The evolution of management thought. New management paradigm. Abstract “The essence of the new management paradigm in the world and in Russia

The term "paradigm" comes from the Greek " paradeigma" - example, sample - and means a set of explicit and implicit (and often unconscious) prerequisites that determine scientific research and are recognized at this stage of the development of science. The management paradigm is a system of views on the organization of management in modern conditions. The main task of the new management paradigm beginning of the XXI V. is to make knowledge productive. In this regard, leading management researchers believe that the new management paradigm requires significant changes in management systems: simplicity, flexibility, efficiency and competitiveness.

The essence of the transition to a new paradigm based on a systemic and situational approach to management is as follows.

First, the company is viewed as an open system, the main prerequisites for success of which are in its environment. In this regard, the primary task of management is to adequately respond to various external events. The success of such a response is ensured on the basis of:

orientation towards foresight in decision making;

• - integration of all functions and aspects of the company’s activities;
• - taking into account the interests of owners, business partners, personnel, managers, local authorities.

Secondly, the main attention is paid to human resources - their creativity, entrepreneurship, maximum employee autonomy, which allows the organization to provide flexibility and adaptability.

Thirdly, the tendency towards the greatest possible equality of subjects of the management process is becoming more and more evident; centralization (vertical management) is being replaced by a rejection of the principles of hierarchy - decentralization, which gives greater rights to lower levels (horizontal management based on mutual coordination of participants).

Fourthly, indifferent or negative attitude to their duties, passivity, alienation, generated by difficult working conditions, lack of rights for workers, are replaced by interest, involvement in the affairs of the organization, and the desire to prove themselves.

Fifthly, the focus of managers on ensuring the accuracy and uninterrupted operation of technological and business processes has been replaced by a focus on achieving a specific result needed by the consumer (improving quality, saving costs, reducing prices). In other words, there has been a transition from a production to a marketing approach to management.

Sixth, the nature of internal relationships in the organization is changing. Aggressiveness, confrontation, and competition are gradually giving way to calmness, the search for compromises, consensus, and cooperation.

Seventh, the approach to the development and implementation of management decisions becomes different. Focus on past experience and traditions, autocracy, conformism, blind compliance, and risk aversion are gradually replaced by a focus on the future, encouragement of creativity, including collective creativity, and the assumption of reasonable risks.

Eighth, the emphasis on material and organizational factors of activity as the basis for success is being replaced by attention to personnel capable of solving complex scientific and technical problems.

Ninth, the previous emphasis on quantitative results is gradually complemented by the desire to ensure high quality in all areas of the organization's activities.

Tenth, there is a transition from management under conditions of mass production and calm competition to management of individualized activities under intense rivalry.

But the old classical management model is not completely rejected. Its elements are used in extreme situations when rapid concentration of resources in key areas and operational coordination of activities are required.

The modern scientific and technological revolution has not only created new goods, services and technologies, but has also largely transformed the socio-economic life of society. We are talking about the following.

• 1. The role of man in production has changed radically. Previously, man was perceived only as one of his factors along with machines and equipment; today it has become the organization's main strategic resource. People are now seen not as “cogs”, but as the main asset of the company in competition and source of profit. This is due to their ability to be creative, which is now becoming a decisive condition for the success of any activity. Today, personnel-related costs are no longer seen as annoying expenses, but as investments in “human capital.” Their objects are the organization medical care, recreation, sports; creating conditions for creativity; development of personal abilities, etc. The era of the human dimension of the economy is coming.
• 2. The role of firms has changed. The increase in the scale of their activities, the emergence of gigantic production complexes began to have a tangible impact on society and environment. In this regard, in the 60s. XX century the concept was formed social responsibility of management to society. It is realized by bringing benefits to him through profit and participation in solving a wide range of social problems.

The modern concept of social responsibility includes:

• - the company’s orientation towards promising social interests;
• - reimbursement of social costs (for example, environmental);
• - optimization of future profits;
• - preservation of the company's capital as an element of the nation's wealth.

Thus, management today largely ensures the socio-economic development of not only the company, but also society as a whole.

Stand out the following types social responsibility:

economic, which consists in maximizing income (and therefore taxes going to the budget), providing society with goods and services at reasonable prices and creating well-paid jobs;

legal, expressed in the company’s compliance with legal obligations in the economic sphere;

ethical, manifested in the worthy behavior of the company, its adherence to more stringent standards than generally accepted ones.

• 3. The pace of change has sharply accelerated, and instability has increased in all spheres of socio-economic life.
• 4. The processes of globalization began to gain speed, and universal problems (environmental, energy, demographic, etc.) became aggravated.
• 5. In developed countries, there has been a transition from industrial to post-industrial, and today to an information economy based on computer technology.

As a result, in the 1980s. the limitations of traditional “rational management” were revealed, which considered the company a closed system with given stable goals, deep specialization, centralization of management, focus on orderliness and clear regulation of activities, ensuring its sustainability using methods of strict planning, administration, control, etc.

This required a change in management, i.e. a basic conceptual model that unites a holistic set of ideas, principles, approaches to implementation management activities, adopted as a sample for a certain period.

Features of modern Russian administration are the high intellectual potential of managers, the presence great experience public administration and development of high technologies. But domestic management today is still in a state of growth.

In management theory, there are many approaches and methods of management: by goals, results, deviations, situational management, etc. In these approaches, management represents some impact on the system as part of the environment, designed to correct the functioning of this system, determined by the initial conditions, initial state and exchange processes in the system and with the external environment in order to achieve the intended goal.

Identification of these methods is often difficult due to vague criteria. However, content analysis known methods showing! that they are all located in the space of cybernetic representations, in which the control system is given in the form of a set of interacting control and controlled subsystems (see Fig. 19 or 20).

Let us consider the classification of known approaches and control methods, based on the principle of feedback as one of the main features of the cybernetic approach to control.

All methods known in modern management theory and practice can be divided into deterministic, program-targeted and holistic-evolutionary.

Application deterministic method management in an organization implies, first of all, goal setting. The following algorithm is implemented: based on the selected goal, an action program (plan) is developed, then a mechanism for implementing the developed program is created and put into action, and, finally, the results obtained are evaluated. A diagram illustrating the deterministic control method is shown in Fig. 21.

IN this method Feedback ensures strict compliance of the system behavior with the developed program. Its purpose is to identify deviations of the control object and bring it to the planned state. In the deterministic control method, the program acts as a criterion

results of the functioning of the system, feedback provides the conditions for influencing the executive link in case of deviation from the program.

The advantages of the deterministic method are simplicity and efficiency in conditions of constant states external environment. The area of ​​application of the method is bureaucratic type organizations. The disadvantages of the method are rigidity, the impossibility of restructuring in the event of such changes in the external environment that lead to a contradiction between the program and the purpose of the organization's functioning.

Program-target method management is more effective in conditions of instability of the external environment. The main difference between this method and the deterministic one is the developed feedback mechanism, which provides not only adjustments to the behavior of the system, but also adjustments to the program itself to achieve the goal in the face of changes in the external environment and internal changes.

The main criterion for the program-target method is the goal, not the program (plan).

A diagram illustrating the program-target control method is shown in Fig. 22. A more developed feedback mechanism provides control flexibility. It contains two feedback loops. The first loop ensures that the behavior of the system is adjusted in the event that there are deviations from the state specified by the plan, if the plan does not contradict the goal. The second feedback loop is intended to change the plan if, during the functioning of the organization, it comes into conflict with the purpose of the organization. The feedback mechanism provides not only the recording of deviations and the formation of appropriate control actions, but also more complex actions to analyze the circumstances that contribute to the occurrence of these deviations.

The program-target method is a significant step forward in the search for such approaches to managing organizations, for which the first place is not formal control over the completion of the task, but the creation of conditions for the effective functioning of the organization.

The ramifications and great depth of feedback connections form the prerequisites for synergistic tendencies in the organization and the organization’s orientation towards self-development. The program-target method is typical for organic type organizations, occupying dominant positions in the modern world compared to bureaucratic organizations. It is more difficult to implement, more information-intensive, and involves the use of non-standard organizational structures. However, in dynamic market conditions, it is precisely these circumstances that ensure its effectiveness.

Holistic evolutionary method management further develops ideas about the management of organizations in modern conditions. A diagram illustrating this control method is shown in Fig. 23. This method uses three feedback loops to ensure that the behavior of the control system is adjusted in accordance with the developed program, the program (plan) is adjusted based on the goal, and it is changed.

The method involves the possibility of change (evolution) not only of the plan, but also of the goals and vision of the organization. Although the goal is an internal motivating motive of management, the determining factor in goal setting is the vision of the organization, represented by some system of values, for example, formed within the framework of the corporate culture of the organization. The value system is the most stable category human relations, formed and developing throughout the entire previous experience of practical and intellectual activity, but at the same time acts as the basis for goal setting and as a global criterion for management. The holistic-oriented management method includes program-target, deterministic and cognitive (knowledge accumulation) approaches.

Transitions from deterministic to program-targeted, from program-targeted to holistic-evolutionary methods do not imply emphasizing the previous one, but its qualitative development. The internal logic of this development is determined by the evolution of external and internal conditions life of the organization, a feedback mechanism and the possibility of changing criteria: plan → goal → vision.

The holistic evolutionary method in relation to customs organizations can be considered as a model of a generalized management concept. The method is integrative and will undoubtedly become decisive in the theory and practice of customs management in the near future.

In the holistic evolutionary method, the value system, being both a global criterion and the basis for goal setting, closes the input and output of the management system. At the same time, the system of values ​​takes the management system from the category of target (artificial) to the category of natural ones, focusing on natural development, thereby suggesting the continuity of cybernetic and synergetic approaches in control theory.

Scientific thought in the field of management currently focuses on a fundamental synergistic approach. This approach can and should solve those problems that are currently beyond the power of administrative-coercive methods.

In the past, all concepts of control theory were based on the fact that the system has a subject and an object of control and it is necessary to search for the most effective way use of material, energy, financial, human, intellectual, information and other resources of influence of the subject on the object

management. The cybernetic model remains a good methodological paradigm in the first stages of developing knowledge about management. Moreover, these views are still prevalent today, although it has become obvious that this approach has exhausted its possibilities. The basis for the implementation of management is cooperation and complementarity creativity individuals at different levels of the hierarchical structure. In an established information society, the capabilities of one subject are revealed through the capabilities of another. The concept of “subject - object of management” in management theory is gradually giving way to another concept of self-organization; in other words, the cybernetic approach in the theory and practice of management is giving way to a synergetic approach. It is precisely this type of approach—cognitive—that will be the focus of this discipline in the future.

Necessary prerequisites for the identification and institutionalization of any new species professional activity are the presence and public awareness of an objective need and the possibilities for its implementation, when this is associated with the analysis and improvement of practice based on scientific research- in the form of a methodology and appropriate tools adequate to the subject of research. Already from the very name of the discipline it is clear that without both sociology and consulting activities gaining a certain place and recognition in social practice, its appearance would have been impossible. The design of sociological consulting as a specific approach to improving management could not but be influenced by the pace and directions of development of a number of processes that act in this case as significant factors:

• actually management How special type practical activities and its theoretical understanding;
• counseling as a way to improve management activities;
• sociology as the only science whose subject of study is the social - the characteristics and patterns of “togetherness” of human existence;
• individual private applied branches of sociological and psychological knowledge.

The nature and characteristics of the interaction of factors that ultimately determined the emergence of sociological consulting as a direction of management consulting were influenced by differences in the levels, content focus and intensity of their development in different countries. In addition, it is important to take into account the influence of the general background - global trends in the development of the economy as a social institution and the dynamics of its relationship with other social institutions and priorities of social progress.

The diverse and multilateral mutual influence of the listed factors represents a single inextricable process and in real embodiment cannot be separated, however, in the interests of presenting the material, a consistent consideration of the dynamics and trends of their historical development is possible.

The first reliably recorded fact of consulting activity in the field of management, dating back to its “pre-scientific” stage, is the experience of the American manufacturer Charles T. Sampson. In 1870 he transformed his shoe factory manufacturing process so that he was able to recruit staff from among the less highly paid, low-skilled Chinese slave workers. The very next year, he passed on his experience to the owner of a laundry, who accepted the advice and also successfully used Sampson’s method. These “successful” capitalists did not face the problem of the social effectiveness of innovations.

The heyday of “scientific management” was characterized by the extensive development of consulting practice by the most prominent representatives of this direction, and one of the founders of the movement, Frederick W. Taylor, became one of the first professional consultants, naturally, remaining in the position of an essentially engineering approach to management in general, searching and proposing ways to improve it in particular. Thus, almost for the first time described precisely in his works of the mid-1980s. a very ambiguous socio-psychological phenomenon of pressure from the “informal structure of relations” within working group, not yet received modern name, is presented in an engineering way that is uniquely negative, which follows from the terminology itself: “working lukewarmly” under the influence of the unwritten “rules of the game.”

And this is logical. In Taylor’s scheme, justified and calculated from an engineering and natural science perspective, a worker in the model of “economic homo” has no other incentive for his production behavior other than the size of his salary. Everything that cannot be explained rationally and mechanistically can clearly only be one of the elements that destabilizes the mechanism of industrial production organized with exemplary precision.

In the very general view The relationship between the stages of US industrial development and changes in management theory and practice is as follows.

The first phase (1850-1950) - industry is focused exclusively on maximizing profits in conditions of incomplete demand for products, management is completely in the hands of entrepreneurs and senior managers. The main means of regulating relations with employees is wages.

In the second phase (1951 - 1970), the stage of commodity accumulation was reached against the backdrop of those that appeared in large-scale production socio-economic difficulties of a higher level of complexity. Management is strategically oriented towards decentralization and motivation development. The functions of top, middle and lower levels of management in working with personnel are separated.

At the third (modern) stage (after the 1970s), society realized the close connection between technology, economics, social processes and ecology, which entailed a revision of the role of man in production, the impact of production on the living environment and social relations, etc.

In this classification, what the author noted as a fact of the 1970s seems least justified. "social awareness" close relationship technical, economic and social processes. In reality, this “realization” occupied almost the entire 20th century. and is still far from complete even in the most highly developed countries. This is illustrated quite eloquently by the statement: “Many organizations in the United States still apply the principles of “scientific management,” and the idea of ​​payment permeates everything. theoretical approaches To work motivation» .

This situation can be explained by the long-term dominance, starting from the 1920s, in the practice and mass training of managers in the countries of the Western “Atlantic” civilization of the classical management school, which was formed largely on the foundation of the principles of the scientific organization of labor of F. Taylor, the sociological theory of rational bureaucracy M. Weber and administrative system A. Fayol. Had a strong influence synthetic concept management of L. Gyulick, J. Mooney and L. Urwick.

Its wide dissemination was significantly facilitated by the active propaganda, professional and consulting activities of the founders and followers. For example, L.F. Urwick in 1928-1933. was director International Institute in Management in Geneva, Vice-President of the British Institute of Management. In 1934 he created the largest English consulting firm.

Mention in a number of sources classical management concept M. Weber's theory of bureaucracy should not be recognized as indicating any meaningful orientation towards the need to develop within its framework the human factor of the economy. In recent years, the sociological literature has openly acknowledged the inadequacy Weber's concept rationality of bureaucracy in modern conditions, despite its dominance in practice and domestic “managerial” literature, which, as a rule, uncritically borrows Western approaches. It is rightly argued that such structures had certain advantages only in the conditions that arose during the first industrial revolution - on pre-industrial stage development of relations in production. “Hierarchical structure, strict subordination, regulation of behavior with the help of instructions, narrow specialization and impersonality of relationships are ballast modern society» .

In full accordance with the fundamental position about development as a process of interaction between needs and opportunities to satisfy them, mass identification and use in real activities economic organizations innovations so unusual for the practice of traditional management were ensured by the presence by that time of a large detachment of professionally trained sociologists.

Having received the status of a university discipline in the USA in 1892, at the beginning of the 20th century. sociology was taught in most American universities and colleges, and by the 1960s. There were more sociologists in this country than in all other countries of the world combined, and a significant proportion of them were focused on improving management activities directly at enterprises and organizations or through consulting activities.

At the turn of the 1970s. in applied sociological research of industrial relations in Western world the active study of relationships in teams, forms of exercising power in the enterprise, the needs and value orientations of categories and groups inside and outside the enterprise (consumers, shareholders), and ways of their interaction with trade unions and government agencies came to the fore.

Management and consulting practice Western countries was intensively saturated with the results of socio-psychological research, however, mainly in the form in which they could be directly used to obtain tactical improvements - in the form of certain rules and procedures for interaction, work with personnel, etc. In this regard, an indicative trend should be noted: interest in new achievements in this area has steadily increased with the approach and onset of crisis phenomena in the economy.

Thus, D. McGregor’s theory of work motivation was formulated mainly in the 1960s, but the main strategic conclusion about the strongest stimulating role of the need for self-realization and the desire for creativity was claimed by management only in the 1970s. .

In parallel, practice is forced to turn to the use of the stimulating effect of the content of work. An example is the one developed by F. Herzberg in accordance with his two-factor theory of motivation and the “ creative person» concept of humanization of labor- enrichment of highly specialized labor with more complex and responsible operations. Distinguishing between the incentive to work and production motivation as external and internal incentives for human activity, F. Herzberg noted the strategic futility - the inevitable “saturation” - the habituation of workers to the action of any external incentives, in contrast to the constant action of internal motivation, and the awareness of this thesis can be called the pinnacle and at the same time the theoretical end of the industrial era of production based on the technocratic management paradigm 134, p. 122-1311.

In the last years of the 20th century. in modern large-scale machine production with strict forms of cooperation and control, a breakthrough in management, which ensured the achievement of high economic and at the same time social efficiency, demonstrated the sociotechnical systems approach of the Tavistock school.

The functioning of an enterprise is considered in this concept as the interaction of social (workers with their goals and interests) and technical-organizational (technology, norms and regulations) subsystems. Many experts consider this direction to be the most promising methods for developing group forms of labor enrichment. With the same technology, “alternative” ways of organizing work become possible (i.e., a radical restructuring of connections and relationships within and between subsystems). In particular, instead of a single conveyor - the use of autonomous teams of workers, maximizing the variety of work, responsibility, professional growth and the role of group motivation. The most famous example of the successful implementation of these innovations is the activities of the Swedish automobile concern Volvo.

The initial stage of practical integration at the enterprise level of the theoretically formed Western sociology of organizations (which by that time had outgrown its initial limitations as the “sociology of formal organizations”) with the achievements of social psychology dates back to the same period. Organizational Psychology Concepts, or organizational development, were intended to compensate for the inability of other approaches to satisfactorily explain the facts empirically recorded in studies of significant differences in indicators of employee stability and attitudes towards work at enterprises with the same production results, but with different principles management.

The enterprise began to be viewed as an “open system” interacting with the external environment, whose influence is primarily exercised through the psychology of personnel, formed under the influence of a broad social context (family, school, society as a whole, etc.). The final efficiency of its functioning depends on how exactly the goals of the enterprise (and actions to achieve them) are refracted in the inner world of employees. Without considering in detail the features of different terms when describing various shades of organizational development concepts: organizational development, organizational growth, organizational design, organizational construction etc., it is advisable to emphasize one of the most precise definitions its essence. This is a strategy aimed at change social relations, the views of people and the structure of the organization in order to improve its adaptation to technology and market requirements.

The concept of organizational development, which focuses on the dynamics of connections and relationships of all elements of a heterogeneous system and the external environment, while recognizing the exclusive role of the human factor, in a certain way practically completes the preparation for the widespread transition from the Taylor heritage to a post-industrial, socially oriented system of managing the entire complex of relations in production. Its direct consequence is the requirement for improvement internal communications, decentralization of management decisions and focus on the highest motivational needs of the employee.

The foregoing allows us to talk about what is happening in modern Western civilization, after the crisis of the 1970s, the next - third in a row - post-industrial revolution in management and production relations in general, which, of course, has a “human” orientation.

First - industrial - The revolution, displacing small-scale commodity production and manufacture with the transition to machine production of the factory type, was based on the complete subordination of the worker to technology, being purely “anti-human” in the forms and intensity of exploitation and, in those conditions, the only economically effective one.

In Great Britain, this revolution (the last third of the 18th century - the first quarter of the 19th century) approximately coincided with industrialization. In other European countries and the USA, industrialization dragged on until late XIX V. In Russia it began in last decades XIX century and ended by the end of the 1930s. (we are talking about industrialization in the political economic sense: the creation of a large machine industry with priority in the production of means of production - group “A”).

The second can be called “quasi-human” industrial revolution in industry, taking into account the psychophysiological and basic socio-psychological characteristics of workers, ensured by the development of ergonomics, scientific approaches to labor organization and management (in developed countries - the beginning and first half of the 20th century). At a certain level of development of technology and society, a more promising way to increase production efficiency turned out to be the adaptation of technology, production organization and management to humans, and not vice versa. Some experts associate the end of this period with the beginning of the deployment in parallel and interconnected “ scientific and technological revolution» 1950s

The scientific and technological revolution and its recorded “material” manifestations should be considered as an objective consequence and at the same time an indicator of the third - post-industrial - a revolution in the system of production relations (primarily in management), when the highest needs of the individual become the subject of targeted use and development in the interests of production.

Reflecting a fundamental change in the role and place of a person - an actor - in production, the post-industrial revolution manifests itself most clearly in organizational and managerial relations iyah. Of course, at the same time, intensive technical re-equipment continues, the search and implementation of new technologies, ways to optimize labor organization, etc. in order to increase production efficiency. But the main events that determine the qualitative difference of the experienced ethan occur precisely in management: not only and not so much in the increasingly ramified ordering of the statuses and methods of interaction of subjects of labor processes, in the methods and styles of management and leadership, but in the change in the management paradigm itself.

The expression of the highest managerial wisdom is formulated in the new conditions as follows: “You cannot force people work more efficiently. The maximum that a leader can achieve is to try to make the person want it himself.”

Its implementation is accompanied by significant, sometimes radical modifications of the positions of actors in the structure of distribution of power and subordination and the foundations of joint interaction of people in production. There is an intensive development based on the achievements of the school of “human relations” of theories of organizational development, etc., of such systems for supporting modern management of organizations as “participatory management”, “industrial democracy”, “organizational democracy”, etc.

Widespread application, and the very attention of practice to such innovations, is not a disinterested gift to employees on the part of individual advanced entrepreneurs or owners. This is a forced result of the manifestation of an objective global trend of ever more closely linking the growth of economic efficiency of production with the provision of opportunities for self-realization and self-development to the mass layers of workers of the industrial era.

Issues for discussion

• 1. How can one determine the manifestation of a social need for the development of management consulting?
• 2. The development of what components determined the possibility of identifying a sociological branch of management consulting?
• 3. How can you characterize the focus of the first-ever management consulting experience?
• 4. What are the main differences and emphases of management practices during the stages of industrial development in the United States?
• 5. Using the proposed systematization, answer at what stage is Russian industry now?
• 6. What are the main reasons for modern criticism of M. Weber’s theory of rational bureaucracy? How justified is it?
• 7. How can we briefly formulate the main significance of the Hawthorne experiments for the development of management and management consulting?
• 8. What are the main factors of demand in a given period for various sociological concepts in enterprise management?
• 9. What is the fundamental novelty of the Tavistock School’s approach to organizations?
• 10. What is the main trend, within which at least three “revolutions” can be identified in the development of the system of relations in production?

• The domestic reader can only be unpleasantly surprised by the literal coincidence of the characteristics of this phase, which has long passed in the USA, and the current state Russian industry. For a professional, this fact can and should become an important primary guideline when analyzing activities Russian enterprises and identifying ways to improve it.
• There are currently 39 published in the US sociological journals, and the American journal of sociology - since 1895. For comparison: in Russia (USSR), the first sociological journal appeared in 1974, and the first university department of sociology was opened in 1984.

Introduction

1 EVOLUTION OF MANAGEMENT PARADIGM

Paradigm (in management and economic sciences) is a system of views arising from the fundamental ideas and scientific results of major scientists that determine the core of thinking of the bulk of researchers, practicing managers and economists. Over time and under the influence of various factors (industrial, scientific, technical and technological revolutions, world wars, etc.), the system of views changed. Therefore, there are old and new paradigms.

The old management paradigm is associated with such names as F. Taylor, A. Fayol, E. Mayo, A. Maslow, etc. Its main provisions were as follows:

The enterprise is closed system, the goals, objectives and operating conditions of which are quite stable;

Increasing the scale of production and services is the main factor of success and competitiveness;

Rational organization of production, efficient use of all types of resources and increasing labor productivity are main task management;

The main source of surplus value is the production worker and his labor productivity;

The management system must be built on control of all types of activities, functional division of labor, norms, standards and rules for performing work.

This system of views was formed under the influence of active industrial development, the emergence of large enterprises and industrial centers, which was caused by a significant surge in business activity.

These conditions required:

Rigid coordination, clear structuring of management, hierarchy, concentration and concentration of powers in one person capable of making management decisions alone;

A clear definition of the responsibilities of performers and management decision makers. Otherwise, going beyond the strict limits of the specified restrictions led to a failure. technological process and inexorably reduced economic indicators.

The Second World War and the general mobilization associated with it forced a change in the system of methods and approaches by which maximum labor productivity and output had previously been achieved.

The acceleration of the pace of scientific and technological progress, the technological revolution, and the transition of most countries to post-industrial development have set economic priorities in a new way. The main requirements for managing an organization are dynamism, flexibility, and adaptability. The influence of these and other objective factors became the reason for the revision and change of the scientific foundations of management, the formation of a new management paradigm.

A new management paradigm, i.e. a modern system of views on management, developed in the 70-80s. XX century. The authors of the new management paradigm are R. Waterman, T. Peters, I. Ansoff, P. Drucker and others.

The main provisions of the new management paradigm are as follows:

The enterprise is an open system based on the unity of internal and external environmental factors;

The organization should focus not so much on output volumes, but on the quality of products and services, on meeting the expectations and values ​​of consumers;

A situational approach to management, recognition of the importance of speed and adequacy of reaction, ensuring adaptation to the conditions of existence of the company, under which the rationalization of production becomes a secondary task;

The main source of profit is people with knowledge and the conditions for realizing their potential;

The management system should focus on increasing the role of organizational culture and innovation, employee motivation and an adequate leadership style.

The new paradigm corresponds to those formulated in the 90s. XX century new management principles. In them, the main attention is drawn to the person as a key resource of the organization and to creating conditions for the realization of his potential and ability to work together effectively.

New management principles include:

Loyalty to the company's employees on the part of its management;

Responsibility as a prerequisite for successful management;

Communications that permeate the organization from bottom to top, top to bottom and horizontally;

An atmosphere in the organization that promotes the development of employees’ abilities;

Mandatory establishment of the share of each employee in the overall results;

Timely response to changes in the environment;

Methods of working with people to ensure their job satisfaction;

Direct participation of managers in the work of groups at all stages as a condition for coordinated work;

The ability to listen to everyone a manager encounters in his work: buyers, suppliers, performers, managers, etc.;

Business ethics;

Honesty and trust in people;

Reliance on the fundamental principles of management: quality, costs, service, innovation, resource control, personnel;

A vision of the organization’s prospects, i.e. a clear idea of ​​what it should be;

The quality of personal work and its continuous improvement.

The new system of views on management is known in the literature as a “quiet management revolution”, since, despite the radical nature of the proposed changes, they can be introduced gradually, without leading to immediate disruption and destruction of already established systems. The global and sharp turn in the history of Russia's development from a socialist model to a market-entrepreneurial model led to changes in the domestic management paradigm. The old management paradigm was based on the Marxist interpretation of socio-economic development. The role of the economic foundation for fair distribution based on the results of labor was played by public ownership of the means of production, and the plan acted as a regulator of production. Economic theory socialism substantiated the need to implement such fundamental provisions as the concentration of production, its monopolization in state-owned enterprises, the orientation of production specialization towards economic efficiency, and the closeness of a single national economic complex. In accordance with this, economic management was built like one large factory with divisions and branches. The old system of views on the management of enterprises and organizations was based on such provisions as:

Centralization of management of a single national economic complex;

Direct state management of enterprises;

Limited economic independence of enterprises;

A rigid centralized system for the distribution of goods, services, funds and labor;

System for setting prices from a single center (Goskomtsen).

The main provisions of the new management paradigm in Russian Federation are presented as follows:

Decentralization of the management system based on a combination of market and government management of socio-economic processes. The state must establish general rules for the functioning of the market, using such forms of intervention as:

Legislation;

Government orders;

Licensing and quotas for exports and imports;

Regulation of the discount rate of the Bank of Russia;

Transition to a polycentric economic system.

On the one hand, this leads to an increase in the number and complexity of problems solved in the regions, on the other hand, it simplifies the economic management system; management of public sector enterprises based on a combination of market and administrative methods; formation and functioning of market economic entities as open, socially oriented systems. Each organization must independently resolve issues related to interaction with the external environment. Social orientation is considered in 2 aspects, such as:

Focus on the consumer, meeting the needs of society;

Solving social problems of the workforce and the organization’s environment.

A management paradigm is a system of concepts, methodologies and methods that forms a model for setting and solving management problems adopted in a specific socio-economic system.

Genesis of the management paradigm

The category “paradigm” was introduced into science by T. Kuhn (T.S. Kuhn) in the following concept: “By paradigm I mean scientific achievements recognized by all, which over a certain period of time provide the scientific community with a model for posing problems and their solutions” (T. Kuhn. Structure of scientific revolutions . - M.: Progress, 1977. - P. 11). The central feature of a paradigm should be considered universal recognition, including concepts and methods in certain areas of activity of a particular social institution. In the development of the general concept of a paradigm, the concepts of paradigms of various institutional directions, including the management paradigm, appeared. Scientific and management paradigms are of an ideal nature. Inadequate interpretation of the concept of “managerial paradigm”, which is decisively due to the lack of a theoretical model capable of systematically and holistically interpreting its ideal sphere. The complexity of structuring its concept is enhanced by the methodological contradiction between the condition of universal recognition as the essence of the paradigm and the ambiguity of interpretation of the concepts that form it by different scientists.

The most well-structured institutions of the management paradigm model include scientific theories and generalizations of various schools and trends in the field of science and management practice. However, these scientific institutions are usually considered as self-sufficient and without connection with other institutions of the socio-economic environment and with specific carriers of the management paradigm. At the same time, an attribute of management in social production is the purposefulness of both management and production processes; this goal-directed activity occurs in conditions of limited resources. And here the concept of management efficiency appears, determined both by making decisions on the use of resources and by methodological tools that ensure the selection of the most effective alternative when making management decisions. From this follows the central condition for effective management - the adequacy of the management tools used to the conditions of the socio-economic system in which social production operates. At the same time, the factors and tools of management decisions, being interconnected in the socio-economic system, develop according to the laws of evolution of their institutions, which leads to a certain level of their mutual inadequacy, to overcome which external targeted influence is necessary. It is possible to identify this inadequacy and determine the nature of the impacts to eliminate it only within the boundaries of the management paradigm, which raises the problem of identifying the management paradigm immanent in the specific socio-economic system of the functioning of social production.

The scientific paradigm has an objective, universal character, and its changes are determined by the discovery of natural phenomena and the development of methods for their research. The management paradigm has a subjective, unique nature, which is determined by the socio-economic system. Its changes are due to the development of social production and methods of its management.
This implies one of the fundamental structural differences between the institutional factors of scientific and managerial paradigms, which lies in the different levels of formal (in the form of scientific theories and legislative acts) and informal (voluntarily accepted in society) constituent structures. In the case of the scientific paradigm, the informal component is practically absent. At the same time, the nature of the management paradigm determines the presence of a significant manifestation of informal and ideological factors in its structure. Informal factors can have both a historical nature, that is, be actually existing, but have not yet received a scientific, ideological or any other generalization, or a subjective nature in the form of actually applied concepts and management methods, but not declared to prevent formal identification of contradictions with officially declared goals and concepts of state strategy and goals of social production. The latter case does not exclude the situation of actual support of informal institutions of the management paradigm by official state and industrial management structures as reducing the degree of influence of problems arising in the process of achieving the formal and informal goals of the state, enterprise and specific managers.

The institutions of the socio-economic environment and the scientific paradigm determine the choice of methodological management tools for making management decisions. Identification and research of a paradigm can be carried out by its external manifestations - institutions - in the form of concepts, theories, tools and methods that have become widespread in real management, educational programs and textbooks. These institutions, being generally recognized by definition, can simultaneously be, as already noted, well-structured, formulated and officially (in one or another form immanent for a particular institution) recognized, and informal - in the form of weakly structured and undeclared forms of actually applied views and concepts and methods. This, in particular, entails the need for institutional research into the facts of theoretical and practical activity to identify possible contradictions between the declarative and substantive parts of the state of intellectual capital of management at all levels and the impact of these contradictions on economic relations and results.

In the format of the model of the genesis of contradictions in management institutions, the fact that scientific theories in the field of social sciences, which are one of the institutions of the management paradigm, in contrast to models natural sciences, are also subject to ideological influence. In the special methodological literature today, the idea is increasingly heard that the action of the Smith mechanism (Adam Smith) “ invisible hand“does not apply to economic science itself. The fact of leadership of one or another scientific schools and concepts is not at all proof of their objective superiority according to significant criteria of scientific or social progress. Their priority status can no less successfully be supported by scientific fashion, power in the institutions of the scientific community, or connections with influential centers of power.

In general, the formation of institutions can have both an economically determined nature from the standpoint of the development of social production, and an ideological nature. The latter is determined by the purposeful influence of government institutions on people to instill in them certain ideological concepts. In Russia, in particular, as Academician A. A. Nikonov noted: “until the end of the 20s (of the last century), domestic science kept pace with the world, was in its leading positions in both economics and biology. So who interrupted the normal development of our science? Every era has its troubadours and standard-bearers. The first of them was Trofim Lysenko, who declared that there is no such science as “economics” at all, and cybernetics is a bourgeois pseudoscience. ... All these people were very influential in public terms, and the party supported them with all its authority. At least two generations of our specialists studied from their books, and the seeds were planted in the souls of young people. We still often encounter relapses. The situation in science is determined primarily by the devaluation of higher education, which went through several stages, starting with mass repression and persecution of economists, and then geneticists" (Nikonov A. A. Systemic research in the agricultural sector // Bulletin of Agricultural Science. 1991. No. 11. - C. 6). At the same time, in a market-type economy, according to P. Drucker, “there is no doubt that, by fulfilling its main function and acting in accordance with the political and ethical principles of society, the enterprise strengthens the economic power of this society” (Drucker P. Tasks management in the XXI century. - M.: Williams Publishing House, 2002. - P. 22).

The paradigm has an institutional nature due to its defining attribute of general recognition, and in the case of the management paradigm as an institutional factor of social production - the widespread use of a specific system of concepts and management methods. As a result, a management paradigm (as well as an institution) cannot be created, since it only reflects generally accepted institutional factors and management institutions.

The institutional structure that forms the management paradigm in a given socio-economic system is formed by scientific knowledge And applied research, state, legal, social, ideological and educational institutions, the subsystem of social production, as well as external socio-economic systems.

The institutional category-conceptual apparatus of the management paradigm can be represented by the following attributes: institutional factors have a functional impact on the formation of the management paradigm in the form scientific developments on management theory, macro- and microeconomics, methodological and practical tools of management, targets of the main public institutions, curricula and textbooks on business education; management institutions represent external manifestation management paradigm in the form of targets, concepts, methods and other tools for making management decisions, actually used by managers in their practical activities. A comparison of the resulting concepts and categories that form the concepts of “intellectual capital” and “managerial paradigm” proves their common genesis, while the management paradigm reflects the procedural component of intellectual capital. In terms systematic approach in the hierarchy of subsystems that form the management paradigm, institutional factors are “inputs”, the corresponding institutional structure is the “processor”, and institutions are the “output” of this subsystem.

As already noted, an attribute of a scientific paradigm is its generally accepted nature over a certain time period. The management paradigm is a stochastic result of the development of social production in a given socio-economic system and scientific methods his research. These two systems interact - the socio-economic system qualitatively determines the content of the paradigm, and the paradigm affects the degree and effectiveness of achieving the goals of the socio-economic system in the sphere of material production. The latter are determined by the degree of adequacy of the methodological tools of the paradigm to the conditions of the socio-economic system. At the same time, the factors that determine changes in the socio-economic system influence changes in the management paradigm, but indirectly, through the changes they make in the socio-economic environment, which determines the inertia of the management paradigm in relation to the pace of environmental change and complexity production systems. At high rates of evolution, and even more so with revolutionary changes in socio-economic systems, expressed in changes in the forms of connections and the composition of its elements, these changes cannot quickly influence the components of the management paradigm, which are of an ideal nature. The contradictions between levels in the “management paradigm - social production” system formed in this case lead to a decrease in the efficiency of achieving the goals of production systems. In the case of revolutionary processes in socio-economic systems, leading to maximization of the level of diversity - chaos, these contradictions lead to a complete loss of controllability of social production. The way out of this situation is targeted actions to reduce the level of diversity of the managed system.

In cybernetics control system are considered as a machine for transferring a controlled system from one class to another, more primitive one, and give an example with a conductor - a regulator - and an orchestra - a controlled system: “put an orchestra into action and you will see that it has a natural tendency to generate diversity by introducing errors into interpretation of a piece of music by individual musicians. In addition, the orchestra will introduce additional elements of randomness into the performance due to the lack of communication between the musicians. The conductor (or regulator) sets himself the goal of reducing the complexity of the system he controls by forcing approximately eighty-five people to play as if they were only certain signs in the score” (Beer St. Cybernetics and production management. - M.: Nauka, 1965. - P. 45). An exception to the law of necessary diversity is the situation when the goal of management is precisely the destruction of the managed system. Then the control system can have not only a relatively, but also an absolutely simple structure and be more primitive in relation to the controlled one. V.I. Lenin, considering the state apparatus as a machine for suppression, emphasized: “The people can suppress the exploiters even with a very simple “machine”, almost without a “machine”, without a special apparatus, by a simple organization of the armed masses” (V.I. Lenin . State and revolution //PSS, vol. 33. - P. 90).

In general, changes in the “managerial paradigm - social production” system can be carried out by a combination of processes of creation and destruction at various levels. In revolutionary changes in socio-economic systems, destructive processes have an overwhelming influence. Communications are destroyed and sometimes organizational structures and the elements that form them - people - are physically destroyed. Moreover, the more the object of change/destruction is connected with the material world, the simpler the means of its change/destruction can be.

The managerial paradigm has an ideal nature, but the carriers of its institutions are material objects - people, books and other sources of information, which can also be destroyed relatively easily. Unlike most socio-economic systems, for the destruction (cessation of functioning) of which it may be sufficient to change even one connection or one element, to destroy a paradigm it is necessary to physically eliminate the majority of its carriers. Moreover, in the case of parallel destruction of the socio-economic system and the management paradigm in the new state, the elements in the “managerial paradigm - social production” system will not necessarily be adequate to each other.

More high level The inertia of creative processes that form a new management paradigm compared to the creation of a new socio-economic system, in our opinion, is due to two reasons:

the duration of the processes of formation of such ideal concepts as knowledge, methodology among the vast majority of explicit or implicit carriers of this paradigm;

the formation of a management paradigm is always secondary and occurs with a large time lag in relation to the formation of a socio-economic system, since it is a consequence of the processes occurring during the creation and functioning of the latter.

In modern Russia, despite the destruction of the previous socio-economic system, at present the task is not set and no attempts are made to purposefully influence the institutions of the management paradigm to change them in order to increase their level of adequacy to production systems and the new conditions of their functioning . At the same time, the level of inertia can be reduced using the concept of actively developing a management paradigm. To purposefully influence the institutions of the management paradigm, it is necessary:

Identify forms of manifestation of contradictions in the management paradigm and managed systems;

Identify controllable factors that form the paradigm, and through them purposefully influence its changes, first by external coercion, and then by creating a self-regulation system based on the cybernetic principle of homeostasis, ensuring compliance with equifinality - achieving the planned result under any fluctuations in the conditions of the external environment and the controlled system, - and the imperative of economic efficiency of production.

What are the basic principles of the new management paradigm and how does it differ from the traditional rationalist paradigm?

The search for ways to overcome the increasing frequency of protracted economic crises, reduce losses as a result of unexpected changes in the external environment, and improve the controllability of firms has forced heads of organizations around the world to seriously think about the nature of negative socio-economic processes and phenomena and attempt to develop adequate response measures.

Initially, the attention of researchers was aimed at improving training and retraining of specialists and managers. This path was followed not only by Western management specialists, but also by Russian scientists. especially during the period of formation of market relations in the economy, but soon both of them became convinced that specialized education in the field of management was completely insufficient to improve management efficiency.

In the minds of most managers, the idea arose of the need to develop new principles for constructing management systems, the formation of a new paradigm that meets modern trends in the development of the world economy.

Short description

Paradigm (in management and economic sciences) is a system of views arising from the fundamental ideas and scientific results of major scientists that determine the core of thinking of the bulk of researchers, practicing managers and economists. Over time and under the influence various factors(industrial, scientific, technical and technological revolutions, world wars, etc.) the system of views changed. Therefore, there are old and new paradigms.

Paradigm(in management and economic sciences) - a system of views arising from the fundamental ideas and scientific results of major scientists that determine the core of thinking of the bulk of researchers, practicing managers and economists.

Old The management paradigm is associated with such names as F. Taylor, A. Fayol, E. Mayo, A. Maslow and others. main provisions were as follows:

The enterprise is a closed system, the goals, objectives and operating conditions of which are quite stable;

Increasing the scale of production and services is the main factor of success and competitiveness;

Rational organization of production, efficient use of all types of resources and increasing labor productivity are the main tasks of management;

The main source of surplus value is the production worker and his labor productivity;

The management system must be built on control of all types of activities, functional division of labor, norms, standards and rules for performing work.

This belief system was formed under the influence of active industrial development, the emergence of large enterprises, industrial centers, which was caused by a significant surge in business activity.

The acceleration of the pace of scientific and technological progress, the technological revolution, and the transition of most countries to post-industrial development have set economic priorities in a new way. The main requirements for managing an organization are dynamism, flexibility, and adaptability. The influence of these and other objective factors became the reason for the revision and change of the scientific foundations of management, the formation of a new management paradigm.

New system views on management were formed in the 70-80s. XX century In the scientific literature, it is characterized as a “quiet” management revolution along the path of transition from management during the period of industrial development (the “old” paradigm, based on the works of F.W. Taylor, A. Fayol, E. Mayo, etc.) to management in the period of a market economy (“new” paradigm, which is based on the works of T. Peters, R. Waterman, I. Ansoff, P. Duker, etc.).

« New" paradigm correspond to new management principles. In them, the main attention is drawn to the person as a key resource of the organization, to creating conditions for the realization of his potential when performing tasks to achieve the goals of the organization. New priorities have been set in the organization's management system: organizational culture, democratization of management, communications, leadership styles, personnel policy.

New concept:

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

2. Focus not on output volumes, but on the quality of products and services, customer satisfaction.

3. Situational approach to management, recognition of the importance of speed and adequacy of reactions that ensure adaptation to the conditions of existence of the organization, under which the rationalization of production becomes secondary.

4. The main source of added value is people with knowledge and the conditions for realizing their potential.

5. A management system focused on increasing the role of organizational culture and innovation, employee motivation and leadership style.