home Management Theory and practice of personnel management - Shchekin GV

Theory and practice of personnel management - Shchekin GV

1.2. Professional Management

Industrial management was formed in opposition to the bureaucratic management organization. Sociology defines the bureaucracy as a set of public institutions that rely on non-market, administrative methods of management in their activities. The bureaucracy has vertical management structures, and the market economy needs horizontal links, functioning on the basis of commodity exchange. The bureaucracy , subordinating to itself the objects of administration, serves any state system, including the one in which state ownership of the means of production is dominant. Having taken key positions in the system of power, it turns into a self-sufficient force, protects its privileged position in society and the state.

At the same time, in management works published abroad, the existence of bureaucracy is seen as an indispensable measure ensuring the development of formal management rules. The advent of "bureaucrats" into corporate governance meant a new step in the professionalization of managerial work and the development of management.

Scientific and industrial management underwent significant changes during the transition from extensive management methods to intensive ones, the essence of which is depersonalization of relations in production, cooperation between workers and entrepreneurs. Models that suppress the personality, ignoring it as a subject of the production system, were not viable. There was a need for models that would shape the performer-employee's sense of leadership. It became obvious that the rationalization of production is impossible without improving its social organization, without changing the psychology of workers, their attitude towards work and its results. These problems were solved by drawing attention to the social, group interests of the individual; Improvement of workplaces through dispelling the negative consequences of over-specialization of labor; Expansion of the circle of persons participating in making managerial decisions; Refusal to focus on the hierarchy of power; Recognition of informal relations; Interaction of formal and informal organizations.

Scientific management was formed on the basis of theoretical and empirical testing of hypotheses, theories, concepts. His theorists studied "human resources" to integrate them into the management system. A well-known theorist in management D. McGregor believed that the formation of a manager requires knowledge of many sciences, including politics, psychology and sociology. This excludes the possibility of mastering management only by assimilating terms and management programs. The manager should be able to anticipate and predict the real processes taking place in a market economy. According to D. McGregor, the use of power in the management process is not so much solving the problems as it generates them.

In the second half of the XX century. In the United States and other economically developed countries, the ideas of "industrial democracy," or so-called democracy in the workplace, spread. The essence of this doctrine is that management work is also hired.

The idea of ​​"industrial democracy" presupposes the creation of a conflict-free situation in the collective on the basis of concerted actions aimed at satisfying mutual interests; The establishment of "intermediary bodies" for mutual contacts with a view to preventing conflicts; Permanent representation of working groups in the administrative apparatus of enterprises; Participation of workers in the structure of factory (factory) management; Observance of publicity in making decisions related to the interests of the working groups.

Basic management theories suggest specific measures to strengthen it based on mass forms of involving employees in management. D. McGregor put forward "theory X" and "theory of Y", characterizing the different views of managers on the attitude of workers to work.

"Theory of X". The average individual is characterized by insufficient intellectual development, lazy, tries at the first opportunity to avoid labor, so it must be constantly urged, coerced, monitored, directed, threatened with punishment so that he worked hard to achieve the firm's goals. He prefers to be guided, he tries to avoid responsibility, is relatively dishonest and most anxious about his own safety.

"Theory U". The costs of man's physical and mental efforts in the process of labor are just as natural as in games, on rest. The average individual, with appropriate training and conditions, not only takes responsibility, but also strives for it. External control and the threat of punishment are the only means for guiding people's efforts. Efforts made by individuals to achieve their goals are proportional to the expected rewards. The ability to show creative imagination, ingenuity and creative approach to solving problems of a firm is more likely to be widespread (than a narrow circle of people). In modern conditions, man's intellectual abilities are not fully used.

One of the basic in management is the theory of motivational hygiene of F. Herzberg. It is based on the thesis that work that brings satisfaction, contributes to the psychological health of a person. In accordance with this theory, the presence of factors such as labor success, recognition of merit, the actual process of labor, the degree of responsibility, professional and professional growth, reinforces the positive motives of human behavior in the work process, as this increases the degree of people's satisfaction with work. However, the motivation for labor can also be negative, that is, factors that hinder employee satisfaction with work (guarantee of job retention, social status, labor policy of the administration, working conditions, direct superior's attitude, personal propensities, personal relations, wage level) can act. . Unsatisfactory product quality, low labor productivity are associated with these factors and largely due to the theory of motivational hygiene.

The creator of the theory of organizational model systems, R. Laikert, believes that the value of a person can be measured and can be managed in the same way as "physical capital".

The author of the theory of group learning K. Ardzhiris argues: training in a psychological environment, as close to reality as possible, is most effective. This theory is widespread in American schools and universities.

A. Maslow - the creator of the theory of the hierarchy of needs, the author of the book "Motivation and Personality" - classifies by the degree of importance of the individual's purpose, by which the nature of the influence of internal and external factors on human behavior can be explained. He identified five types of needs: physiological, security needs, belonging to a social group, respect for oneself, self-assertion. All of them can manifest simultaneously, but physiological needs are dominant.

The authors of the theory of stress balance R. Blake and J. Muton pay special attention to the balance between production and social needs.

To the greatest extent, management manifested itself in a corporation, the specific organizational form of large capital, which unites numerous small proprietors and contributes not only to the concentration of capital, but also to raising the level of internal organization of the society based on the use of large capital. Corporate property combines living and materialized work with its organization and promotes effective development.

The highest management body in the corporation is the Board of Directors. The participation of workers in the management of the corporation is carried out by their delegation to its composition. In corporations, objective conditions have been created for the replacement of managers-proprietors by professional managers.

Increasing the role of management in a corporate economy is explained by the increasing demands for management, driven by capital growth, the size of enterprises, the complexity of technological, production and socio-economic processes. In these conditions, the role of the shareholder essentially changes. He owns shares, but he is not responsible for the results of the corporation. Capital, therefore, is divided into capital-ownership and capital-function. The role of the manager is approaching the role of a fictitious owner. The social status of the workers also changes - they become proprietors-shareholders, subordinate to the administrative power of managers. The independent individual owner has turned into a rentier - the recipient of dividends on shares, and the manager in the structure of the corporation - into an independent force, superior in its influence to the capabilities of its largest shareholders. This gives rise to a new element of the structure, called by J. Galbraith a technostructure consisting of managers and leading specialists. The technical structure, having seized power, exercises control over activities, determines the strategy and tactics of the development of the corporation. Thus, there is a professionalization of management, the transition of national wealth from the form of individual, private property to corporate, in which ownership of property is separated from the right to dispose of it.

The role of management in a corporation is strengthened with a significant dispersal (spraying) of shares. The presence of a large stake in the shareholder grants him the right to control and determine the development strategy of the corporation. However, this variant of management can be contrasted with the process of depersonalization of management, when decisions are made not by one person, but by a group of professional managers, connected by a bureaucratic corporate identity.

The transfer of rights and management functions to professionals takes a sustained character. This creates new trends in the development of management. Managers are not limited to administrative functions, but are involved in entrepreneurial activities and, on the basis of market information, move resources to the most advantageous use.

The theory of management can not be considered outside of organizational relations, since management is not only a set of systematic knowledge, but also an important element of the organizational structure of the economy. Any combined activity of people, the complication of social processes cause the search for increasingly effective algorithms for joint actions [1].