scribes, demagogues, cameralists, administrators, executives, managers, entrepreneurs) came at different times. Mentions of the first targeted courses and programs for training priests - persons for managing the state treasury (in the 18th century they began to be called cameralists) are available in the treatises of religious and statesmen and thinkers of the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and Sumer (5 thousand BC). The programs reflected the current needs of a certain class of people, and the implementation of these training programs, in turn, contributed to the dissemination of management ideas, their adaptation and improvement.
It is now obvious (at least easy to prove) that this relationship almost always served mutual enrichment. Over the centuries, many educational organizations have emerged to train managers and entrepreneurs. In Russia, the first higher commercial school was opened in Moscow in 1772. And the first business school was opened in the USA in 1881. Currently, there are tens of thousands of organizational forms in the world for the annual training and retraining of millions of managers and entrepreneurs (business schools, business administration schools , special seminars and courses, scientific and practical conferences, etc.).
An equally close and mutually beneficial relationship exists between management science and management consulting. One can even hypothesize that if before the emergence of the first consulting companies (around the beginning of the 19th century), the creators of management science were practitioners and scientists, then from the moment these companies appeared, the main scientific ideas and concepts of management began to appear as the results of consulting projects, as product of consultants' activities. Of course, most consultants had quite a long experience of practical activity as managers, but as authors of management ideas they became famous already as consultants. In their activities, consultants tested new ideas on “live” material, advising the management of firms and enterprises and essentially conducting pure experiments on a client base. It was thanks to such activities that the principles of effective management by consultant G. Emerson were formulated, the management functions of consultant A. Fayol were discovered, and the principles of the scientific organization of managerial work by consultants P.M. were identified and formulated. Kerzhentsev, O.A. Yermansky, A.K. Gastev, the latest strategic management technologies were developed by the Boston Consulting Group, consultants from McKinsey and Arthur D. Little, business process reengineering technologies by consultant M. Hammer, etc.
Thus, the second pair of relationships is more fruitful from the point of view of the development of management science than the first, although without the first pair there would not be developed and creatively thinking creators of this science in the society of managers.
1.4. The main currents of management thought since the 4th millennium BC. e. to the 20th century
Researchers of management thought are unanimous that management ideas have constantly anticipated or accompanied specific management activities. Of course, many of the ideas have sunk into oblivion, never being reflected in written sources due to the lack of writing or because there was no need to record them. Therefore, to judge what ideas and views on management existed in the era of ancient human communities - tribes of pastoralists-farmers of the 20-5th thousand BC. e. – without written documents it is quite difficult. At the same time, based on the existing monuments, as well as ideas about economic activity in those distant times and the results (products) of this activity, it can be assumed that such ideas existed if we recognize the satisfaction of natural physiological, biological and other natural and acquired needs. And the latter also naturally created a need for organizing collective labor (for example, in tribal communities), which significantly reduced the costs of producing vital products and tools.
For example, there are known monuments of agricultural and pastoral communities of Lower and Upper Egypt from the 20th to the 5th millennium BC. e., settled on the fertile lands of the Nile Valley. The inhabitants of these settlements ate available plant resources, hunted wild bulls and deer using arrows with flint tips and wooden boomerangs, fished with bone harpoons and fishing rods with bone hooks, domesticated wild animals, and raised small and large livestock. They were engaged in agriculture, and the earth was loosened with a hoe with a flint tip, the crops were harvested with reaping knives made of flint in a wooden handle, and the grain was stored in special clay vessels and pits, coated with clay and covered with mats. Obviously, the production of this kind of tools required a certain organized activity, at least at the level of the individual, that is, the implementation of self-government. The most compelling evidence of the implementation of purposeful activities that require the performance of a number of management functions in relation to groups and collectives of people are traces of large irrigation systems discovered on the territory of Egypt (numerous canals and dams for retaining and draining water) and the famous great pyramids. Both required quite extensive knowledge in the field of construction and engineering art, technology, mathematics, very serious elaboration of construction ideas and plans, the participation of thousands of teams of construction workers and their organizers, work design and specialization of workers, large material resources and financial resources.
Based on the listed facts, as well as from the conclusions of civil history researchers, it can be assumed that in the era of early class society, even before the advent of writing, management ideas arose regarding the implementation of individual management functions - planning, organization, motivation, accounting, control. In the middle of the 4th millennium BC. e. in ancient Egyptian society, the contours of class strata and classes emerged, which led to the emergence of the first states as regulators of relations between new social groups, as well as as organizers of work to create and maintain their life support systems. The first states arose within small regions (nomes), which covered several settlements united around the center of the city-police, where the residence of the leader and the sanctuary of the main deity revered here were located.
With the advent of writing and states, the understanding of management activities began to acquire an increasingly systematic character. Since in the era of state-polises the state (public) economy, the temple (sacred) economy and the private economy continued to exist, it can be assumed that most of the time (if not always) management thought developed in the form of 2-3 simultaneously coexisting trends serving the state, temple and private households. It is quite natural that these currents often intersected, enriching each other with their achievements, borrowing managerial ideas and views, often giving rise to utopian projects of ideal states and their management (“State” by Plato, the project of the perfect state of Hippodamus, models of state-polises in Aristotle’s “Politics” , projects by F. Bacon, K. Marx, modern models market economic systems - Swedish, Japanese, American).
Management thought itself, being largely serving its purpose, was always created in the interests of the subject of management, for example, to increase the overall efficiency of management of the corresponding object. As noted, the criteria for efficiency were initially psychological (satisfaction of needs), then other criteria began to appear more and more: economic (production efficiency and rationality of its organization), political (need for power), social (balance of estates and classes in society), legal (maintaining law and order in society). According to, for example, Plato, in accordance with the many objective human needs in the city-state, there should be numerous branches of social production. In this regard, in the model of an ideal state, Plato theoretically substantiates (perhaps for the first time in the IUM) the division of social labor as a means of increasing the efficiency of management: “People are not born very similar to each other, their nature is different, so they have different abilities to do so.” or another task... You can do everything in greater quantity, better and easier if you do one job according to your natural inclinations, and moreover on time, without being distracted by other work.” The idea of division of labor and specialization (after Plato or as a result of Plato's statements) will become very popular on all continents. So, in the middle of the 3rd century. BC e. famous representative Chinese school legal scholar Han Fei-tzu, solving his main problem - how to ensure the greatest effectiveness of the unlimited power of the sovereign, instructed: “When advisers perform their duties and all the service people are at their posts, and the ruler uses everyone according to his abilities, this is called “implementing constancy.” " Therefore it is said:
So calm! It's like he doesn't exist anywhere.
So empty! It's impossible to figure out where he is.
The enlightened ruler is in inaction above; and his officials tremble with fear below. This is the way of an enlightened ruler: he encourages those who know to present their thoughts to him, and he himself makes decisions, so his mind is never exhausted. He encourages the worthy to reveal their abilities, so his dignity is never exhausted.”
Systematic ideas about the management of the state economy (in the broad sense of the word) from the emergence of large states-policies until the end of the 20th century. went through three main stages:
Managing a police state (and/or in a police state);
Management of the rule of law;
Management of the cultural state.
In all 3 concepts, the object of management was considered the entire economy of the corresponding state, and the subject of management most often was the state.
First stage – management of a police state is the longest. Its beginning is associated with what was first put forward in the 1st millennium BC. e. V Ancient China the concept of natural law and it continued until the end of the 18th century. According to the concept of natural law and developed in Ancient Greece in the 5th century. BC e. According to the teachings of eudaimonism, happiness (bliss) is the highest goal of human life, and the goal of the state was the common good, happiness and improvement of society. Theoretical socio-political premises gave rise to the concept and the corresponding police state management model(from the ancient Greek concept πολιτεια), meaning the art of managing the economy of policies and covering the entire range of management and economic activities carried out in ancient cities, and then in nomes and states.
A characteristic feature of the philosophy of natural law of the state, based on the idea of legitimating the power of rulers, was petty state regulation and guardianship of both the public and private lives of citizens of states, kingdoms, and policies. This was a period when monarchs identified the state with themselves (“I, the Only One,” “The State is Me”), so there was not a single sphere of life that was not affected (directly or indirectly) by state intervention.
The legal consciousness of the citizens of the state was consciously oriented towards the norms of natural law: heaven, acting through the ethical lever, regulates the norms of existence, deviations from which it resolutely suppresses. This concept was not only declared, but also became the foundation of ideas about law and order, according to which skillful administration and effective management of any object means, first of all, the reasonable use of all means and methods to force subordinates to obey. At that time, there were legalized state regulations, state quality standards, according to which, for example, weavers had to use a precisely defined number of threads in the fabric produced, gold seamstresses had to use gold thread at a strictly established price per skein, candle makers had to mix certain types of lard in a precisely established proportion. etc. Violators of regulations were subject to fines or even imprisonment, and their products were confiscated and destroyed.
The works of state nobles, scribe officials, and ancient thinkers contain demands, instructions, and wishes for rulers, the implementation of which, in the opinion of their authors, ensures the prosperity of states, the well-being and safety of citizens of police states. In order to rule skillfully, the pharaoh, king or other ruler of the state was required to study the science and art of management. “Philosophy, the doctrine of the three Vedas, the doctrine of economics, the doctrine of public administration are sciences. The three sciences have their roots in the science of public administration, which is a means for possessing what we do not possess, for preserving what we have acquired and for increasing what is preserved, and it distributes the increased good among the worthy.”
The term “art of management” is found in most treatises and monuments of ancient culture, although its content is different. For example, in ancient Indian treatises it means the art of punishment or management of the stick (dandaniti), and in the works of the ancient Chinese “the art of government is the ability to appoint officials to perform (certain) duties, to demand execution in accordance with the name, to rule over life and death ( people), to determine the ability of officials", "the art of government is hidden deep in the heart (of the ruler)", and it "should not at all be shown in opposition to the law, which is written in the books kept in government offices, and what is announced to the people."
The concept of police management was developed in the agricultural projects of the ancient Romans, and in the era of feudalism - in regulations and instructions for managers of feudal estates, in works devoted to the rational organization that arose already in the period early Middle Ages large forms of production (patrimonial enterprises). In the era of the classical Middle Ages (XI–XV centuries), the formulation of issues of rational organization and management of the feudal economy became even more complicated. These issues were resolved, in particular, by implementing a strict state policy of fixing duties (corvee labor and labor payments). Thanks to this, the organization of the economy took on a sustainable nature, which in turn made it possible to record and plan the costs of the enterprise’s resources, and to more actively carry out the functions of planning, accounting and control. At the same time, punctual regulation made the management of feudal production insufficiently elastic and adapted to various kinds of influences and changes in the external environment, and fettered the initiative of individuals.
At the beginning of the 17th century. The first treatises on management in the spirit of police activity appeared in Germany, which were of a theological and biblical nature. In Russia, one of the first police officers were Yu. Krizhanich, Gr. Kotoshikhin and I. Pososhkov. The works of these authors indicate the reasons for the imperfect organization of state economic management, provide a list of measures and recommendations to improve state management of domestic industry, agriculture, domestic and foreign trade, transport, education and other sectors of the national economy.
Thus, in the era of police states, along with a description of the existing situation in the field of public administration, reform works periodically appeared with models for a more advanced structure of this form of management, as well as developments for the effective management of private enterprises within the framework of a police state.
Along with the broad interpretation of the term “police” as “the art of public administration,” there were also definitions that were narrower in content. Moreover, out of more than 100 definitions of this term, known, for example, by the beginning of the 19th century, there are very brief (for example: “Police activity (or deanery) is the management of various industries, according to the types and intentions of the state”) and quite lengthy (for example : "The police are a woman. Although not a single professor has yet explained her essence, she is the real and only mistress of the state. The best mistress is considered the one about whom nobody doesn't say which nobody does not see or notice. The same thing happens with the mistress of the state. However, she should not look at people's gossip. It may seem to some that there is too much order, to others that there is too little of it; and what kind of housewife can please everyone equally - her husband, children, minister and neighbors ").
In general, most treatises on economic management in police states until the end of the 18th century. while covering almost all elements of the state economy system (social production), they nevertheless very often represented a mechanical set of information, instructions, advice and recommendations of political, economic, natural-technical, legal and other kinds. It was at that time (the end of the 18th century) that special schools for the training of government officials - cameralers (from lat. camera- vault, chamber). As noted above, humanity already had experience in training this kind of specialists (priests) in ancient Mesopotamia and Sumer.
Universities, lyceums and special schools in Austria, Germany, England, and later Russia began to train specialists in the management of various chambers - the palace treasury, administrative institutions, state property, and branches of the state economy. The cameral sciences taught to students included 3 types of disciplines: economics, or the study of economic and practical disciplines (agriculture, mining, forestry, trade, etc.); the doctrine of public administration; the science of finance. The main textbooks in the chamber ranks (faculties) of educational institutions were the works of police officers, and the educational material in form consisted of many instructions, recommendations and advice from police officers. The range of subjects and issues studied was as broad and varied as the very spheres and forms of “police intervention” in the affairs of society and individuals. Therefore, due to the variety of questions, the prescription nature of the proposals, and their rather weak elaboration, “in the end, the result was cameralistics - some kind of porridge of all sorts of things, sprinkled with an eclectic economic sauce, what is required to know for the state exam for the position of a government official.”
In this form of a purely practical and empirical discipline, the science of police, containing “government of the state economy,” was located until the end of the 18th century, when it began second phase in the development of the science of economic management - management of the rule of law. It was generated primarily by the contradictions of the harsh activities of the police state. “The individual... not finding protection or even mercy for his reasonable aspirations, turned against the existing order of things. It was mainly the third estate, the strengthened bourgeoisie, that came out to fight the police state.” Petty regulation became an obstacle to technical progress, it impeded free competition and turned into a brake on the growth of the emerging capitalist industry in England, France, Germany and other countries.
Relying on real facts and scientific results of philosophy, sociology, law, political economy, management theorists and physiocratic economists began to propagate the doctrine of “natural law” and “natural order”, to formulate and defend the so-called natural human rights. They put forward the idea of objectivity and regularity of social development,” considering society as a living organism, the economic life of society as a natural process that has internal laws, and social forms as physiological forms, i.e., arising from the natural necessity of production itself and not dependent on the will , politics, forms of government. They began to demand from the state that it stop viewing society as a passive mass, and recognize the personal dignity of a citizen and his rights as inviolable.
So, the former police state was opposed to the rule of law. New objects of management, tasks and management and achievements in other sciences have led to the emergence of a new concept and corresponding model of governing a rule-of-law state.
As the main means of struggle against the police state, a non-class “dogmatic law” was chosen, to which the state must obey and which would guarantee complete freedom of the individual from the arbitrariness of the administration. In a rule-of-law state, feudal government power was contrasted with law, local self-government, and non-interference in the private lives of individuals. The methodological basis for the concept of managing a legal state was the doctrine of I. Kant about the state as a union under legal norms, the doctrine of the social contract of J.-J. Rousseau, substantiated by T. Hobbes, the teachings of the ideologists of bourgeois political economy F. Quesnay, A. Smith and D. Ricardo, representatives of the Manchester school of political economy and the theory of separation of powers D. Locca and C. Montesquieu.
The influence of real changes in the management of public private enterprises, as well as the indicated teachings and doctrines on the science of police, was reflected in the fact that the subject of this science was significantly narrowed and its categories changed. The former name of the police in general and the welfare police in particular have lost their original meaning. The police ceased to cover all internal functions of the state, and the term “administrative activity” or "internal management". The term “police” only means the activities of the state to ensure the safety of citizens and property. Often this activity of the state in treatises on public administration was called the negative activity of internal management, and positive activity in its content began to correspond to the previous concept of the welfare police. This change in the interpretation of the purpose of management was also enshrined in the names of internal management bodies: the Council for Internal Affairs, the Collegium of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Internal Affairs Committee, etc.
Among the scientists who for the first time clearly and reasonably delimited the subject of police science, one should highlight G. Berg, E. Weber, H. Lotz, R. Moll. In Russia, the concept of the rule of law began to be developed somewhat later by scientists from European countries by M.M. Speransky, I.I. Platonov, N.N. Rozhdestvensky, V.N. Leshkov.
But, perhaps, the most systematic and comprehensive concept of managing a legal state was presented to the public by the German scientist L. von Stein, who published the 7-volume work “The Doctrine of Management” in the 60s of the 19th century. In it, L. Stein was one of the first to introduce the term “the doctrine of management” instead of “the science of police”, revealed the content of individual categories of this doctrine - the art of management, management functions, management methods, etc. L. Stein approached the development of the doctrine of management with positions of a more general science of the state, which, in his opinion, studies human relations arising in the state, including relations generated state structure and management. Stein encouraged scientists to study management problems. He wrote: “Whoever carefully engages in management will soon understand that there is not a single science that would be equal to this in its richness and significance.”
According to Stein, the subject of the science of management is “the internal management of the state, which is the totality of those aspects of state activity that provide an individual with conditions for his individual development that are unattainable by his own energy and efforts.” The objects of internal management, according to Stein, are the physical, spiritual, social and economic life of the individual, and “the doctrine of economic life personality" is a study of the issues of providing the state with conditions for the creation of material benefits for the individual. Since some conditions are necessary for all branches of economic life, and others for some, Stein divides the area under consideration into general and special parts. In general, it includes the management activities of the state caused by all kinds of spontaneous forces of nature (organizing the fight against floods, fires, organizing insurance, etc.), management of all types of transport and communications, credit management, money circulation, loan capital. A special part, generated by the “actual difference in the relations of capital and labor,” contains issues of managing the mining, manufacturing, agricultural, forestry, manufacturing and other industries, trade, as well as managing “spiritual production” (education, literary activity, censorship, fine arts, invention).
In the last quarter of the 19th century. in Germany and in the Russian liberal-bourgeois and liberal-populist environment, a modification of the concept of the rule of law began to develop - concept and model of cultural state management, which marked the beginning third stage in the development of management thought. Ideologists of the new direction - L. Gumplovich, V.A. Goltsev, V.F. Levitsky, M.M. Kovalevsky - explained this phenomenon by the fact that even a constitutional, rule-of-law state deceived the expectations of those who previously put forward the idea of a rule-of-law state; it did not satisfy the new demands and needs of the citizens of the state.
This is how one of its creators, V.A., explained the reasons for the emergence of a new movement. Goltsev is a student of L. von Stein, an associate professor at Moscow State University, who for the first time in Russia taught a special course in the 1881–1882 academic year, “The Teaching of Management”: “Issues of public welfare have attracted more and more attention of modern scientists and government officials. Every educated person now understands that the state cannot look indifferently at the profound economic phenomena that are taking place in society. Preserving the best features of the rule of law, respect for human thought, and the inviolability of the human person, the state of our time takes upon itself the implementation of such welfare tasks that are beyond the capabilities of an individual citizen or social unions of people. The rule of law is thus replaced by a cultural state.”
The methodological foundations of the new concept were historical schools of political economy and law, which called for taking into account in science the influence of the specifics and characteristics of national cultures, mores, customs, forms of government, legislation that determine the uniqueness of the historical fate of the development of a certain people. Within the framework of the first historical school, it developed applied economics(Practische Economie), which representatives of legal sciences considered the economic part of police law. In addition, applied economics was credited with “illuminating the ethical significance of the cultural state as an organ of social reform.” Adherents of this concept saw the task of the cultural state in “mitigating the brutal struggle for existence by introducing the principles of ethics and justice into the system of social relations, along with the active role of personal and public initiative in this direction.”
In the last quarter of the 19th century. The development of management thought generally proceeded in two directions: fundamental and applied research. Among the fundamental studies, there are known developments of methodological problems of management within the framework of political economy, legal and administrative science (I.T. Tarasov, A.V. Gorbunov, De Bernardo), sociological and psychological aspects of management (L. Gumplowicz, G. Vacchelli), content and classifications of principles and functions of management (V.V. Ivanovsky, G. Barthelemy), economic, legal, political and other methods of management (K.-T. Inama-Sterneg, Fr. Persico).
Thus, in Germany, L. von Stein’s student K.-T. In his works, Inama-Shterneg pays a lot of attention to the characteristics of various management methods - “material”, “moral”, legal, police, etc. In France and Italy, developments were carried out within the framework of administrative and legal science and were of a purely methodological nature. Thus, among the French authors, the most famous are T. Ducrocq, M. Goriou, G. Barthelemy. The works of G. Barthelemy are especially interesting. In his opinion, the goal of governing a cultural state should be to ensure the well-being of all its citizens. However, government intervention in the private lives of citizens must have certain limits. This thesis served as the basis for dividing many functional areas of public administration into two groups – mandatory (“essential”) and optional (“specific”). The first includes military, judicial, police administration and management of “state property” (financial management), the second includes economic management, management of public education, transport, postal services, mining, forestry, insurance, branches of art, etc.
During these years, social and psychological problems of management were especially actively developed in Italy. The classics of this trend include Fr. Persico (1890), his system of teaching about management consisted of 4 parts:
The concept of administrative organization;
The doctrine of financial management;
The concept and doctrine of military and police administrative justice;
The doctrine of social administration (with sections on methods of state management of economic, intellectual and moral development in society).
Other representatives of this trend are De Bernardo and G. Vacchelli. De Bernardo studied the management system (including team management) from a sociological point of view. In his opinion, management science studies “the forces that make up the administrative organism, the reasons for their activity and the conditions for their development.” The ultimate goal of this science is to uncover the laws governing the phenomena of administrative life.
According to G. Vacchelli, there should be a unified science of management that simultaneously studies the socio-psychological and administrative-legal aspects of the activities of administrative bodies. He was the first to formulate the concept administrative psychology(as opposed to personality psychology) as a complex symbiosis of “individual personalities” employed in an administrative body. According to G. Vacchelli, management science is a science that studies psychological aspects administration along with and in connection with all other aspects of administration - economic, legal and social.
Among applied developments Special attention of scientists and practitioners at that time was attracted by two problems: training of management personnel (for work in the public sector and in private companies) and motivation of management personnel. Along with this, issues of the relationship between centralization and decentralization in management, organizational structures, improvement of management, etc. were developed. These works were published in the proceedings of various national and international congresses, usually dedicated to industrial exhibitions, in the proceedings of special commissions, as well as in special magazines.
In all works characterizing the last two stages in the development of management thought (before late XIX c.), the state was most often still considered as the subject of management, and the national economy as a whole (state, public and private) or its individual elements (sectors, regions, enterprises) was considered as the object.
Along with studies of problems of public administration in the spirit of police and rule of law states from the second half of the XVIII V. and during the 19th–20th centuries. so-called national concepts of private capitalist economy management. The first research results were published, naturally, in England and France. The works of V. Petty, P. Boisguillebert, F. Quesnay, A. Smith, which became the basis of the classical school of bourgeois political economy, were devoted to the problems of managing national economies and organizing labor in national enterprises. And just as the objects of management increasingly began to acquire a national connotation, and works on French feudalism or English capitalism appeared in economic teachings, national management models began to be constructed in management, which then became the subject of IUM research. The national specificity of the subject of IUM (and this, as we know, is the third, most complex level of the subject area) allows not only to take into account national and/or country characteristics, but also to identify the genetic characteristics of national economic systems and corresponding management systems, and to explain the evolution of management systems. Most likely, the “national” has at all times been an essential part of the real management of the economy of any country, but it did not become a specific attribute of the subject of historical and management research immediately, but only after the scientific foundations of management were methodologically strengthened (including economic theory, law , civil history) and the methodology of management research itself.
An example of work on the study of a national management system at the level of an industrial enterprise can be called the treatise of the English researcher, creator of the first computing (more precisely, analytical) machine, Ch. Babbage, “The Economics of Machinery and Manufactures,” published in 1832. In it, the author outlined the results of his 10 years observations and experiments in the field of enterprise management in various industries, carried out with the aim of obtaining scientific generalizations and recommendations for improving the organization of labor and production. The treatise contains many valuable ideas and discussions about the division of physical and mental labor, specialization in production and management, location of enterprises, and the use of calculating machines. C. Babbage can rightfully be considered a pioneer in the scientific study of enterprise management; long before F. Taylor, he discovered many principles of the rational organization of production.
Following Charles Babbage in 1835, E. Ure’s fundamental work “Philosophy of Production” appeared in England, in which the author characterizes the contemporary state of the factory system in England and sets out general principles, on which, in his opinion, material production should be organized. Following the ideas about the specialization of Charles Babbage, E. Ure calls on production organizers to increase the mechanization of production and the use of independently functioning machines with the aim, first of all, of reducing the abuse of child labor, freeing the worker from heavy physical labor, increasing job satisfaction, and increasing overall labor productivity. The fundamental principle, as E. Ure formulated it, was to “replace manual production with mechanical science.”
In the 50s of the XIX century. In the United States, the so-called American production system began to rapidly develop, combining the ideas of Europeans in the field of creating mechanized factories and producing interchangeable parts for enterprises in different industries. The center of research into the problems of managing industrial enterprises is moving (and for a long time) from Europe to the USA, and the most important subject of research is the creation of mechanical and machine production, freeing people from hard work, and the management of this production. Objects of research in the second half of the 19th century. in the USA there were textile, mining, steel and railway enterprises. In 1886, the journal of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers published an article by G. Thone, “The Engineer as an Economist,” which outlined the principles of a shop management structure as management engineering. G. Thone called on managers to regularly improve their skills and acquire knowledge in the field of management.
Around the same time, a series of articles by H. Emerson on industrial efficiency appeared in Engineering Magazine. As a consultant, H. Emerson reorganized several American and foreign companies (Burlington Railroad, Archison, Topekau Santa Fe Railroad, etc.), guided by the idea of efficiency, for which he was called an “efficiency engineer.” He was one of the first to link efficiency to organizational structure. Traveling as a consultant around the world, H. Emerson collected evidence to support his ideas about the inefficiency of large, unwieldy organizations, resulting in "diminishing returns to scale", and he restructured such organizations, reducing their size, personnel, and the number of production units .
In Russia in the 19th century, even before the abolition of serfdom, the process of corporatization of enterprises in a number of industries began: textiles, papermaking, sugar, glass, etc. This process was anticipated or accompanied by the thoughts and ideas of Russian entrepreneurs and managers about the rational organization of private farms. The specifics of the Russian economy before 1861 were distinguished by the presence in the country of a large army of unskilled serf workers, which hampered technical progress and the introduction of the ideas of Babbage and Jura, well known in Russia. However, the enterprising merchants, without waiting for the abolition of serfdom, already at the beginning of the 19th century. began to create modern capitalist enterprises, often entering into alliances with landowners, purchasing and using new equipment, introducing methods of material incentives, hiring the most qualified serfs. A famous example with the Aleksandrovskaya Cotton Spinning Manufactory (St. Petersburg), which at the beginning of the 19th century. was equipped with modern mechanical equipment for spinning cotton and flax, which marked the creation of the first factory in Russia, bypassing manual production, indicating that the development of economic management systems in Russia really followed its own national path.
Indeed, the increase in the number of factories in pre-reform Russia over 150 years (from 1710 to 1861) by almost 100 times (from 150 to 14,148 state-owned and private factories and factories), with the number of workers at the enterprise sometimes reaching several thousand, indicates the progressiveness of entrepreneurial and managerial national thought. There are known, for example, decrees of Russian emperors that contributed to the creation, support and development of domestic large-scale industry. For example, those plants and factories that Peter I “recognized as especially necessary - mining, weapons factories, cloth, linen and sailing factories - were established by the treasury itself, and then transferred to private individuals. In other cases, the treasury lent significant capital without interest, supplied tools and workers to private individuals who set up factories at their own peril and risk; skilled craftsmen were sent from abroad, and factory owners received significant privileges.” Generally speaking, under Peter I and his immediate successors (which cannot be said about Catherine II), the organization of the factory was considered almost as a public service. “The state therefore recognized its duty by all possible means to encourage and reward manufacturers who performed work of primary national importance.” And this was also a national specificity of economic management.
So, from the 4th millennium BC. e. until the end of the 19th century. management thought has evolved from a mosaic presentation of management ideas, descriptions of individual management functions and recommendations for their successful implementation, development of so-called “one-dimensional teachings” about individual elements of management (goals, functions, methods, processes, etc.) and/or aspects of management ( economic, psychological, legal, etc.) to “synthetic doctrines” or systems of views on the management of an economy, organization, groups, teams, individuals, exploring the management system as a whole. During the 20th century. so many scientific concepts, theories and teachings of management were developed, so many schools and directions arose that they would have been more than enough for the entire previous 6–7 millennia, which are briefly described in this section. Let's look at the main ones.
As already noted, from the end of the 19th century. The center of research on theoretical and practical problems of management moved to the USA. In this regard, the emergence of new scientific discoveries in the field of organizational management was not long in coming. Already in the first years of the 20th century. A number of works by F. Taylor were published, which laid the foundation for the so-called scientific management. The “scientific” nature of F. Taylor’s works was expressed primarily in the methods that he developed and proposed for studying production and management activities in US industrial enterprises. These methods made it possible to observe individual labor movements and production activities in general, measure the results of these activities. Then these results were used to rationalize work operations, standardize labor, develop and justify work assignments, improve management at the enterprise, workshop, site, improve organizational structures and implement individual management functions. To develop these methods and test his own ideas at various enterprises, F. Taylor conducted a series of experiments that were in many ways reminiscent of the experiments of Charles Babbage, but were more systematized and justified. With his experiments, Taylor tried to prove that the best management is a genuine science, based on strictly defined laws, rules and principles that are invariant and applicable to all areas of human activity; management as a management science, when applied correctly, can increase the productivity of workers, maximize both “ profit for the entrepreneur” and the income of workers. However, there was one significant flaw in F. Taylor's management concept - it lacked a person. More precisely, it was present in the same inanimate form as all other resources.
If F. Taylor chose an industrial enterprise as the object of research, and the rationalization of labor operations as a means of increasing management efficiency as the subject, then another management theorist A. Fayol in 1916 made a discovery at the level of the management system as a whole. He formulated invariant management functions of any object, subjective management functions that do not depend on the object - these are forecasting, planning, organization, leadership, coordination and control. Something similar was formulated by the Russian professor V. Ivanovsky in 1883 in his course on internal management, but V. Ivanovsky's interests were limited to state organization and the functions of public administration.
Criticism of the works of F. Taylor in the spirit of assessments of the “sweat-squeezing theory”, as well as the obvious neglect of “scientific management” of the human factor were the main reasons for the appearance in the 20s of the 20th century. in the USA "schools of human relations". The main results of the experiments of E. Mayo and F. Roethlisberger contradicted “scientific management”, confirming the principle that the main goal of enterprise management - increasing and maintaining a high level of labor productivity - depends on socio-psychological factors. More precisely, high productivity was explained by the social conditions in which workers find themselves, human relations in the organization - between workers in a group, between workers and managers. Even more precisely: a business organization is essentially more than just economic institutions; it is a social organizational structure made up of human individuals and should be managed as such.
Representatives of this school expressed two main goals of any human community, similar to the ancient Egyptian ones: 1) ensuring the material and economic existence of all its members; 2) maintaining “spontaneous cooperation” throughout the social structure. The problem is to develop ways to achieve these goals. If in classical economic theory, to which management thought has long belonged, they relied on the “invisible hand,” then the helplessness of this “hand” became obvious, and the solution was seen in the activation of management as a completely “visible hand.”
To the triad of “knowledge-abilities-skills” they increasingly began to add the missing link - the “will of the manager” to transform this potential into an effective force. It is precisely thanks to the awareness of the arch-importance of this link in real management that research on leadership, power, and the decision-making process (especially in that part of the process where it was a question of implementing the decision made) became attractive.
The school of human relations prompted a lot of research in the field of human behavior, consumer behavior, human needs, motivation, etc. The eclecticism of management began to gradually increase, and psychologists, sociologists, and physiologists were attracted into its ranks. A kind of socio-psychological extreme of the school of human relations was not without criticism from realist scientists. In the 40-60s. a systematic approach to management began to be developed. During these years, the so-called synthetic teachings appeared - the school of social systems, sociotechnical systems, the new school, operations research, and the situational approach.
As a result, there was a boom in management research - aspect (economic, environmental, legal, political, etc.), regional (Europe, Asia and other continents), country (USSR, USA, England, France and other countries), sectoral, elemental (principles, goals, methods, personnel, management techniques), process (project planning, communications, information, business processes, management system as a whole).
Control questions
1. Formulate an idea of managing an organization as a system.
2. What is it like modern performance systems of scientific foundations of management?
3. What is the relationship between practice and science of management expressed and how is it manifested?
4. What and how is the relationship between management science and management consulting and management education expressed?
5. Formulate the main categories of historical and management sciences - subject, methods.
6. Describe the most important problems of historical scientific research (HSR).
7. What are the subject areas of the history of management thought (IAM)?
8. Formulate specific research problems in IUM.
9. What is the relationship between IUM and other historical and scientific research?
10. What does “paradigmatic approach in IUM” mean in the context of management revolutions?
11. Describe the epistemological process of IUM.
12. Formulate source study problems in IUM.
13. What is the role and place of IUM in solving current problems of management and in the development of social thought?
14. Characterize the historiography of IUM.
15. Describe the interconnection and interdependence of the relationship “management science – management training”. Illustrate with examples.
16. Describe the interconnection and interdependence of the relationship “management science – management consulting”. Illustrate with examples.
17. Give brief description the main currents of management thought as a filiation of ideas (4th millennium BC – XX century).
18. What are the methodological foundations and what is the content of the concept of management in a police state? Name the developers of the concept in different countries.
19. What are the main methodological foundations and what is the content of the concept of management in a rule of law state? Name the developers of the concept in different countries.
20. What are the main methodological foundations and what is the content of the concept of management in a cultural state? Name the developers of the concept in different countries.
21. Name the main scientific schools and management theories of the 20th century, their content and main developers.
Bibliography
1. Theory of management of socialist production / Ed. O.V. Kozlova. – M., 1983.
2. Organization of management of public production / Ed. G.Kh. Popova. – M., 1984.
3. Koritsky D., Nintsieva G., Shetov V. Scientific management. Russian history. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 1999.
4. Lenin V.I. Development of capitalism in Russia. PSS. T. 3. 5th ed. – M.: Politizdat, 1975–1989.
5. Marx K., Engels F. German ideology // Op. T. 13. 2nd ed. – M.: Politizdat, 1955–1981.
6. Deineko O.A. Management science in the USSR, - M., 1967.
7. Berkovich D.M. Formation of the science of social production management. – M., 1973.
8. Kruk D.M. Development of the theory and practice of production management in the USSR. – M., 1974.
9. Lavrikov Yu.A., Koritsky E.B. Problems of development of the theory of management of socialist production. – L., 1982.
10. Gvishiani D.M. Organization and management. 2nd ed. – M., 1998.
11. Bobryshev D.N., Sementsov S.N. History of management thought. – M., 1985.
12. Marshev V.I. History of management thought. – M., 1987,
13. Claude S. George. The History of Management Thought. – N.Y., 1972.
14. Daniel A. Wren. The Evolution of Management Thought. – N.Y., 1972.
15. Clausewitz K. About war. – M.; L., 1932.
16. Mikulinsky S.R. Current state and theoretical problems of the history of natural science as a science, M., 1976.
17. Kuhn T. The structure of scientific revolutions. – M., 1977.
18. Kuznetsova N.I. Science in its history. – M., 1982.
19. Zubov V.P. Historiography of natural sciences in Russia. – M., 1956.
20. Starostin B.A. On the question of the beginning of the historiography of knowledge. – M., 1982.
21. Methodological problems of historical and scientific research. – M., 1982.
22. Koritsky E.B., Lavrikov Yu.A., Omarov A.M. Soviet management thought of the 20s. – M.: Economics, 1990.
23. Rozhdestvensky N.N. Foundations of public improvement with application to Russian laws. – St. Petersburg, 1840.
24. Platonov I.I. Introductory concepts to the doctrine of public improvement and deanery. – Kharkov, 1856.
25. Leshkov V.N. Ancient Russian science about national wealth and welfare. – M., 1885.
26. Babst I.K. Presentation of the principles of the national economy. – M., 1872.
27. Andreevsky I.E. Lectures on the history of police law and zemstvo institutions in Russia. – St. Petersburg, 1883.
28. Chicherin B.N.. Story political doctrines. – M., 1903.
29. Berendts E.N. About the past and present of the Russian administration. – St. Petersburg, 1913.
30. Gorbunov A.V. Methodological foundations of Lorenz von Stein’s teaching on management // Journal of the Ministry of Justice. – St. Petersburg, 1899. January.
31. Ivanovsky V.V. Introductory lecture to the course of management studies. – Odessa, 1893; Issues of government, sociology and politics. – Kazan, 1899.
32. De la Mare. Traite de la Police. 1-IV, – P., 1722–1738.
33. Yusti G.G. Foundations of the strength and prosperity of kingdoms, St. Petersburg, 1772.
34. Sonnenfels I. The initial foundations of the police or deanery. – M„1787.
35. Stein L. Die Verwaltungslehre. Bd. I–VII. – Stuttgart, 1863–1868.
36. Stein L. von. The doctrine of management and the law of management with a comparison of literature and legislation of France, England and Germany / Transl. with him. I. Andreevsky. – St. Petersburg, 1874.
37. Gastev A.K. Industrial world. – Kharkov, 1919; Installation of production using the CIT method. – M., 1927.
38. Tugan-Baranovsky M. Russian factory in the past and present. – M.: Moscow worker, 1922.
39. Ermansky O.A. Scientific organization of labor and the Taylor system. – M., 1922.
40. Vitke N.A. Management organization and industrial development. – M., 1925.
41. Dobrynin V.V. Fundamentals of scientific management of enterprises and institutions. – L., 1926.
42. Dunaevsky F.R. Complexity in the organization. On the prerequisites for a rational organization. – Poltava, 1928.
43. Anthology of socio-economic thought in Russia (20-30s of the XX century). – M.: Academia, 2001.
44. History of political and legal doctrines: In 3 books. – M.: Nauka, 1985, 1986, 1989.
45. World history of economic thought: In 6 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1987–1997.
46. Proceedings of international conferences on the history of management thought and business / Ed. IN AND. Marsheva. – M.: MSU, TEIS, 1996,1998, 2000–2004.
47. Latfullin G.R., Radchenko Ya.V. Organizational ideas of management in Russia and their significance for modern times // Proceedings of the 1st international conference on the history of management thought and business / Ed. IN AND. Marsheva. – M.: MSU, TEIS, 1998. P. 49–54.
48. Duncan W. Jack. Fundamental ideas in management. – M.: Delo, 1996.
49. History of management / Ed. D.V. Gross. – M.: INFRA-M, 1997.
50. Kravchenko A.I. History of management. – M.: Academic project, 2000.
51. Boyett D.G., Boyett D.T. A guide to the kingdom of wisdom. The best ideas from management masters. – M.: Olimp-business, 2001.
52. Shafritz Jay M., Ott J. Steven. Classics of Organization Theory. – USA: Harcourt Publ., 2001.
53. Classics of management / Ed. M. Warner. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001.
54. Khazhinski A. Management Guru, St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002.
55. Smetanin S.I. History of entrepreneurship in Russia, - M.: Paleotype, 2002.
56. Hodgetts R.M. Management: theory process and practice. – Philadelphia, 1975.
57. Breker E.G. Opinions about the police, police science and political law. Northern archive. – St. Petersburg, 1828. No. 5. P. 41–42.
58. Marx K., Engels F. Op. T. 13. 2nd ed. – M.: Politizdat, 1955–1981 P. 490.
59. Ivanov A.I. Materials on Chinese philosophy / Trans. Han-Fei, - St. Petersburg, 1912. P. 497.
60. Krizhanich Yu. Politics or conversations about governance. – M.: New World, 1997.
61. Kotoshikhin Gr. About Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. – St. Petersburg, 1906.
62. Pososhkov I. A book about poverty and wealth. Op. Part 1. – M., 1842.
63. Goltsev V. The doctrine of management // Legal Bulletin. – St. Petersburg, 1880. No. 6. P. 263.
64. Levitsky V.F. Subject and method of the science of police law. – Kharkov, 1893. S, 12.
65. Inama-Sterneg K.-T. Brief teaching on management. – Vienna, 1870.
66. Gumplowicz L. Sociology and politics. – Leipzig, 1892.
67. Arthashastra.– M.; L., 1959. pp. 19–20.
68. De Bernando. La amministrazione pubblica e la sociologia. – Roma, 1883–1893.
69. Barthelemy G. Traite du droit administrative. – P., 1901.
70. Persico Fr. Principi di diritto amministrativo. – Napoli, 1890.
71. Vacelli C. La scienza della amministrazione come scienza autonoma, Roma, 1893; Le basi psihologiche del diritto pubblica. – Roma, 1896.
72. Friedslieb. Prudentia politica Christiana. – Goslar, 1614.
73. Obrecht G. Funff unter schiedliche secreta fon Austellung. – Strassburg, 1617.
74. Tarasov I.T. The main provisions of L. Stein on police law in connection with his doctrine of management. – Kyiv, 1864; Lectures on police (administrative) law: In 3 volumes - M., 1908–1915.
75. Babbage Ch.On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures. -L.: Charles Knight, 1832.
76. Ure A. The Philosophy of Manufactures: On an Exposition of the Scientific, Moral, and Commercial Economy of the Factory System of Great Britain. – L.: Charles Knight, 1835.
77. Rosenberg N. The American System of Manufactures (1854–1855). – Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh Press, 1969.
78. Plato. State. Works: In 4 volumes - M.: Mysl, 1994.
79. The art of management. Selected chapters from the book “Han Fei Tzu”. New translations by V.V. Malyavina. – M, Astrel, 2003.
80. Shcheglov I.M. On the benefits of combining manufacturing and factory industry with agriculture. – St. Petersburg, 1829.
81. Time I.A. Fundamentals of mechanical engineering. Organization of machine-building factories in technical and economic relations and production mechanical work: In 2 vols. – M., 1883–1885.
82. Proceedings of the commercial and industrial congress convened by the Society to promote Russian industry and trade in Moscow in July 1882 - St. Petersburg, 1883.
83. Proceedings of the Commission for the inspection of factories and factories. Ed. Societies for the promotion of Russian industry and trade. – St. Petersburg, 1872
84. Industry // Journal of Manufactures and Trade. – St. Petersburg, 1861 and onwards.
85. Technical and commercial education. – St. Petersburg, 1892 and onwards.
86. Taylor F. Enterprise management. – M., 1903; Principles of scientific management. – M., 1911; Administrative and technical organization of industrial enterprises. – St. Petersburg, 1912; Scientific foundations of the organization of industrial enterprises. – St. Petersburg, 1912.
87. Fayol A. General and industrial management. – L.; M., 1924.
88. Ivanovsky V.V. Introductory lecture to the course on internal management. – Kazan, 1883.
89. Roethlisberger F.J. Man-in-Organizations. – Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968.
91. Chandler A.D., Jr. The Visible Hand: The managerial revolution in American Business. – Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977.
92. Bogomolova E.B. A study of the experience of training management personnel in Russia in the 19th century. Diss... cand. econ. Sci. – M.: MSU, 1985.
* * *
The given introductory fragment of the book History of management thought (V. I. Marshev, 2005) provided by our book partner -
As a result of studying this chapter, the student should:
know the essence of management, stages and schools in the development of management thought, the modern management paradigm;
be able to apply systemic, situational and process approaches to management;
own skills the right approach to control according to the actual situation.
The essence of management
Modern organizations are complex sociotechnical or socioeconomic systems operating in conditions of high uncertainty and instability of the external environment, enormous risks and dynamically changing conditions of the market environment. The operating conditions of organizations determine the roles, functions and tasks of managing such organizations and predetermine new requirements for the managerial profession.
There is an opinion that the term "management" is difficult to understand because it is typically American and cannot be literally translated into any other language.
Recently, the term "management" has become very widespread. Various definitions of it are given in the literature. Let's look at some of them.
Management(from English management – management, management, organization) – a set of principles, methods, means and forms of production management, developed with the aim of increasing production efficiency and increasing profits.
Management– the ability to achieve goals using labor, intelligence and motives of behavior of other people working in the organization.
Management can be represented as a formula:
management = art + experience + learning.
Let us explain the above formula.
Of course, production management requires special, innate abilities. These abilities develop as a result of practical activities with the acquisition of experience. Experience, in turn, is accumulated through practical means, through trial and error, or through methods of intensive development of experience, i.e. through training. Management training involves the analysis of a large number of management situations, direct participation in management games, internships in large companies, etc.
The term "management" is not usually used to refer to government or public administration. It is applied to the management of socio-economic processes at the level of a company operating in market conditions, although recently it has begun to be applied to non-entrepreneurial organizations.
Manager(from English manager ) – hired professional manager, management specialist.
Any engineer or economist engaged in management cannot be considered a manager. A manager is a person with special training. Main tasks of the manager:
- coordination;
- management;
- control;
- making decisions.
The manager begins his activities by studying the object he is to manage and selecting a team.
The emergence of the management profession is historically associated with the emergence of “managerial” type organizations, i.e. such organizations where ownership and management of this property are separated. It is believed that this process is associated with the consequences of the Great Industrial Revolution (Great Industrial Revolution) in England at the end of the 18th century, more precisely, in the 80–90s of the 18th century. in the counties of Yorkshire, Lakeshire and the industrial center of Manchester. The consequences of the Great Industrial Revolution include: consolidation of production (factories and plants replaced manufactories and craft workshops), concentration of capital (in the textile industry) and, as a consequence, the emergence of “managerial” type organizations.
The profession of manager did not yet exist at that time, although there was a need for it. Because of this, engineers, accountants and entrepreneurs (businessmen) handled the job of a manager best.
At the same time, it is impossible for any engineer or economist, specialist but personnel work, engaged in management or management, is considered a manager.
In addition, from the very beginning you need to realize that management and entrepreneurship are two different aspects of the same process. Business is an activity aimed at making a profit by creating and selling certain products or services. An entrepreneur who does not know how to manage is doomed to failure. “Business management” is the management of commercial and economic organizations.
The term “management” is applicable to any type of organization, but if we are talking about government bodies at any level, it is more correct to use the term “public administration”. At the same time, the words "entrepreneur" ("businessman") and "manager" are not synonymous. The entrepreneur takes on the risk of organizing a new enterprise (entrepreneurial risk), i.e. bears property liability. The manager is not responsible with his property for the obligations of the company he heads. Its risk relates to the sphere of business reputation, image and (or) criminal law.
An entrepreneur at a certain stage of development of an organization (incorporation, re-registration into an open company, additional issues of shares, etc.) can hire a manager to manage it. On this basis, the theory of “managerialism” arose, according to which control over production passed from private owners to hired managers - managers.
There are other theories according to which the power of owners over corporations and banks is being eliminated and it is being transferred into the hands of managers, technocrats.
So in the 30s. XX century in the works of A. Burley and G. Means, the theory of “managerial revolution” arose, which in the 40s. developed by D.H. Burnham, in the 60–70s. – J. Galbraith and others. This theory is connected with the theory of “people's capitalism”, the theory of convergence and a number of others.
The specificity of the management profession is the fact that a manager is a person with special training. This follows from the tasks that this specialist is required to solve.
Main tasks of the manager:
- coordination;
- management;
- control;
- making decisions.
The manager solves all these problems simultaneously, This is what distinguishes the manager’s profession from related or similar professions. The manager begins his activities by studying the object he is to manage and selecting a team.
In addition, new challenges arise related to the development of information and Internet technologies. According to Peter Drucker, the emergence of “managerial type” organizations in the 18th–19th centuries. led to the emergence of management and the profession of manager. Modern shell and virtual organizations, as well as advances in information technology, will lead to the emergence of a new profession in managing virtual organizations and information. And if the first stage of management development was called “engineering,” then the first stage of the new profession will be called “managerial,” since managers are still best at this job.
Considering the features of managerial labor, it should be emphasized that, just like the labor of workers, it is necessary and productive labor. But at the same time it has a special productive form. Those engaged in managerial work do not directly create material assets, but, by carrying out technical and organizational preparation of production, improving methods of economic planning, forms of material incentives, solving commercial problems, they realize their activities in the product of the labor of the total employee. Without their labor, modern production is impossible.
An important factor in increasing management effectiveness is the division of labor of managers, i.e. specialization of managerial workers in performing certain types of activities.
Let's consider the types of division of labor of managers:
- 1) functional (groups of managers who perform the same functions);
- 2) structural;
- 3) vertical – identifying three levels of management:
- – lower level (team leader, shift leader, section leader);
- – middle (managers of staff and functional services of the management apparatus);
- – higher (enterprise administration);
- 4) horizontal across functional areas (production, finance, marketing, personnel, R&D, etc.).
This division of labor among managers is associated with three management tools, which in modern organizations are interpreted through the corresponding types of connections:
- 1) hierarchy - relationships of leadership and subordination, which are most often implemented through coercion (force, fear, etc.). This instrument has a history slightly shorter than the history of humanity itself and has been preserved in almost any organization in the form of linear connections that characterize the vertical principle of organizational structures;
- 2) market - free exchange of equivalent values, which is associated with economic methods of management and incentives for work. The appearance of this tool is explained by the development of capitalist relations and the spread of the machine nature of production. In organizations, it is clearly manifested in horizontal, functional connections that explain the nature of the division of labor;
- 3) culture - a certain system of values and traditions on which forms of activity and norms of behavior are built, characterized by the use of socio-psychological methods of influence, and an emphasis on the social aspects of interaction. Culture most often manifests itself in informal, trusting relationships, which explain not so much organizational structures, how much direction of communication processes both vertically and horizontally. This instrument of influencing people is the “youngest” from a historical point of view, and its appearance is explained by the change in the nature of work that occurred in the second half of the last century.
It should be noted that currently the greatest importance is attached to organizational, or corporate, culture.
Hierarchy, or the relationship of leadership and subordination, traditionally, since the time of M. Weber, who first proposed this classification, is characterized by three levels of management.
- 1. Strategic level (top management; from English. top-manager ). At this level, the top management of the company sets strategic goals and objectives, forms policies, ensures planning of the organization’s activities, control and other management functions. A feature of top management is the performance of representative functions, when it is senior managers who “voice” the policies and goals of the organization.
- 2. On average level, it is also called the “level of divisions and departments” (middle management; from English, middle manager ), the same work is carried out, but within its competence. A distinctive feature of the middle level of management is the provision of communication processes from top to bottom, i.e. “decoding” and detailing decisions made at the strategic level in the form of orders, directives, instructions, circulars, etc., both from the bottom up, i.e. collection, accumulation, sublimation and aggregation of primary information, bringing it into a form convenient for decision-making.
It should be noted that with the development of telecommunications and Internet technologies, there is a “flattening” of organizational structures due to the “washing out” of middle managers.
3. Grassroots level (low management; from English, low-manager or first-line-manager ) refers to those managers who are responsible for at least a division and consists of those managers who have no other managers subordinate to them ( management process ), as well as individual specialists performing individual functions and (or) management tasks ( management functions ), but managers who are not by definition (inspectors, engineers, accountants, etc.).
Management levels and their specifics can be illustrated using the “Magic Square” shown in Fig. 1.1, in which, in a humorous, sarcastic form, an idea is given of how the work of managers at various levels is seen by their subordinates.
It should be noted that the functions and responsibilities of a higher-ranking manager are never equal to the sum of the functions and responsibilities of his subordinates, i.e. There remains a number of issues, the solution of which is within the exclusive competence of the manager. In other words, even all employees of a department, in terms of their level of competence and authority, cannot replace one line manager.
Rice. 1.1. "Magic Square"
Without management, no organization, no enterprise can succeed. However, management as a type of activity and as a science in the form in which we currently have it did not appear immediately. The practice of management is as old as time. But today no one can say with a sufficient degree of certainty when the first controls arose.
The history of management development is divided into the pre-scientific period (from 9-7 thousand BC to the 18th century) and the scientific period (from 1776). The scientific period is divided into industrial, systematization and information periods (from 1960 to the present).
Management was not always perceived in the form in which it is presented today. Ideas about the role and place of management of an organization, the content of management activities and methods of its implementation have repeatedly undergone significant changes since management began to be considered as a special type of activity carried out in an organization. Views on management evolved as social relations developed, business changed, production technology improved, and new means of communication and information processing appeared. The practice of management changed, and the doctrine of management also changed. However, management thought did not passively follow management practice. Moreover, it was the new ideas in the field of management and new approaches to the implementation of management put forward and formulated by the leading minds of management thought that usually marked the milestones from which broad changes in management practice took place.
Views on management fundamentally depended on the socio-political system in which they were created and developed. Under the conditions of communist ideology, a management theory was developed that was significantly different from the management thought that developed in systems with free market relations.
The history of the development of management as a science indicates that it has been developed a large number of theories that reflect different views and points of view on management problems. Many believe that it is impossible to create a universal classification because the organization is influenced by a large number of internal and external factors.
There are four important approaches that have made it possible to identify four schools of management, each of which is based on its own principles and views:
1. Approach from the point of view of scientific management - school of scientific management
2. Approach from the point of view of human relations and behavioral science – school of psychology and human relations;
3. Administrative approach - classical (administrative) school of management
4. Approach from the point of view of quantitative methods - school of management science (quantitative).
Let's look at the concepts of these schools briefly and sequentially.
School of Scientific Management The founder and main developer of the ideas of scientific management is Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915). Unlike many management theorists, Taylor was neither a research scientist nor a business school professor. He was a practitioner: first a worker, and then a manager. Starting as a worker, he moved through several levels of the hierarchy and rose to the level of chief engineer in a steel company. Taylor's teaching is based on a mechanistic understanding of man, his place in the organization and the essence of his activities. Taylor set himself the task of increasing labor productivity and saw its solution in the rationalization of labor operations on the basis of the scientific organization of workers' performance of their work activities. Taylor assumed that workers are lazy by nature and do not want to just work. Therefore, he believed that rationalization leading to an increase in profits would be accepted by the worker only when his income also increased. The introduction of scientific management ideas into practice has significantly increased labor productivity. At the same time, this led to an intensification of workers' work, which increased tension in the relationship between workers and managers. Due to the fact that the starting point in management was the task, its standardization and rationalization of operations to complete it, and not the person performing the work, scientific management turned out to be not as effective as its developers expected.
School of Psychology and Human Relations. Shifting the center of gravity in management from tasks to people is the main distinctive characteristic of the school of human relations, which originated in modern management in the 20-30s. XX century The founder of this school is Elton Mayo (1880-1949). He made the main developments regarding this concept while a professor at Harvard Business School. He focused on research and, as a result, it was shown that a person’s behavior at work and the results of his work fundamentally depend on the social conditions in which he is at work, what kind of relationships workers have among themselves, as well as what kind of relationships exist between workers and managers. These conclusions were fundamentally different from the provisions of scientific management, since the focus was transferred from the tasks, operations or functions performed by the worker to a system of relationships, to a person no longer considered as a machine, but as a social being. Unlike Taylor, Mayo did not believe that the worker was inherently lazy. On the contrary, he argued that if the appropriate relationships are created, a person will work with interest and enthusiasm. Mayo said that managers must trust workers and focus on creating positive relationships within the team. The shift of the center of gravity in management from tasks to people gave rise to the development of various behavioral theories of management. A huge contribution to the development of the behaviorist direction in management was made by Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), who developed the theory of needs, which was later widely used in management, known as the “pyramid of needs” (see Chapter 4). According to the teaching Maslow the man has a complex structure of hierarchically located needs (1-physiological needs; 2-security needs; 3-needs for involvement and commitment; 4-needs for recognition and self-affirmation; 5-needs for self-expression), and management in accordance with this should be carried out on the basis identifying the worker’s needs and using appropriate motivation methods.
Classical (administrative) school of management If Taylor focused on how best to perform tasks, operations and functions, and Mayo and the behaviorists were looking for answers to questions related to the nature of relationships in a team, to the motives of human activity, then Fayol tried to find answers to questions related to the effective management of an organization in in general, studied the content of activities related to managing an organization.
Henri Fayol (1841 - 1925) worked almost his entire adult life (58 years) at a French coal and iron ore processing company. Fayol's focus was on management, and he believed that his success as a manager was due primarily to the fact that he organized and carried out his work correctly. Moreover, he believed that with the right organization of work, every manager can achieve success. In a certain sense, Fayol had a similar approach to Taylor: he sought to find rules for rational action. The peculiarity of Fayol's teaching was that he studied and described a special type of activity - management, which no one had done before in the form Fayol did. Considering the organization as a single organism, Fayol believed that any business organization is characterized by the presence of certain types of activities, or six functions:
Technical activities(production);
Commercial activities (purchase, sales and exchange);
Financial activities (search and optimal use of capital);
Security activities (protection of people's property);
Accounting (activities of analysis, accounting, statistics);
Management (planning, organizational function, command, coordination and control).
The main merit of this consideration of the organization was that Fayol identified management as a special type of activity and determined that management activities include the following mandatory functions: planning, organization, management, coordination and control.
Undoubtedly, a huge contribution to the development of management thought was made by the German lawyer and sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920), who developed the theory of bureaucratic structure of an organization and management system in particular. If Taylor was trying to find an answer to the question of how to make a worker work like a machine, then Weber was looking for an answer to the question of what needs to be done to make an entire organization work like a machine. Weber saw the answer to this question in the development of rules and procedures for behavior in any situation and the rights and responsibilities of each employee. The individual was absent from Weber's concept of organization. Procedures and rules determined all major activities, the careers of workers, and the specific decisions and activities of management. Weber believed that a bureaucratic system should provide speed, accuracy, order, certainty, continuity and predictability. M. Weber believed that if all procedures in an organization are clearly defined and arranged in a clear sequence, and the will and desire of individual people are completely excluded, then such an organization will be highly effective and flexible. Life has shown that this is almost impossible to achieve.
School of Management Science (Quantitative). In contrast to approaches to management that place tasks or people at the forefront, or administration (managerial activities), “synthetic” approaches are characterized by a view of management as a multifaceted, complex and changing phenomenon, connected by many connections with the internal and external environment of the organization.
The need to develop new methodological approaches is directly related to the rapid development of business and the acceleration of scientific and technological progress. New approaches to management - process, system and situational, which consider the organization as a multifaceted phenomenon that connects tasks, resources and processes occurring in and outside the organization into an organic whole.
The concept of the process approach arose within the framework of the classical school, which tried to describe the functions of management as independent of each other. In contrast to these views, the process approach views management functions as interrelated.
The systems approach is seen as a way of thinking in relation to organization and management. It allows us to consider an organization as a set of interdependent elements (goals, objectives, structure, labor resources, equipment and technology) that are constantly influenced by a continuously changing external environment.
WITH systematic approach The situational approach is directly related. Just like the systemic approach, the situational approach is a way of thinking about solving management problems. The situational approach retains the concept of the process approach as a whole, although it requires taking into account the specifics of emerging situations. Essentially, a specific situation requires the use of those management methods that allow the organization to achieve the greatest efficiency.
All of the above schools have made significant contributions to the development of management science.
One of the most outstanding modern theorists in the field of management is undoubtedly Peter Drucker. The center of Drucker's ideas about management is the doctrine of management as a professional activity and of the manager as a profession. Drucker credited himself with the primacy in creating a systematized doctrine of management and, accordingly, an academic discipline, which made it possible to begin the study of management in educational institutions. Drucker's name is associated with the rescue of the dying Ford automobile company, with the introduction of a decentralized management system at General Electric, with the post-war rise of the Japanese economy and a number of other major practical implementations of his ideas about management.
Drucker put forward a large number of ideas in the field of management. Undoubtedly, the core idea of his teaching is the idea of the exclusive role and exceptional importance of professional managers. The managerial elite, according to Drucker, is the basis of business and should play a leading role in the development of modern business and modern society.
As a result cognitive activity people arose what we call modern management theory. It (the theory) has a thousand-year history. The history of management thought teaches the proper use of ideas and accumulated management experience in modern endeavors. Studying the history of management thought is a prerequisite for combating the “self-sufficiency syndrome” of a manager, when a person involved in management believes that he knows everything. Studying the history of management thought requires a specific creative approach.
a) one should judge the management theorists and practitioners of the past not by what they did not provide in comparison with modern management requirements, but by what they gave new in comparison with their predecessors;
b) every beginning is always empty, poor in content, it is only a tendency towards the accumulation of all content. From this point of view we must approach the evolution of management thought.
The emergence of management thought in Ancient Egypt and BabylonManagement thought appears already in primitive society, where people accumulate the first experience of managing small social communities (family, clan, tribe). People have their first experience in optimizing relationships. In Ancient Egypt, both the art of construction and pottery were developed, papyrus was created, astronomy developed, a calendar appeared, the foundation of geometry and algebra was laid, medicine and anatomy arose. People building the pyramids gained their first experience in managing large organizations. The construction of the pyramids dates back to the 3rd millennium BC.
Management thought in Ancient ChinaFeatures of management thought in Ancient China
1. It is recorded in written literary sources. Written by specific people, not anonymously;
2. Reflects the mentality of the Chinese, their culture. Mechanical extrapolations are not possible;
3. Management ideas do not reflect the experience of managing production, but of political organizations (the state).
Where is management thought heading? For centuries, the idea of effective organization of production, from private farming to state-owned ones, has occupied the minds of practitioners and academic economists, sociologists, historians, political scientists, lawyers, etc. Naturally, by now, enormous experience has been accumulated and theoretical knowledge on management of the national economy at all levels. There are various concepts, theories, teachings, and scientific schools of management developed by many generations of scientists from different countries. It is also obvious that in organizing different types of businesses, along with many features, there is also much in common.
The objectives of the first international scientific and practical conference on the history of management thought and business included an inventory of management ideas in the past, an analysis of their state and effectiveness in the present, as well as a forecast for the emergence of new management paradigms in the future. The questions included in the program related to the organization of economic management in different eras, in different types of business, in countries with developed, developing and transition economies. The reports were grouped into three topics - the evolution of management thought, modern business concepts and management ideas for tomorrow.
The evolution of management thought. Professor V. Marshev (MSU) in the plenary report “Management ideas. History of management paradigms. Formation of the history of management thought” noted that management thought went through three major stages - management in police states (7th century BC - end of the 18th century), legal (late 18th - mid-19th centuries) and cultural (mid-19th centuries). - beginning of the 20th century). Among the representatives of all directions, the names of our compatriots (sometimes little known to the scientific community) should be mentioned, such as Y. Krizhanich, M. Speransky, I. Platonov, V. Goltsev, V. Ivanovsky, D. Pikhno. Next, the speaker briefly described the numerous schools of scientific management of the 20th century, in which the ideas of domestic and foreign predecessors essentially developed.
A hypothesis has been put forward about the existence of a certain pattern in the development of management thought, the emergence and change of schools and teachings embodied in the practice of production management. The essence of the pattern is that, firstly, each subsequent school arose and replaced the previous one as a result of dialectical contradictions that arose in the latter and could not be resolved by it; secondly, the root cause of contradictions has always been a person or human community, or more precisely, the importance attached to the human factor in the research of the corresponding school. The first component of the pattern is an analogue of Gödel’s theorem on incompleteness and is of a universal nature for the development of management thought. The second is subject-specific and can serve both as a tool for studying the history of management thought (more precisely, measuring the content of a particular school), and as a means of predicting the “historical moment” of the emergence of another school based on a kind of cyclical development of management thought.
Associate Professor D. Platonov (MSU) formulated the relationship between the objective development of the national economy and the corresponding scientific and practical teaching about management. In his opinion, the national economy is not only an environment that generates ideas, including managerial ones. This is also a special environment in which many of them are implemented, which is often hidden from researchers of macroeconomics and developers of economic theories due to the universality of the subjects of their research. In other words, research in the field of the history of the national economy and the history of management ideas are interconnected, interdependent and enrich each other.
Professors of the State Academy of Management G. Latfullin and Y. Radchenko emphasized the importance of research and reconstruction of Russia’s rich historical heritage in the development of organizational ideas. According to the speakers, the effect of organizational laws underlying the principles of economic activity is much longer in time and wider in space than other social laws (including economic ones), and therefore they are more general.
The report is illustrated with examples from the works of Russian educators, statesmen, production organizers and scientists, as well as cultural monuments (chronicles, princely charters, etc.), in which organizational thoughts, views, ideas and concepts that have not lost relevance today were manifested or formulated. In particular, the “Prayer of Daniil the Zatochnik” (XIII century) is mentioned, containing such elements of management theory as the concepts of hierarchy, competence of managers, goal-setting priorities, etc. In the works of M. Speransky (early 19th century), the concept of “rules for organizing management” was introduced ”, the organizational categories “responsibility”, “planning and control”, “separation of powers”, “decision-making process”, “management methods” are formulated. The works of the Russian mining engineer K. Skalkovsky revealed a number of management ideas and paradigms that actually anticipated the emergence of similar provisions in the West, including those widely known as “Parkinson’s law” or “Peter’s principle.”
The report of Associate Professor A. Naumov (MSU) “Hofstede's Dimension of Russia (the influence of national culture on business management)” reported on one of the first attempts at a major sociological study with the aim, firstly, of identifying and measuring the characteristics of Russian national culture and, secondly , determining the influence of national culture (as a more general concept) on other levels of culture and, above all, organizational and managerial. During the survey, 250 respondents - citizens of Russia - were interviewed using a questionnaire developed by the author, which contains 29 groups of questions characterizing five indicators (dimensions) of national culture proposed by the Dutch scientist G. Hofsteed.
Management ideas tomorrow. In the report “Economic reforms and anti-crisis management in transitional Russia,” Professor S. Belyaev expressed the idea that the production crisis was a consequence, not a cause, of a management crisis. The processes of economic liberalization, privatization and corporatization took place without a sufficiently developed legal framework, in the absence of a bankruptcy law. As a result, privatization dragged on and led to the current results.
Today, according to the speaker, the problem is not in improving the bankruptcy process and legal procedures, but in improving the methods of managing enterprises that are close to bankruptcy. Hence the term “anti-crisis management”, which is not synonymous with “competition management”, “external management”, carried out through judicial (arbitration) bodies.
Crisis management involves the preparation and use of teams of arbitration managers at the enterprise. The objects of management should be traditional functional areas - personnel, strategic planning, marketing, finance, production, and management itself should not be defensive in nature (reduction of production, market, personnel), but active - aggressive marketing, development of new business and strategy, retraining of personnel and etc.
Next, the speaker compared the characteristics of the management professor of the past and the future. In the past, this person was highly specialized, highly professional, focused on the transfer of knowledge, distanced from students, feeling superior to them in knowledge, acting within the framework of the curriculum and program. In the future, this is a person capable of integrating different knowledge, actively involved in the learning process with the help of new technologies, and, consequently, in relationships with students. He is more of a coordinator than a mentor, a developer and “implementer” of the business school strategy.
The period of the 60-80s was characterized by the development of a systemic representation of control in statics and dynamics. Significant results have been achieved in social psychological research into management. At the same time, organizational behavior, development and culture, and situational management remained unstudied.
In the 80-90s, the main objects of research were management relations, organizational behavior, organizational culture, situationality and change. Learning organizations have emerged that adapt to change. At the same time, despite the development of the benchmarking tool, there are still no achievements in solving the problem of “who is the best in management.”
TOPIC 9 MANAGEMENT – SCIENCE PRACTICE
For the first time, the process of genesis, formation and development of the centuries-old world history of management thought is reflected in domestic and foreign educational literature. The textbook presents both the origins of management thought dating back to the fifth millennium BC, and the latest concepts and management paradigms of the early 21st century. It outlines not only the history of management science, but also the history of management ideas, views, and theories that arose in order to solve real management problems.
For students, teachers and researchers specializing in the field of management of state, public and private organizations.
At all times, managing organizations has been a complex process that combines elements of science and art. Today, this process has become even more complicated, primarily due to sudden, often unpredictable changes occurring both in the organizations themselves and in the external environment. The growth in the volume of knowledge about individual behavior in organizations and social processes, the temporal and spatial extent of business processes, the constant expansion of the information field and the capabilities of information technologies in the management of organizations, the diversity of management decisions and the objective remoteness of their results - all these factors characterize the modern business environment. They, on the one hand, expand opportunities in the areas of activity of organizations, and on the other hand, they emphasize the need to increase the scientific validity of the choice and assessment of the consequences and aftereffects of decisions made. Thus, despite the slogan “Management is dead,” the role of the scientific component in the management of an organization still remains very significant. The epigraph to this chapter emphasizes the importance of minimizing errors in management decisions made today, which is largely ensured by their scientific justification.
This circumstance, in turn, requires both the further development of the methodological foundations of management science and the solution of fundamental problems of management science itself. These include, for example, the still controversial question of the subject of science, a number of categories and concepts of science; the problem of the relationship between management science and other sciences; problems of methods for organizing complex scientific research, the relationship between art and science in management; the problem of measurements in the management of socio-economic objects. Even a cursory analysis of scientific works and textbooks on management makes it possible to verify the presence of different interpretations of the category “subject of management science”, definitions of the terms “management”, “management”, “organization”, “management system”, “management functions”, “organizational structure” , “management mechanism”, “leadership”, “organizational culture”, “strategic management”, “organizational behavior”, “organizational development”, “change management”, “management effectiveness”.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE 9
Chapter 1. PROBLEMS OF HISTORICAL AND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 17
1.1. Management Science System 17
1.2. Problems of research in the history of sciences 26
1.3. Specific problems in the history of management thought 36
1.4. The main currents of management thought since the 4th millennium BC. by XX at 45
Test questions 63
References 64
Part I. GENESIS AND DEVELOPMENT OF FOREIGN MANAGERIAL THOUGHT FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO THE END OF THE 19TH CENTURY.
Chapter 2. ORIGINS OF MANAGERIAL THOUGHT (4th millennium BC, 5th century) 70
2.1. Origins and sources of management thought 70
2.2. Ideas of management in the works of thinkers of Ancient Egypt and Western Asia 86
2.3. Development of management problems in Ancient China 94
2.4. Views on public administration in Ancient India 125
2.5. Development of management problems in ancient states (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome) 143
2.6. Management Thought in the Old Testament and New Testament 163
Test questions 169
References 170
Chapter 3. MANAGERIAL THOUGHT IN THE ERA OF FEUDALISM, GENESIS AND FORMATION OF CAPITALISM (V-XIX centuries) 172
3.1. Origins and sources of management thought in the V-XVII centuries. 172
3.2. Management thought in Byzantium
3.3. Management thought in feudal Western Europe and England (V-XVI centuries)
3.4. Origins and sources of IUM in the 18th-19th centuries.
3.5. Entrepreneurship Ideas in Western Europe
3.6. Classics of political economy on management (XVIII-XIX centuries)
3.7. R. Owen and social responsibility of business
3.8. Ch. Babbage on specialization and division of physical and mental labor
3.9. E. Ure on the replacement of labor with capital
3.10. “The Doctrine of Management” by L. von Stein.
Control questions
Bibliography
Part II. MANAGERIAL THOUGHT IN RUSSIA (IX-XIX CENTURIES)
Chapter 4. THE ORIGIN AND FORMATION OF MANAGERIAL THOUGHT IN RUSSIA (IX-XVIII centuries) 252
4.1. Sources and origins of the emergence of IUM in Russia 252
4.2. "Russian Truth" 271
4.3. Ideas for organizing local government in the Moscow centralized state 275
4.4. On methods of managing private households at Domostroy 281
4.5. The most important factors development of management thought in Russia in the 17th century. 285
4.6. J. Krizhanich 290
4.7. A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin 303
4.8. Reforms of Peter I as a stage in the development of management thought 311
4.9. I.T. Pososhkov 315
4.10. M.V. Lomonosov 324
4.11. Catherine II, other Russian emperors and Russian entrepreneurship 327
Control questions
Bibliography
Chapter 5. MANAGERIAL THOUGHT IN RUSSIA in the 19th century.
5.1. Main directions of IUM in Russia in the 19th century. 342
5.2. Characteristics and achievements of noble management thought 345
5.3. Management ideas of revolutionary democrats and populists 362
5.4. Discussion of production management issues at trade and industrial congresses 390
5.5. Management training courses at Russian universities 400
5.6. Contribution of Russian government officials to the development of management ideas 424
Control questions
Bibliography
Part III. NEW AND CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF MANAGERIAL THOUGHT
Chapter 6. WESTERN SCHOOLS OF MANAGEMENT of the XX century. 436
6.1. F. Taylor School of Scientific Management 439
6.2. H. Emerson's Organization and Principles of Efficiency 449
6.3. Administrative School A. Fayol 454
6.4. School of Human Relations 461
6.5. Empirical School, or Management Science 470
6.6. School of Social Systems 480
6.7. New School of Management Science 511
6.8. Situational approach to management 521
Control questions
Bibliography
Chapter 7. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS OF MANAGEMENT IN THE USSR 534
7.1. The formation of Soviet management thought in the 20s of the XX century. 534
7.2. Soviet management thought in the 30-50s of XX century 562
7.3. G.H. Popov on the development of Soviet management thought in the 1960s 571
7.4. Development of management problems in the 70-90s 620
Test questions 632
References 633
Chapter 8. MODERN CONCEPTS OF MANAGEMENT 637
8.1. Motivation - both content and process 637
8.2. Leadership Concepts: From Leadership to Learning 651
8.3. Instrumental Management Concepts 681
8.4. Organizational Culture: Measuring and Managing 694
Test questions 720
Bibliography
ANNEX 1.
List of areas of scientific research, topics of coursework and diploma works and scientific abstracts and reports on IUM 724
APPENDIX 2.
Characteristics of the process of developing and making decisions on the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions 727