Sociology of organizations. Sociology of organizations and its place in modern sociology

1. Definition of the organization and its internal structure.

2. Management of organizations.

Even a superficial look at human society allows us to say that most of the social groups exist in the form of organizations. Even in ancient times, people realized the significant advantage of organized groups. The victories of the Greeks in the war against the Persians, and especially of the Romans over the barbarians, can be briefly described as the triumph of a well-organized army. Indeed, the Roman troops of Gaius Marius, for example, 10 times inferior in number to the troops of the Cimbri and Teutons, nevertheless won, because they were the best organization.

Why is the organization the most effective means in the activities of social groups? The essence of its effect is that people, acting together, can do much more than acting alone. The result of the joint activity of a group of individuals is higher than the sum of the results of their individual disparate efforts. The most famous example: the cavalry squadron as a combat unit is much stronger than the same as in the squadron, the number of individual horsemen. This phenomenon of increasing efforts in the course of joint activities is called synergy and is an integral property of organizations. However, in order for this property to be fully manifested, the organization must create truly optimal conditions that ensure joint action. If such conditions are not created, it may happen that each of the participants will not be able to carry out any useful activity for which this organization is formed. The sociology of organizations is called upon to solve the social problems of optimal working conditions for organizations.

1. Definition of an organization and its internal structure

In everyday practice, the concept of "organization" is often used, and the most diverse content is invested in it. A.I. Prigozhin gives the three most common meanings of the term "organization" (Prigozhin A.I. Sociology of organizations. M., 1980. P. 39-41).

Firstly, the organization denotes some activity in the development of new norms, the establishment of stable ties, as well as the coordination of the efforts of individual members of the social group. This activity is best characterized by the word "organization". In other words, this is an activity aimed solely at achieving the effect of synergy by providing conditions for concerted action, cooperation and integration of individuals in a group. For example, the manager organizes the production process. This means that he must place people in their workplaces in such a way as to ensure the continuity and speed of operations. In addition, he must ensure interchangeability and establish production standards, working hours, interaction between work sites and suppliers, etc. This activity is called the organization of the production process.

Secondly, organization is often understood as an attribute of some object, its property to have an ordered structure. This means that a social object has a certain internal structure and consists of parts connected in a certain way. Usually the term "organization" in this sense is used to distinguish between organized and unorganized structures. It is said, in particular, that a group is organized if it has stable social roles (i.e., everyone performs his part of the common cause), rules that regulate people's behavior, as well as orderly relations with surrounding groups.

Thirdly, an organization is understood as an artificially created social group of an institutional nature that performs a certain social function. In this regard, the bank is an organization whose members participate in the performance of the function of accumulating, distributing and orderly use of money, and the school is an organization whose staff participates in the performance of the functions of transferring knowledge to the younger generation and its socialization.

All three meanings of the concept of "organization" are closely related. Any organized group (the third meaning of this concept) must be formed in the course of its "organization", i.e. activities to form its internal structure, communication system, cultural characteristics, as well as the distribution of social roles. Obviously, when such an organized group takes shape, it will have that internal quality that we have called organization.

The considered meanings of the term "organization", accepted in society, give us an important key to understanding the essence of the organization and formulating its scientific definition.

Organization definition. There are many definitions of the organization, from which the concept of the organization as a rational system, or a system aimed at achieving a goal, is usually distinguished. There are four directions in the definition of the organization:

1) In accordance with the theory of K. Barnard, an organization is a type of cooperation of people that differs from other social groups in consciousness, predictability and purposefulness. K. Bernard and his followers paid attention mainly to the joint actions of people, their cooperation, and only then the need to achieve goals.

2) This direction is best characterized by the point of view of D. March and G. Simon, according to which an organization is a community of interacting human beings, which is the most widespread in society and contains a central coordinating system. The high specificity of the structure and coordination within the organization distinguish it from the diffuse and disordered connections between unorganized individuals. All this makes the organization look like a separate complex biological organism.

3) P. Blau and W. Scott represent the third direction in the definition of the organization. In this definition, the main, in their opinion, characteristic of the established organization is indicated - that it must be formalized, have a formal structure in order to achieve specific goals.

4) According to A. Etzioni, organizations are social associations (or human groups) consciously constructed and reconstructed for specific purposes. The main emphasis here is on the conscious membership in the organization and the conscious action of its members.

Analyzing all these four directions in the definition of organization, we can distinguish two specific features that distinguish organizations from other types of social groups.

The organization is first of all the social groups focused on achievement of the interconnected and specific purposes. Each organization is expedient in the sense that the actions of its members are coordinated in a certain way to achieve a common result for it in a very specific area of ​​human activity. So, an enterprise exists to ensure the release of specific products, a political party - to implement a political program, a hospital - to treat patients.

In addition, organizations are groups that are characterized by a high degree of formalization. Their internal structure is highly formalized in the sense that rules, regulations, routines cover almost the entire sphere of behavior of its members. They are clearly and precisely formulated and cover all roles and role relationships, prescribe role actions regardless of personal qualities individuals occupying certain positions in the structure of the organization. The director, his assistants or ordinary performers - they are all subject to rules that determine their duties, relationships in the service and subordination, regardless of their personal qualities.

Based on the listed main specific features, it is possible to define an organization as a social group focused on achieving interconnected specific goals and on the formation of highly formalized structures.

Often such specific features as the presence of a coordinating and governing body and the division of labor between its members are added to the definition of an organization. However, these features are manifested mainly in large-scale organizations and are not strictly required for all organized social groups.

Organization elements. Organizations are highly variable and highly complex social formations. However, their analysis must begin with a fairly simple model.

Schematic diagram of the organization

Consider the individual elements of this model.

1. The central element of any organization is its social structure. It refers to the patterned, or regulated, aspects of relationships between members of an organization. There are two points of view on the social structure of the group. The most famous in this regard is the point of view of K. Davis, who believes that "there is always in human society what can be called a double reality: on the one hand, the normative system that embodies nothing, on the other, the actual order that embodies everything, what is". Each individual is surrounded by many rules, prohibitions and permissions. They are necessary to streamline social life, but in practice it is simply impossible to live constantly by the rules: our life is a constant deviation from the rules, but at the same time, an orientation towards them.

The normative structure includes values, norms and role expectations. Values ​​are criteria for attractiveness and a reasonable choice of goals, as well as an assessment of surrounding social norms. Norms are generalized rules governing behavior that change and improve, leading individuals to achieve collective goals, the goals of the organization. Roles determine the contribution to the overall activity depending on the position held, as well as the mutual expectations of the participants, mutual control over their behavior. Values, norms, and roles are organized in such a way that they constitute relatively coherent and persistent systems of mutual trust and prescriptions that govern the behavior of members of the organization.

As for the actual order, it can be defined as a behavioral structure. It differs significantly from the normative structure, primarily in that it focuses on the personal qualities of the participants and their mutual assessments of these qualities. In accordance with the well-known teachings of J. Homans, the behavioral structure consists of actions, interactions and sentiments that are not regulated by norms and rules. The actions and interactions of the participants here largely depend on sentiment, which is understood as the primary form of mutual selectivity of the members of the organization. Sentiments primarily include likes and dislikes, affection and dislike. There are positive and negative feelings, choice or rejection of surrounding people. In general, the behavioral structure is a system of relations between people that is within the framework of the normative structure, but at the same time deviates from the normative structure within certain limits, due to personal feelings, preferences, likes and interests.

Thus, the social structure includes a set of interrelated roles, as well as ordered relationships between members of the organization, primarily the relationship of power and subordination. These relationships are changing as a result of the abolition of resources and changes in the nature of their use. It is the latter type of change that is the most important reserve for the development of the organization, which includes, first of all, innovations in the field of division of labor, motivation of participants in the organizational process, new forms of social control and reasonable acceptance management decisions.

The social structure of an organization differs in the degree of formalization. A formal social structure is a structure in which social positions and the relationships between them are clearly specialized and defined independently of the personal characteristics of the members of the organization occupying these positions. For example, there are social positions of the director, his deputies, heads of departments and ordinary performers. The director can be businesslike and energetic, fully consistent with his position, or he can be passive and incompetent. But still, formally, he remains the director. The performer may be super talented, but still he must formally occupy the lowest place in the organization's position structure. Relationships between the positions of the formal structure are based on strict rules, regulations, and provisions and are enshrined in official documents.

At the same time, the informal structure consists of a set of positions and relationships formed on the basis of personal characteristics and based on relations of prestige and trust. From the point of view of the informal structure, a competent and conscientious department head may have higher prestige and mean more than the director of the organization. Often among managers who formally occupy positions of the same level, we single out a leader who knows how to work with people, who is able to quickly and accurately solve the tasks assigned to him. Giving preference to him, establishing priority business contacts with him, we thereby establish one of the relationships of the informal structure. Such relationships are not fixed by official rules, regulations and norms and, therefore, can be easily destroyed, for example, if a dedicated leader does not live up to expectations. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the informal structure is more changeable, mobile and unstable than the formal one.

2. Goals. Based on the formulated definition of organizations in the organizational scheme, the goals are especially important, since for the sake of their achievement all the activities of the organization are carried out. An organization without purpose is meaningless and cannot exist for any length of time. At the same time, goals are one of the most controversial points in understanding the organization. Some scientists believe that goals are necessary in the analysis of organizational behavior, while others, on the contrary, try to downplay their importance. Behaviorists, for example, believe that only individuals can have goals, while groups and collectives do not.

Modern science puts the goals of the organization in one of the first places in importance. The goal is considered as the desired result or the conditions that the members of the organization are trying to achieve using their activity to meet collective needs. The joint activity of individuals gives rise to their goals of different levels and content.

There are three interrelated types of organizational goals.

1) Goals-tasks are assignments issued from the outside by a higher-level organization, designed as programs of general actions. Enterprises are given by the ministry or are dictated by the market (a set of organizations, including subcontractors and competitors) tasks that determine the purposeful existence of organizations. It is obvious that these goals are a priority and the attention and main activities of all participants in the organizational process, without exception, are directed to their implementation. Teaching at school, treatment and admission of patients in the hospital, laboratory work in research institutes - all these are goals-tasks that determine the meaning of the organization's existence.

2) Goals-orientations - this is a set of goals of the participants, implemented through the organization. This includes the generalized goals of the team, including the personal goals of each member of the organization. An important point joint activity is the combination of goals-tasks and goals-orientations. If they diverge significantly, the motivation to fulfill the goals-tasks is lost and the work of the organization may become ineffective. In an effort to fulfill the goals-orientations, the members of the organization brush aside the goals-tasks or strive to fulfill them only formally.

3) System goals - this is the desire to preserve the organization as an independent whole, i.e. maintain balance, stability and integrity. In other words, this is the desire of the organization to survive in the conditions of the existing external environment, the integration of the organization among others. The goals of the system should organically fit into the goals-tasks and goals-orientations. In cases of organizational pathology, the goals of the system may obscure other goals. At the same time, the desire to preserve the organization at any cost, regardless of the fulfillment of its tasks or the satisfaction of the collective goals of the participants, comes to the fore. Such a phenomenon is often observed at extreme degrees of manifestation of bureaucracy, when the organization, having lost real goals, exists only in order to survive, to maintain its independence.

The listed goals of the organization are the main, or basic, goals. To achieve them, the organization sets itself many intermediate, secondary, production goals: strengthening discipline, stimulating employees, reorganizing, improving the quality of work, etc. The main goals are divided into smaller ones, which, in turn, into even smaller ones, etc. Such a splitting of goals should correspond to the division of the organization into levels (departments, sectors, laboratories, workshops, sections, etc.), where each unit should have a set of production goals, the implementation of which serves to fulfill the main or basic goals.

3. Members of the organization, or participants - an important component of the organization. This is a set of individuals, each of which must have a certain set of qualities and skills that allow him to occupy a certain position in the social structure of the organization and play an appropriate social role. Collectively, the members of the organization are personnel who interact with each other in accordance with the normative and behavioral structure. Possessing different abilities and potential (knowledge, qualifications, motivation, connections), the members of the organization must fill in all the cells of the social structure without exception, i.e. all social positions in the organization. There is a problem of personnel placement, combining the abilities and potential of participants with the social structure, as a result of which it is possible to combine efforts and achieve organizational success.

4. Technology. An organization in terms of technology is a place where a certain type of work is performed, where the energy of the participants is used to transform materials or information. The concept of "technology" is usually attributed to three meanings. First, technology is often thought of as a system of physical entities that make up an organization. These can be machines, materials, duplicators, transmitting and receiving equipment, etc. Secondly, technology is understood in a narrow, "mechanical" sense. The only difference between a car and a radio receiver is that human energy is applied to them in different ways; in relation to them, various actions are performed that are necessary for their manufacture. In this sense, technology is physical objects connected to human activity. Thirdly, the term "technology" is used to refer to the totality of what people know about the processes taking place in a given area of ​​the organization's functioning. An organization cannot engage in any activity without knowing how to use the funds, transform them and implement them. Technology in this sense (this is called "know-how") is a systematized knowledge of useful and most rational practical actions.

At present, Ch.Perro's model of technology has become widely known. His argument combined the methods of manufacturing products, decision-making in the organization and the influence of social structure.

Rice. 2 Ch.Perrot technology model

The vertical axis in the diagram shows how analytical problem solving methods can be applied in this process. A high degree of analyticity allows you to decompose the process going on in the organization into separate operations and draw up its algorithm. The process can be automated or reorganized to work with less skilled workers, i.e. the complexity of operations can be reduced only if its algorithm exists.

Horizontal change reflects individual and group activity, which is characterized, on the one hand, by following the usual, old rules and restrictions, and on the other hand, on the contrary, by retreating from them, creating new rules, norms and methods of activity. Ch. Perrault's model allows us to establish that the development of technology is possible only on the basis of focusing on complex, unanalyzed solutions to production problems, on reasonable innovative deviations from the usual, established methods and rules.

5. External environment. Every organization exists in a specific physical, technological, cultural and social environment. She must adapt to him and coexist with him. There are no self-sufficient, closed organizations. All of them, in order to exist, function, achieve goals, must have numerous connections with the outside world. If we consider a modern organization, then immediately striking are its connections and interdependencies with higher organizations, suppliers, law enforcement, political and many other organizations and institutions that exist in this particular society. Thus, very few organizations take full responsibility for the socialization and education of their members. Most often, cultural patterns, professions, and material support are obtained from external systems.

With rare exceptions (certain military organizations, monasteries, etc.), members of an organization are simultaneously members of other organizations whose interests have a significant, sometimes even decisive influence on the behavior of the participants. Therefore, one of the characteristics of organizations is that they are all built on the partial inclusion of participants in them. Likewise, few organizations create their own technology. Much here depends on the type of environment, for example, on the receipt from the mechanical equipment, information, programs, trained workers. In the future, resources coming from outside are adapted in the organization (for example, workers continue to improve their skills). The social structure also perceives its most important components from the external environment. Structural forms, no less than technology, depend on the environment.

Studying the external environment of organizations, the English researcher Richard Turton identified the main factors influencing the organization of the external environment: 1) the role of the state and the political system; 2) market influence (competitors and labor market); 3) the role of the economy; 4) the influence of social and cultural factors; 5) technology from the external environment. Obviously, these environmental factors affect almost all areas of the organization.

In order for an organization to take its proper place in society, to survive in the neighborhood with other organizations, groups, institutions, any organization must adapt to this external environment. This circumstance forces the organization to choose a strategy of behavior in relation to the external environment. If such an organization seeks to isolate itself as much as possible from the influence of other organizations and institutions, to maintain its independence, such a strategy is called a buffer. If the organization seeks, on the contrary, to expand and strengthen its ties with the external environment, such a strategy is called a bridging strategy.

Buffer strategies take many forms, but a specific feature of them is the desire for independence and the strengthening of the boundaries of the organization. Buffer strategies include the strategy of tightening control over the entry into the organization of information, material resources and people from the external environment, the strategy of warehousing, stocking (thus increasing the autonomy of the organization), growth (expansion) of the organization, etc.

Bridging strategies are designed to streamline the exchange relations of the organization, expand the boundaries of business contacts, acquire new spheres of influence in the external environment. These strategies include strengthening the interdependence of various organizations, control of each over each. The most typical strategies of this kind are the strategy of making deals, the strategy of mutual diffusion, the strategy of searching for new areas of application of the forces of the organization, etc.

In general, it can be said that each of the organizational elements - social structure, goals, members of the organization, technology and external environment - serves as an essential component of all organizations. Thus, organizations are presented as SYSTEMS of elements, each of which is unthinkable without the others. For example, goals in themselves, as well as a social structure or technology taken separately, are not the key to understanding the nature of the functioning of organizations, just as there is no organization that can be understood in isolation from the environment.

Foreword

I began to study the theory of social organization in the 60s at Moscow University on a special course of D.M. Gvishiani (now he is an academician, then he was an assistant professor). And in 1980 I published the first monograph in our country called "The Sociology of Organizations" and then three more books in the same vein. In Soviet times, one had to write on these topics with a constant eye on censorship, but also on the maneuvers of the party bureaucracy with its congresses, plenums, resolutions and unwritten instructions. Despite the then inevitable bows to them, the monograph mentioned above was accused of deviationism in the journal Sociological Research.

Now it is possible to publish a more developed and modern textbook on the sociology of organizations, where the interested reader is offered a body of knowledge not only in general, but also in applied, practical sociology of organizations.
I do not know why, but in the sociology of organizations there are still very few domestic researchers and developers, unlike most other sociological disciplines. Perhaps this book will motivate the expansion of the number of professionals in this field.

Modern sociology of organizations.
Not expecting, this time, ideological accusations, I will hope, nevertheless, for criticism on the case, comments and advice on the merits.
I thank the Soros Foundation for funding this publication. With a warm feeling I remember my old and current colleagues, who directly or indirectly contributed to this work.

PART 1
SUBJECT OF SOCIOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS
CHAPTER I
WHAT AND HOW SOCIOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS STUDIES
§ 1. LIMITS OF SCIENCE

Thing

The subject of the sociology of organizations are regularities and problems of building, functioning and development of business organizations(enterprises, institutions), as well as other organizational forms (associations of political, religious, cultural, amateur types).
Organization is a multidimensional phenomenon. It includes people, equipment, buildings, business papers, infrastructure, etc. It consists of elements different nature.
Organization is a living, moving phenomenon: people work, enter into various relationships - personal, managerial, cooperation, conflict, official and unofficial, authoritative and friendly, etc.
Organization is a hierarchical phenomenon. In it, relations of leadership and subordination are inevitable, the distribution of roles - both formal - according to the functions performed, and informal - leadership, interpersonal relations, etc.
The organization changes over time. It is born, develops, renews or "rots" and "dies". She has a past, lives in the present and plans for the future. The life of an organization is largely predetermined by the environment. Often it receives its goals from the outside, and many of the products of its activity are turned outward, its personnel live in the surrounding world. The organization is forced to closely monitor its relationship with the environment.
All this creates many difficulties for organizations, their leaders, and other employees: tensions, adverse consequences, new requirements, crises. But this also opens up new opportunities for members of organizations: professional and career advancement, higher wages, the realization of one's abilities, the accumulation of experience in solving organizational problems, etc.
There are usually four aspects of the study of organizations:
- the structure of organizations - the study of their goals, hierarchy, composition, structure, classification of organizations, etc.;
- the functioning of organizations - types of organizational relations, the behavior of an individual in an organization, the interaction of socio-psychological and administrative factors, the processes of making and implementing decisions, etc.;
- management in organizations - organizational processes, relations between subordinates and managers, style and methods of leadership, management decisions, etc.;
- development of organizations - design and creation of new organizations, trends in the development of organizations, methods for their transformation, innovation, etc.
Related areas

It is obvious that some of these questions are to some extent considered in other branches of sociology. With them, the sociology of organizations has common tasks and problems, which, however, are solved from different angles, complementing each other. There is an interchange of research results, conclusions are mutually corrected.
So, sociology of labor, studying the attitude of people to work, ways of stimulating them, the influence of the content of labor on a person, etc., provides valuable material for solving such a problem in the sociology of organizations as combining the interests of each employee with the tasks of the organization. Sociology of professions provides important information for the sociology of organizations about the social structure of organizations, about the need to take into account professional orientation in the formation of personnel, etc. Without social psychology it is impossible to study such important concepts in the sociology of organizations as leadership style, the participation of performers in making common decisions, intra-organizational conflicts, and so on.
Some sociological sciences not only study other angles of the subject of the sociology of organizations, but also partially overlap with it in terms of the subject of study. For example, the concept of "sociology of management" is studied by the sociology of organizations in the part in which we are talking about organizational management. Management at the level of society is considered by political sociology. It also studies the functioning and participation in the affairs of society of parties, blocs and other organizations.
Economics, systems theory, law, one way or another, also come to organizational problems.
But the sociology of organizations can also significantly enrich the ideas of other sociological disciplines about organizations. All these disciplines cannot do without knowledge of the organizational environment in which the individual "lives", opportunities and boundaries, restructuring of intra-collective relations, group processes in organizations and other dependencies. And such knowledge is provided to them by the sociology of organizations.
In other words, interacting, mutually enriching with knowledge from related fields, various areas of sociology have a very positive effect on the improvement of each other. There are often no sharp boundaries between them, they intersect in some way, but this only contributes to their unity. At the same time, some differences in the interpretation of individual phenomena by specialists of different sociological profiles are not excluded and even natural. Such differences are always interesting, their comparison gives, as it were, a stereo effect in theory and methodology, in general - in knowledge.
The world of organizations is deeply divided.

Basic contradictions

Organizations from their very inception are built as multidimensional systems, consisting of elements of a different nature of a system of inequality, cooperation and conflict of interests.
This separation between them creates constant lines of contradictions that are the essence of the structure and dynamics of organizations, the source of many problems. Let's call them:
- the relationship between personal and impersonal factors of organizations;
- the ratio between the individual and the general in organizations;
- departmentalization.
The first of them arises from the fact that the organization cannot be considered only as a collective - a collection of individuals, small groups, etc. Along with interpersonal, group relations, it also has an administrative (formal) structure of impersonal connections and norms. Moreover, this division occurs at all levels - at the level of the individual (personality and position), relations in the team (management and leadership), groups (team and subdivision) - up to the organization as a whole (team - organization). Such a cross-cutting division into personal and organizational creates a contradiction in the organization, a line of tension, which affects both the goals and the relations of management - performance and other aspects of its life. This key contradiction underlies many other intra-organizational problems. It must be taken into account when studying the sociology of organizations.
The second means that when organizing any team, the main task is how to unite the interests of all its members around the goals of the organization at all its levels. The history of the development of organizations and theories of their management knows a lot of searches and misconceptions in this regard. Individuals come to the organization with their own interests, and the degree of their coincidence-divergence with job functions, the goals of the unit and the entire organization largely determines the effectiveness of the enterprise and institution. The interaction of the individual and the general permeates all organizational relations and predetermines many other, more specific problems. This question arises both in the personality-group sphere and within the framework of the impersonal structure of the organization. With regard to the latter, it is enough to point out the constant difficulties of adapting to the many individual job duties prescribed by the job description, one performer, who, as a rule, performs better one of them and worse - others. And this can affect both the moral atmosphere and the results of the work of the unit, and even the entire enterprise. It is no coincidence that such great importance is attached in our time to professional selection, testing, psychological training and other ways of adapting a person to a position.
Departmentalization means the inevitability of "dissection" of the organization into divisions. This is done through the decomposition of a general organizational goal into more private ones, for which departments, departments, workshops, specialized services, laboratories, etc. are created. Some of these units, in turn, are also divided into a number of subordinate, even smaller and more specialized units, and so on. But each division receives its own purpose and exists for its sake. In the eyes of its employees, this goal looks more important than others, sometimes there is a struggle for its significance, and therefore, for resources, benefits, rewards. A kind of "divisional psychology" is emerging, exaggerating the role and needs of a specific group of workers.

§ 2. FROM ORGANIZATION ELEMENTS TO ORGANIZATION AS AN ELEMENT

Organization as an object

Organizations are created by people for certain social purposes. This, and above all this, is the very meaning of their existence. Organization is an element of a social system. One can approach this issue from the other side and state that society can be considered as a system of organizations. They are the most common form of human community, the primary cell of society. In the limiting case, an individual person can be considered its elementary particle. But its structural primary element is the organization (along with the family, comradely group, etc.). All these elements actively interact with each other, forming a common integrity. However, in the interests of scientific analysis, based on the subject of the science we are studying, it is advisable to single out the social subsystem of organizations in order to identify its specific patterns. From this it is clear that:
- the more clearly the organization will be aware of itself as an element of the social system, the more harmoniously it will fit into it, the more prospects it will have;
- the strategic goals of organizations should include public goals or be correlated with them;
- well-established interaction between organizations based on such goals is a guarantee of health, productive and efficient life of society.

Organization as a subject

Just as an organization does not exist without society, so society cannot exist without organizations, which it creates for the sake of its existence. The dependence of society on the activities of organizations allows us to consider the latter not only as objects of social influence, but also as active subjects influencing the life of society. Another reason makes them subjects of social activity. The organization, being a system itself, has its own life, relatively independent of society, and, in particular, the specifics of activities, goals and interests, social microclimate, role distribution. All this and much more forces society to take into account the "individuality" of the organization and adapt to it, and organizations, based on the objective laws of their development, put forward certain requirements for society, introduce their product or service into it, and thereby, in a certain sense, influence social life. . The "individuality" of the organization, its uniqueness constitute the most valuable property of the society and itself. Moreover, the absence or lack of organizations of any type is one of the forms of so-called social poverty, the underdevelopment of society. For example, this is how things are with the service sector. And there is an excess of political parties, which is also not a sign of public health.
On the other hand, the emergence of hospice-type hospitals (helping those doomed to death), the Memorial society (support for the victims of Soviet repressions), even if they are in small numbers, constitute a social achievement, raise the level of the country's perfection.
The uniqueness of the organization, the ability to have its own identity is an important factor in its survival and success in the market. A rare and valuable service secures its economic or status niche, reputation and fame more reliably. Many commercial firms specifically develop, cultivate their own specifics, differences from others, a kind of "giraffism" (the ability to rise above others in some way) as part of their ideology, strategy, image.

Organization as an intermediary

The organization is the main link in the relationship between the individual and society, the state. Usually, an individual does not have a direct, immediate connection with society, but is connected with it only indirectly through intermediate structures, the main of which is the organization. This mediation cannot be a simple "brokerage", a direct connection of both, since the organization also has its own goals. Through them, the interests of the individual and society are refracted, and a layer of interests is formed that does not completely coincide with either public or personal interests.
It is clear that when considering the interdependencies of society and organizations, one cannot do without taking into account the type of community, the nature of its development, historical traditions and its current state. But in any society, the organization is its important part, it actively influences it and performs serious social functions, connecting the individual with the team, and through it - with society.
So, through amateur organizations of fishermen, collectors, motorists, etc. citizens can more successfully defend their interests in the circles of power. And through the parties to carry out their views, ideals. But it is also more convenient for the state to deal with the united categories of people than with the elements of the masses: it is easier to resolve labor or ethnic conflicts with the leaders of the trade union, the national movement.
And in general, people tend, especially in crisis, tense situations, to unite in organizations on a different basis. First of all, this concerns various social minorities: the disabled, the unemployed, national groups suffering from a common illness or having some not very common signs. But each of us belongs to a minority!

Organization and environment

From the factors influencing the vital activity of organizations "from the outside", two main ones should be mentioned; social order and specific environment.
The impact of society on organizations as diverse as the very life of society. The life of organizations, their activities depend on the type of society, the degree of its development, integration ties and orientation, traditions, various economic, political, legal, socio-moral, demographic and other factors of social life, the degree of cultural development and much more. These factors, of course, affect organizations to varying degrees - directly, and in a more complex, "circular" way; differently at different times - and yet organizations are constantly affected by them. Notable features of the second half of the 20th century, which seriously changed organizational systems and communications, were convergence of social systems and the communicative leap, in particular, the spasmodic expansion of world economic relations, the information explosion, the computer revolution within the framework of scientific and technological progress. Enormous prospects open up for the organizations of all countries with the beginning of the process of resolving global problems, in particular, with the elimination of the immediate threat of nuclear war. It is clear, for example, that this will significantly affect the organizational structure of society, since the share of military-industrial complex enterprises in it will decrease.
In turn, organizations directly and indirectly influence the state of social relations (industrial and political), macrosocial processes (for example, the scientific and technological revolution), and the achievement of social goals (production of material goods). Brigade contracting, cost accounting, self-sufficiency, privatization, and other experiments that were widely disseminated at various times on a social scale began in specific organizations. They have become testing grounds for new methods of management, which the whole country now lives on.
Special mention should be made of the contradictions between organizations and society. Such contradictions are inevitable in any society, and the whole question is how they are resolved. A normal contradiction always contains a constructive potential, which, with a reasonable approach to such a contradiction, enriches social life materially or spiritually. However, there is always a greater or lesser danger of the contradiction growing into conflict. This happens for a number of reasons, such as group (organizational) egoism, the conservatism of the social structure and those holding the authorities (remember the "shabashniks"), perverted relations of domination - subordination.
Specific social environment, in which the organization is located, also predetermines a number of its features. The demographic situation in the region significantly affects the composition of the workforce that an enterprise can count on (age, gender, traditions, value orientations). Educational, cultural levels of the population affect the type of production, product quality, etc.
Perhaps the biggest influence of the environment of the organization on its activities is the type of business culture that dominates the population of the region. business culture- these are the norms, values, style of relations characteristic of the population of the country, the national way of life of this territory in the process of labor and exchange. There are known differences between the types of business culture of Americans, Europeans, and Japanese. We also know how these differences affect the quality of work, the propensity to innovate, mutual commitment in relationships and overall success.
One example. Once in Soviet times, I came to one of the towns Central Asia, where unemployment was constantly high, And I asked the head of one of the factories: since so many people behind the gate are eager to get to you at any workplace, then you can demand more strictly the quality of work, discipline, etc. “No,” he replied, “I can’t. Suppose I fire someone, but the same ones will come in their place. And if a relative of his died somewhere, he will leave for a week or two, despite the consequences for production And the amount of wages in the minds of many here is associated more with the position and privileges, and not with work.
Of course, within the same business culture, different types of organizational culture. For a certain team of like-minded people is sometimes able to form other norms, values, attitudes towards work, focusing on more successful standards and even "infect" the environment with them.
So business organizations themselves largely form the social environment around them, concentrating a certain composition of the population around them. It is known that the concentration of textile enterprises in some regions has led to an unfavorable demographic shift there. Enterprises create appropriate professional contingents of the population in the regions. They, along with cultural and educational organizations, influence the educational and cultural level of the population. The way of life and life of the surrounding population depends on the social policy of the enterprise, because such an enterprise often turns out to be the holder of funds for the construction of dwellings, the organization of domestic services, the maintenance of cultural centers, recreation, health care, etc.
Commercialization of the economy leads to a significant strengthening of the role of business organizations in public life. Already today they have assumed many functions of the state, in particular in relation to their employees.

§ 3. METHODOLOGY OF THE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS

So, organizations are among the super-complex systems: they consist of elements and subsystems of different nature (technical, legal, psychological, socio-cultural), they are multifunctional (produce products, services, form a person and the environment) ... For an object of such complexity, one has to build and complex methodology.

Systematic and dialectic

Exactly systems approach will allow us to consider the organization as a system, as a whole - after all, its main principle is principle of integration. From it comes a chain of derived principles, the main of which are the integrity of the object and the complexity of its analysis.
At the same time, in the practical application of the systems approach (that is, in applying it to the study and construction of specific types of objects), there is an emphasis for balance system, its internal consistency. Explicitly or not, but this is how the essence of integrity is often interpreted. In their extreme expressions, such attitudes bring the image of the system to isolation and immobility, depriving it of dynamics, sources of development.
But these are dynamic, social objects, living their own lives, contradictory, developing. Their integrity is relative, development their - inevitably For the analysis of such objects for a long time and effectively used dialectical method.
The indisputable advantage of the dialectical method is the orientation towards the decomposition of the object into opposites, the search for the source of its self-movement in internal contradictions. In dialectical lighting, the object looks tense, changeable. The basis of its functioning is the interaction of contradictory properties that are simultaneously inherent in it. The combination of both of these ways of analyzing reality is today a very topical and not completely resolved issue. But it can be considered an undoubted advantage to use them in unity, in interaction.
Trends in the development of science lead researchers to the need to develop a systematic approach on a dialectical basis as a unified general scientific methodology with really new possibilities. We will choose this approach as the most optimal for our study of organizations.
A systematic approach on a dialectical basis consists in considering an object in a tense balance, that is, through highlighting significant contradictions in it as the basis for its development. Of course, such an approach accepts as an axiom that contradictions are inevitable and natural for complex, multidimensional systems.
A systematic approach knows one main way analysis of the object - through its decomposition into subsystems. Then the structural connections of the object, the interaction of its constituent parts, come to the center of attention. Dialectics, on the other hand, introduces another principle of the analysis of an object - through its heterogeneity, identity in polysemy. In other words, one and the same object, at the same time, has significantly different, in many respects opposite qualities. Sometimes it is simply impossible to do without such a method of analyzing an object. For example, it is impossible to design a car only as a vehicle, abstracting from the functions of social prestige imposed on it by the consumer, although, of course, these functions are somewhat opposite.
A systematic approach on a dialectical basis involves the definition of the internal inconsistency of a complex system as a whole. It is precisely such a holistic, but complex, contradictory system that an organization is.
A systematic approach on a dialectical basis is by no means a new general scientific methodology. On the contrary, the whole point here is in the natural combination of already established and widespread methods of building scientific knowledge. This is a natural and positive trend.

Organization Functions

Using our method, we can look at the same organization from three sides at the same time:

The organization is created as tool solution of social problems, a means to achieve goals. From this point of view, the organizational goals and functions, the effectiveness of the results, the motives and incentives of the staff, etc. come to the fore;
- the organization develops like a human commonality specific social environment. From this position, the organization looks like a combination of social groups, statuses, norms, leadership relationships, cohesion - conflict, etc.;
organization can be seen as impersonal structure of connections and norms. The subject of analysis of an organization in this sense is its organizational connections, built hierarchically, as well as its connections with the external environment. And the main problems here are balance, self-management, division of labor, manageability, etc.
Of course, all these properties of the organization have only relative independence, there are no sharp lines between them, they constantly turn one into another. Moreover, any elements, processes and problems of the organization must be considered in each of these three dimensions, as they appear here in different capacities. For example, an individual in an organization is both an employee, a person and an element of the system. An organizational unit is a functional unit, a small group and a subsystem.
Obviously, the enumerated "social roles" of the organization give it different, in many respects contradictory orientations. However, as long as it functions normally, it remains in balance. This balance between the roles of the organization is mobile due to constant shifts towards one of them, and a new balance is achieved through changes, the development of the organization as a whole, as a system. It is the contradictory correlation of these orientations that constitutes the essence and basis of organizational problems.

Knowledge integration

The exceptional complexity of the organization as a system forces us to talk about another problem in its study. We would unnecessarily limit our possibilities if we tried to study organization within the framework of only one science. The fact is that different aspects of the life of organizations are "subordinate" to different sciences. It's like a person who is studied by philosophy, psychology, biology, medicine and other sciences. When studying complex systems, it is always like this: the sciences are different, but the object is one. But in order to comprehend it in integrity, the sciences must also unite. And the current state of science provides such an opportunity. We are talking about interdisciplinary approach .
It is not necessary to repeat the conclusions about its great advantages. It is more important to see its known limitations, indicating that it belongs to an intermediate, albeit necessary, stage in the unification of knowledge. This stage is characterized by the fact that the integration of sciences here is only partial and on private occasions. To date, an interdisciplinary study of the object does not provide a holistic knowledge about it. It can be assumed that the growth of the process of integration of sciences will lead to the formation of the next stage of the connection of knowledge, the stage general disciplinary when the interpenetration of special areas of science creates a new quality - integral knowledge without professional partitions, so to speak, knowledge postdisciplinary level.
disunity modern knowledge about organizations limits the possibility of information on administrative-legal, economic, socio-psychological, cybernetic models of organization, the concepts and values ​​of which sometimes turn out to be incompatible, even if the same words are used. Thus, "self-management" in cybernetics means the autonomy of an organization, while in sociology it means the problem of participation.
A post-disciplinary approach means revealing a new, in-depth content and meaning of such a phenomenon, presenting it as a whole, "stereophonically", and hence new assessments and management conclusions. Thus, a conflict taken from one dimension acts as a form of disorganization in another dimension, but it can turn out to be very functional, effective in the third one. Integrative methodology is based on the objective unity of all manifestations of a real object.
In the postdisciplinary approach, we are talking about different properties of the same phenomenon. The integration of knowledge requires mutual and joint interpretation of the object. This means that each angle of view of the organization also needs its own development, but within the framework of a holistic science.
The release of research to the postdisciplinary level gives them a new measure of the complexity of the approach beyond the limits of specialization.

Two ways of knowing

The question of knowledge integration has another aspect.
The high authority of the natural sciences constantly inclines social researchers to "imitate" them, and above all - in the methodological part. This contributed to some overcoming of speculativeness and increased accuracy in the social sciences. However, the objective features of the social "material" forced to recognize certain limits of application of natural science methods (measurement, modeling, programming) to it. It is impossible to overcome them without damage to precisely the very accuracy for which biologization, mathematization, and cybernetization of social knowledge were undertaken.
The limits are already apparent in the well-known inadequacy of these methods themselves to many sociological problems. In addition, their application is hindered by the value nature of social knowledge. Finally, it is impossible not to take into account the presence of another way of obtaining social knowledge - through understanding one's own experience, through introducing one's ideas about the objects and processes under study into knowledge.
This becomes impossible because the social researcher, unlike the natural scientist, deals with the material of his own nature, and from his social being he receives judgments about social phenomena even before he investigates them. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage of such knowledge. The advantage is in the emergence of knowledge about phenomena that are inaccessible to exact methods. The disadvantage is the introduction of elements of false consciousness, subjectivism into it, when it is littered with the stereotypes of "common sense", interpreted "for oneself", etc. But still this way social cognition is inevitable and necessary.
Thus, there are two ways of knowing social phenomena - evidence-based and experienced. The first is derived from empirical research based on precise methods, the second appears as a product of reflection. The foregoing fully applies to the sociology of organizations. At the stages of posing the problem, putting forward hypotheses, conducting research, formulating conclusions and recommendations, the sociologist uses "memories" from his own life practice.
Organizations arose long before they were explored. This leads to a well-known paradox in the science of organizations, when activity precedes knowledge, experience is still richer than theory, and art, intuition is often more accurate than calculations. Hence, it becomes justified to develop the science of organizations through reflection: understanding exactly how organizations are formed, function and develop, deriving patterns and using them to improve existing organizations and building new ones.
The noted features of the sociology of organizations also have their advantages, since they make it possible to supplement evidence with experience (or vice versa), that is, to combine analysis, research with the practice of one's own participation in organizations and the feelings associated with this, without, however, replacing one with the other.
The significance of the "experimental" part of social knowledge is also preserved in the tasks of building organizations. Indeed, in addition to the research function, the science of organizations also has an engineering function. It can even be argued that it is the researcher of organizations who should be engaged in their construction, restructuring, and consulting. On the basis of special knowledge, it is best to build its practical applications.
organizational engineering also has its own characteristics. The design of organizations is limited by the inevitability of adapting any finished project to the qualities of that real "human material" that will then fill the given positions and connections. This means that, in contrast to engineering design, the less concrete an organization's design, the more reliable it is in some sense. Or take the problem of organizational change. Due to their inertia, social relations are not amenable to operational reconstruction. Yes, and objectively introduced changes should be wider than the very subject of innovation, because this subject is an element of the system, and its change entails a restructuring of the entire system or a significant part of it. The problems that arise in this case cannot be reduced to purely calculated parameters.
These and similar features of organizational science should be kept in mind not only in order to take into account the specific difficulties of working in it. It is more important to overcome some "cybernetic" stereotypes brought here by specialists from the theory of automatic control, from biology and other sciences. These ideas, although they increased the desire for scientific rigor, often simplify organizational problems, reducing them to one-dimensional problems.
Of course, when using evidence and experience in social knowledge, extremes should be avoided. Moreover, the relationship between the two methods of social cognition is fluid; in recent years, it has shifted greatly as a result of progressive formalization in sociology. However, it would be wrong when applying an integrated approach to miss any of these types of knowledge.

"Third Nature"

Organization is an extremely difficult object to study. The reasons for this are in its own inherent complexity of ambiguity.
In fact, the organization can not be called a purely material or purely spiritual phenomenon. It includes economic relations and relations, for example, political ones. This applies to business organizations engaged in the production of both material and spiritual values ​​(factories and theaters). Although, in terms of their functions and the nature of labor, some of them operate in the sphere of material production, others in the spiritual sphere, but in terms of the content of the relations in them, the organizations are dual. Any organization that employs workers participates in the economic life of society; at the same time, our country's business organizations are part of a common political system and often actively participate in political life. The organization is a kind of microsociety, it reflects (although not mirrored) almost all the characteristics of social life.
The same problems arise when trying to classify organizations according to their characteristics. material - ideal and objective - subjective. Organizations are undoubtedly objective, but not material objects. Buildings, equipment and even people are basically multifunctional. Material carriers of organizational relations - instruction, schedule, subordination and others - are manifested only through the behavior of people and the relationship between them. But at the same time, they constitute a special non-individual reality that does not depend on specific people.
Organizations are the most common form of labor cooperation of people, organized group behavior. The efficiency of production, the economic potential of society largely depend on them. Organizations implement relations of production, relations of power, communication, etc.
The rapid increase in the number of organizations is one of the signs of industrialization and the nature of the development of society as a whole. Organizational improvement is important source increasing the rate of economic growth. It also contains significant reserves of social progress. Society creates organizations in abundance as a means of achieving its goals, and the number of organizations in society is constantly growing. The organization covers previously unorganized areas of society (leisure).
At the same time, with all their advantages, organizations have a certain limitation, namely, the particularity of the tasks being solved, the absolutization of their own goals. To overcome the danger of "scattering" of targets that arises here, superorganizations, that is, organizations of the second and higher levels, engaged in the integration of not people, but the organizations of lower levels themselves. Society is turning into a single and continuous organizational system: where one organization ends, another begins. Possession of one or another level of organizational potential becomes an important indicator of the level of development of society.
Organizational structures, norms, boundaries are an important component of the environment that surrounds a modern person and largely determines his life. Formalized organizational relations are artificial, they are specially set, purposefully introduced into the social environment. Being impersonal and unambiguous, they have relative stability and independence in the system of social relations. It is also known that organizational forms are characterized by certain conservatism, durability, and a tendency to resist change.
Organizations are integral, independent worlds. And they all come together grandiose world organizations.
At one time, K. Marx described technology as a "second nature", which humanity has placed between itself and the environment. In the same way, the world of organizations can be defined as a special, "third nature" generated by social relations and occupying a specific place in them. It is comparable to the place of technology in society and to a certain extent also determines its state.

CHAPTER II
"BIOGRAPHY" OF SCIENCE
§ 1. WEST - USSR - RUSSIA

The history of the sociology of organizations begins after the appearance of the organizations themselves, especially with the formation of an industrial society, that is, somewhere from the middle of the 19th century. It is difficult to establish a more exact date, since it is impossible to single out the line where practical findings on the construction and functioning of organizations develop into science.
Western sociology of organizations in the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries. developed in the struggle of concepts. Some of them generalized the emerging practice, others tried to dictate their theoretical constructions to it, but on the whole it must be admitted that the realities of life in production prevailed, and science followed them.
Western science of organizations is often accused of being applied at all times and lacking a general methodological basis. These accusations are largely true. But in addition to the justifying argument - the high final effectiveness of research in this area by Western theorists and practitioners - one can also give an explanatory argument: this science was directly in demand by the practice of developing industrial market production and not only did not at first imply any abstract theorizing, but in general was considered as a science not in the first place and not in the second place, and even not considered as such at all.
However, the consolidation of industrial production, the development of science have led to the fact that the demand for the methodology and theory of the development of organizations has increased. But, firstly, the evolution of science, the traditions of its practical orientation, in themselves gave the Western captains of the industry interesting material for them to apply to their own experience. And, secondly, gradually and steadily they began to realize that the improvement of organization and management is an important reserve for survival and prosperity. Capitalism has grown wiser and highly appreciated the new opportunities in competition: not only due to expensive technical re-equipment or changing products, you can win big, but through changing organizational structures, norms, connections, management style, etc.
Domestic organizational science at first arose not much later than in the West. The works of A. Bogdanov, A. Chastev, P. Kerzhentsev and many other scientists and practitioners made an impressive breakthrough in the creation of organizational science. But Stalinism forcibly interrupted such a promising process. This science woke up from the shock only in the 60s, but under new conditions. What kind?
We note three main ones.
- Centralized, command control system national economy.
- Diktat of the Marxist-Leninist ideology and on that basis - revealing pathos in relation to "ideological enemies".
- The available information about the Western sociology of organizations, the presence, albeit fragmentary and dosed, of the Western experience of this science.
An increasing number of Soviet sociologists, forced to work in such a painful atmosphere of the first two conditions, nevertheless tried to make the most of the third. They well understood that there are immanent laws of development of organizations common to all modern economic systems. They were aware of the fact that world experience cannot be ignored and that science should not be built, as it were, anew. Even in critical speeches and publications, they found an opportunity to seriously analyze Western experience and convey it to their listeners, readers, as well as customers who had already appeared - business leaders.
But it is natural that the specifics of the domestic national economy and its organizational structures were at the center of attention of Soviet researchers and affected the tasks of Soviet organizational science.
The sociology of organizations in our country was supposedly built on a single Marxist-Leninist methodology. But in reality, this increasingly came down to formal and ritual "bows" to the general secretaries, congresses of the CPSU, quotations from Lenin and Marx, abuse of capitalism and "bourgeois science." The fact is that Soviet reality has departed so far from the ideas of the classics - the great projectors - that it could not withstand any comparison with their criteria.
In the 1970s, within the framework of the Soviet Sociological Association, a section "Sociology of Organizations" was formed under the guidance of prof. N.I. Lapina. A seminar of the same name began to work monthly in Moscow. Gradually, their participants began to work more and more in the mode "active sociology", bring their research to the level of organizational diagnostics, develop and apply methods not only for analysis, but also for solving organizational problems using new sociological methods.
In the post-Soviet period, the main line of revitalization of work in the sociology of organizations, as well as throughout the world, ran through the consultant-client relationship. A practically working sociologist of organizations became a consultant on organizational problems, and enterprises and institutions became consumers of his services. The success of these latter has become the main indicator of the professionalism and well-being of such a consultant.
In subsequent chapters, this side of the development of the sociology of organizations abroad and in Russia will be given a special place.

Modern sociology of organizations.
§ 2. FOREIGN SOCIOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS

Feature of the European tradition - historical perspective on the organization, special attention to the genetic aspects of the functioning of organizational structures at all levels of society, the formulation of organizational problems in the light of general social reforms and development trends of a particular country.
Both these features are interrelated, and it can be said that the European sociology of organizations has moved from society as a macroorganization to an organization as a microsociety.
The development of North American science in this area went, to a certain extent, in the opposite direction. The starting point there turned out to be not just business organizations, but rather even the elementary process of the worker's labor act in them. The origins of this approach date back to the middle of the last century, when in 1832 the book "On the Economics of Machine Production" by C. Wabaj was published in the USA, where the analysis of the performance of various jobs was put forward in the focus of management. Such a purely empirical orientation has long determined the character of the American sociology of organization and management. In addition, managers or even entrepreneurs themselves often acted as researchers of these issues in American industry, which also strengthened the practical orientation of American sociology of organizations.
The traditions of both continents could not, of course, not interact, and mutual influence they were soon affected. Thus, in the works of American researchers, the socio-critical tone intensified, and the philosophical development of organizational problems deepened. In Europe, overseas methods of manipulation were readily accepted, and a broad direction social engineering. But one cannot fail to see that, on the whole, the American influence proved to be stronger. French sociology has shown the greatest stability, but similar changes are growing there as well.
The divisions in the Western sociology of organization are also found in the interpretation of basic concepts, such as "organization", "goal", "structure", etc. What is considered an organization? If communication is singled out as its primary element, then the organization acts as an impersonal structure of relations, rationally constructed and balanced. It is necessary to take a person as the basis of social organization - and the organization turns out to be a community of people functioning according to the laws of a social group. When the goal is called the defining element, the organization is interpreted as a system of different-scale and mutually agreed goals, sub-goals, tasks and tasks, in which the fulfillment of more particular goals and tasks contributes to the fulfillment of more general ones. Each concept builds its image of the organization; in addition to those mentioned - as a system of social norms, a structure of statuses, a sequence of actions, a form of control, a way of division of labor, etc.
It is clear that a similar methodological diversity developed under the influence of economic development society. Each significant stage in the evolution of production was reflected in the theory of organizational management in the form of far-reaching turns, the emergence of new approaches, the fading of the old and other changes. A major role in the fate of science was played, for example, by the economic crisis of the late 1920s and early 1930s, numerous "booms" in production, industrial development. Today, the focus of researchers is the consequences that the scientific and technological revolution caused in the theory of organizational management, as well as the reverse influence of this theory on scientific and technological revolution..
So, in the work of Z. Foss, the following main stages of US industrial development are distinguished from the point of view of changes in the theory and practice of management: the first phase (1850 - 1950) - industry is focused exclusively on profit, demand for products was only partially covered, management is completely in the hands of higher managers and entrepreneurs, the main means of regulating relations with workers is wages. In the second phase (1951-1970), the stage of commodity accumulation was reached, but large-scale production faced new social and economic difficulties of a highly organized nature. In the work with the personnel, the functions of the top, middle and lower management levels were divided, a decentralized and more motivating management strategy was developed. At the current, third phase, an awareness of the close connection between technology, economics, social processes and ecology has taken shape. This entailed a revision of the role of man in production, the impact of production on the living environment and social relations, etc. Each of these stages put forward a number of organizational concepts inherent in it.
To a certain extent, the organizational development of the science of management itself coincides with this. Thus, in the book by J. Meiji "The Process of Management Science" the following milestones of this process over the past 20 years in England are noted: connection with practice, only limited tasks were solved; 1960 - 1970 - an increase in interest in organizations at universities (if in 1962 social courses were taught at 6 universities, then in 1968 - at 37), the output of specialists increased, quantitative methods, there are more theoretical works; 1970 - awareness of the possibilities and boundaries of science and management itself, the integration of socio-psychological, functional and statistical areas of analysis, emphasis on the qualitative characteristics of the object.
The influence of related sciences and activities is also obvious: the study of global environmental problems, the improvement of technical and social forecasting, system analysis, etc. Of course, the sociology of organizations also has its own logic that predetermines its development.

Organization "models"

In Western sociology, many models of organizations have developed, around which entire schools of researchers have clustered. If we subject the history of this issue to a logical reconstruction, then we get the following basic concepts of organization.
Organization as a labor process. The earliest approach to measuring and building an organizational system. Its methodological basis was the allocation of the block "man - labor" as the fundamental principle of the organization. Within the framework of this block, the labor process was divided as much as possible into the simplest elements in order to set the most optimal mode of performance for the employee. Actually, labor activity was fundamentally separated from management, which became a function of another person.
Under the name of Taylorism, this model is widely known. Its main features are completely, in detail, the "painted" behavior of the employee according to a rationalized scheme, as well as the approach to the employee himself as a kind of "spare part" suitable only for a certain place.
Organization is a machine. The authors of this model - A. Fayol, L. Urvik and others - considered the organization as an impersonal mechanism built from formalized connections, statuses, goals in the form of a multi-level administrative hierarchy. Emphasis is placed on the unity of command, the allocation of functional links ("departmentalization") and the levers of regulation (planning, coordination, control, etc.). An organization in this sense is, first of all, a tool for solving problems, a person in it acts not as a person, but only as an abstract “man in general”. Such an almost technical system also implies complete controllability, controllability of its activities.
"bureaucratic" model of organization. Close to the previous concept of rationalization ("bureaucratization") of human behavior in organizations. M. Weber developed it in order to overcome the irrationality inherent in people in actions and relationships. Organizational efficiency is guaranteed through performance standards. In this case, the advantages are achieved due to accuracy, unambiguity, clear subordination, integrity, etc. relations. Responsibilities among the members of the organization are distributed according to the degree of competence, on this principle the power in the organization is built. Unlike the authors mentioned above, M. Weber was not engaged in the practical construction of administrative structures, his image of a "bureaucratic" organization provided only a theoretical model for solving growing problems.
Organization - community. The idea of ​​the organization as a special case of the human community, a special sociality. The key relationships are "man-man", "man-group", and these relations are built on the interpersonal basis of mutual attachments, common interests, etc. The main regulator is the norms of behavior adopted in the group. The structure is built on the basis of spontaneously developing primary relations between individuals, according to the "scale of prestige", through leadership processes, etc. In this environment, frequent, informal associations are formed. Such organization satisfies the social needs of the individual (in communication, recognition, belonging) and controls his behavior (through public opinion). This socio-psychological "organization within an organization" is hardly accessible to management using the old methods, and the only way to influence the organization is through inclusion in its natural system, influencing motives, attitudes, and so on. Experimentally and theoretically, this model was substantiated by E. Mayo, F. Roethlisberger and others.
Sociotechnical model. Proposed by the Tavistock School. It is based on the dependence of intra-group relations on production technology. Studies conducted in the fifties by a group of English sociologists in coal mines in Wales, in textile factories in Ahmedabad, also showed the opposite effect of the socio-psychological qualities of the group on productivity. To the extent that the characteristics of the equipment and process permit, the organization should consider and allow for informal regulation at individual sites. As the technical base of production develops, these tolerances can vary until they disappear.
Internationalist model. Starting from C. Bernard, then G. Simen, J. March and others, the organization is considered as a system of long-term interactions between employees. Moreover, individuals bring their own expectations and values ​​into the organization, they are guided by their idea of ​​situations. Since goals, structure, etc. are to some extent the product of these interactions (along with formal ones), there is a big uncertainty for management, risk in decision-making. The manager's rationality is also limited: his knowledge of the organization is incomplete, he does not foresee all the consequences of his decisions, and his order of preferences is unstable. An important way to maintain control is system analysis and building an organization, taking into account the boundaries of its formalization and the informal consequences of intra-group relations.
"Natural" organization- a concept coming from T. Parsons, R. Merton, A. Etzioni and others.
The functioning of the organization is considered as an objective, self-performing process in which the subjective principle, although present, does not prevail. Organization - the state of the system, allowing it to self-adjust when exposed to the outside or from the inside. The goal is only one of the possible results of functioning, deviation from the goal is not a mistake or miscalculation, but a natural property of the system, a consequence of the large role played in it by fundamentally unplanned, spontaneous factors. This approach avoids looking at the organization from the standpoint of management, sees it as a specific social phenomenon that develops according to its own laws. These patterns are only partially known, which is why numerous unforeseen situations arise.

Some Lessons

The evolution of the methodology of Western sociology shows organizations the fundamental opposite of today's results to the initial settings. Indeed: in the first models, efficiency was directly associated with high formalization, organizational creativity was entirely attributable to managers, fragmentation of the labor process into the simplest elements and narrow specialization meant high productivity. The motives of the worker were reduced to primitive economic needs, the personal and social content of intra-organizational relations was considered a hindrance. In modern concepts, the emphasis is on the use of informal regulatory mechanisms, in the self-activity of the worker there is a reserve of productivity, difficult work acts as an additional motive, the psychological and social needs of the individual are put forward in the center of attention of management. So, most organizational factors are now estimated with the opposite sign.
The main direction of this evolution can be defined as moving from rigid determinism to statistical regularities. Mechanical causality in the understanding of organizational processes assumed the complete dominance of purposeful influence in the organization, the total controllability of the behavior of its members and goals. The probabilistic approach proceeds from the relative autonomy, spontaneity inherent in one way or another in the functioning of the organization. This means limited management capabilities and recognition of high self-organization.
Such a reorientation could not do without a methodological restructuring. It turned out that more subtle methods were needed for dealing with a subject that was partially closed to science. The organization has ceased to be understandable, its elements - measurable. Now it has to be treated as a "black box", about which only its "inputs" and "outputs" are known, and only a combination of manipulation experience with an accurate knowledge of the internal mechanism allows us to count on effective management of the organization. While attempts to determine, for example, the purpose of the organization are ineffective, it becomes elusive. The same with the structure: the acceptance of the coexistence of the formal and informal in the organization requires the constant fixation of each of them, the solution of the problem of their interaction. However, the constant "floatability" of the non-programmed part of the organization makes the solution of such a problem difficult to accomplish, and therefore methodologically ineffective. So it is with motivation, and with decisions, and so on.
V last years a new trend of systemic organization building is growing, which has not yet received a final sociological expression, but also penetrates into the works of sociologists. The well-known thesis of W. Ashby about the "necessary diversity" can be called the methodological credo of this direction. The principle "only diversity can absorb diversity" becomes the key to the analysis and construction of organizational systems. The "curse of multidimensionality", which hangs over social organizations more than over technical, biological, etc. systems, can be lifted or weakened, but not so much by reducing the diversity in the system, but through increasing diversity in the regulator. Management not only allows, but also assumes multiple states of an object, self-employment of an employee, autonomy of groups, a plurality of goals, etc. In this case, purposeful influence stops at a certain boundary, in the expectation that within certain limits (often unusually wide) self-organization will "work" more efficiently.
The practical implementation of these ideas in a number of Western European countries and the United States went much further than the theoretical development of the issue.
Not always consciously enough, sometimes almost intuitively pursuing such an approach, industrial management has discovered a real "internal market" in enterprises, where for a measure of freedom (so to speak - lack of control) they give a measure of productivity. The development of this "market" is based on fundamental changes in views on the place and opportunities of the employee in the organization and methods of working with him.

§3. DOMESTIC SOCIOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS

Some of the differences in the formation and development of the sociology of organizations in the West and in our country have already been briefly noted above. Now let's try to specifically highlight the positive content of what was done in this area in the USSR and Russia.
Organizational science in the USSR

The formation of the Soviet sociology of organizations proceeded in several directions. We will consider them on the example of the most characteristic publications of leading domestic authors.
played an important role in the development of science analysis of western sociology of organizations(and then this could only be done under the sign of criticism), undertaken by D. M. Gvishiani in the early 60s. The material for the analysis was mainly foreign experience, and it was from his works that wide circles of readers got an idea about this direction of sociological research.
In his book "The Sociology of Business" D. M. Gvishiani gave a detailed study of the sociology of American management. The author in this work emphasizes the importance of certain principles and patterns of management inherent in any modern production. The book holds the idea of ​​the inevitability of separating the management function from technocratic activity. Managers as a social layer do not coincide with the category of technocrats. It is shown that management theorists themselves consider its specific nature as "the art of managing people" in contrast to engineering, technical activities. And further: "The fact that the functions and nature of the activities of the head of production are still often identified with engineering work, Urwick considers a sign of "a general immaturity of judgments ..." The focus of the manager is the person, the employee is motivated and with special features.

The problems of foreign sociology of organizations are revealed even more fully in another book by D. M. Gvishiani - "Organization and Management", published in 1972. Here, for the first time in Soviet literature, a systematic analysis of the evolution and current state of Western sociology of organizations is given. In its evolution, the author singled out several stages, each of which is presented as an independent school: the "classical" theory, the doctrine of "human relations", the "empirical" school, the school of "social systems", the "new" school. It is shown that their change is closely connected with the development of capitalism itself, the specific stages and states of industrial production.
In fact, it was precisely these works of D. M. Gvishiani, as well as his lectures in the 60s at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, that laid the foundation for the formation of the sociology of organizations in our country. The specialization of students and then graduate students in this field of knowledge began.
Somewhat later, theoretical and empirical research began to develop, developing the problems of the sociology of organization in relation to the problems of Soviet society in various directions.
A significant contribution to the development of the sociology of organizations was made by VG Podmarkov. In his monograph "Introduction to industrial sociology" (1973), the concept of "industrial sociology" is interpreted quite broadly, as "the science of the content and significance of the" human factor "in industry" . Therefore, the book presents the problems of the content of labor and attitudes towards it, the professional structure of workers, intra-collective relations, working and free time, social planning, and others. A prominent place is given in it to the social problems of the organization. The author singled out information and regulatory processes, production, economic and social functions in the organizational structure of the enterprise. In the system of social ties at the enterprise, he distinguishes between formal ties (fixed in service instructions), informal (interpersonal), semi-formal (public organizations), extra-formal (achieving formal goals by informal means), official (administratively recognized formal ties), informal (without administrative recognition ).

But perhaps most clearly the problems of sociology labor organizations in our country has been developed in such a direction of research, as a social enterprise organization. This direction was initiated by works on the structure and nature of social groups in the enterprise. The difference from the psychological approach here was immediately indicated through the allocation of precisely the structural aspect of group formation, the social place and functions of various groups in the production team.
The work of a group of researchers led by N.I. Lapin, the founder and chairman of the section on the sociology of organizations of the Soviet Sociological Association, had a great influence on the development of this direction. Two collective works should be noted here: "Team Leader" and "Theory and Practice of Social Planning". Moreover, the first of them was based on rare then empirical research management-subordination problems in a number of enterprises. The second book develops the theory of the collective in a broader sense.
Thus, N. I. Lapin defined the social organization of an enterprise as a system of "different social groups and relationships between them." The social group acts as an important structural element that connects the worker with the main team and society. He also singled out the main types of groups: target, socio-psychological, macro-social. Not limited to this, N.I. Lapin points to the interdependence of the human and social components of organizations. “Deep connections,” he writes, “consist in an increase in the organic unity of human and material components, since the functioning of a larger volume of material components of the organization now depends on the activity of an individual person.”

The problems of the social organization of an enterprise were significantly developed in the book by N. A. Kurtikov "The Social Object of Management - the Collective" (1977), in which an attempt was made to systematize the organizing factors in the work collective, as well as the main features of social organization. The organization was seen as a social institution and as a process. It is important that the author paid special attention organization- as a special state of a social object.
Many studies by O. I. Shkaratan directly or indirectly dealt with various aspects of the sociology of organizations, in particular, issues of the social organization of an enterprise. This is especially evident in his monograph Industrial Enterprise (1978). The specificity of OI Shkaratan's contribution to this area of ​​sociological research was manifested in his development of the problems of the social composition of an enterprise, as well as the concept and criteria for the social efficiency of an organization. Analysis of the composition of the enterprise gives the author the opportunity to connect the social problems of the enterprise with the characteristics of the population of the region, with the external social environment. Considering the problems of social efficiency, the author suggests its general and local indicators: increasing the proportion of jobs with more meaningful work, improving working conditions and organization, reducing staff turnover, etc.

The next step in working out the problems of the social organization of enterprises in the USSR was made by R. Grigas from Lithuania. From the standpoint of a systematic approach, he singled out a number of structural parts in the organization, interrelated subsystems (technical, economic, social), each of which includes several components, etc. They are given the most detailed typology of the functions of the social organization of the enterprise.
In the monograph by V. N. Ivanov and A. S. Frish, The Basic Cell of Socialist Society (1975), the structure of the labor collective was also considered in the unity of its technical-economic and socio-economic aspects. If the first is manifested in technological, functional and professional structures, then the second characterizes the system of incentives to work. In this work, the authors opposed the use of the concepts of "formal" and "informal" organization in their general form, and proposed to follow the path of specifying their content.

Another important concept of research, in which certain problems of the sociology of organization were directly or indirectly raised, were works on social management.
One of the first who began to develop this problem in Soviet literature in terms of "communist self-government" was Yu. E. Volkov. From his point of view, social management includes, firstly, the management of social processes in a team, and secondly, the solution of social problems of production management itself. "The operational management of production always includes not only production and technical, but also social aspects, management decisions, even of a" purely "production nature, as a rule, have one or another social significance" . This position was important for expanding the scope of sociological research in the field of management. Yu. E. Volkov also proposed a number of key tasks of social management: a progressive change in the social structure of the production team, the formation of cohesion, collectivism, and the expansion of workers' participation in management.
A similar analysis of the problems of the functioning of labor collectives in our society was given in the book by VN Ivanov "Labor collective - the subject of social management" . But here there is already an attempt to characterize the system of methods of social management as ways of influencing workers, groups, collectives in the process of implementing the planned tasks and realizing the goals of the enterprise. The author saw the specifics of social management methods in their focus on coordinating activities, rallying people into a single team. A typology of these methods is also given: the development and setting of social tasks, team building around social goals, taking into account the interests of groups and individuals, changing living conditions in accordance with social goals, the implementation of educational, pedagogical and socio-psychological tasks, selection, placement and promotion of personnel, involvement of team members in active work.

The task of developing an applied sociology of management was set in their joint book by A. A. Zvorykin and S. T. Guryanov: “We are figuratively building a conditional cube of applied sociology of management, where three types of problems are set aside on three faces in decimal gradation, the intersection of which in the volume of the cube gives all kinds of aspects of applied sociology of management.On the first facet, we postpone the methods, techniques and means of management, on the second facet - the main problems associated with the laws and mechanisms of all the main types of management of a person and teams ... On the third facet - the problems of managing the national economy with singling out branches of activity ... ". The content of each type of problem is described below. It is important to note that here an attempt was made to integrate social management into the broader context of managing social, economic, and organizational systems as a whole.

The analysis of the place of labor collectives in the system of managerial relations was devoted to the collective monograph "Labor Collective as an Object and Subject of Management" edited by A.S. Pashkov, published by the Research Institute for Comprehensive Social Research of the Leningrad University. The authors noted that the labor collective is "a relatively independent, stable, integral social system, an objective social formation that has a certain organization, its own internal structure, and appropriate governing bodies" . This book contained some important provisions that brought the problems of the collective closer to the problems of the sociology of labor organizations. This can be seen already in the selection of the fundamental features of the team. It acts as a certain organization of people united by joint labor activity. The team is "such cooperation of labor, which implies the unity of people's actions and their common goal - the optimization of labor activity, increasing their efficiency, a comprehensively developed personality." The third of the features highlighted here is the presence of a group, collective interest. From the point of view of the place in management relations, the following stand out: the administration, the collective of workers and employees, and public organizations and their bodies. Describing the position of the collective in the political system, the authors point out that, being grassroots mass institutions of the system, they perform important functions of including individuals in certain forms of social and labor activity, participation in the affairs of society, and education of the individual.

Particular attention was paid to the methods of social management. Perhaps the most generalized classification was given by I.I. Lyakhov, G.D. Toryachev. The socio-organizational activity of the leader at the level of the primary team is studied by R. Kh. Simonyan in his book "Head of the shop: methods and practice of leadership". The role of social information in the choice of methods of social management of large teams was analyzed by Yu. E. Duberman on the example of the association "Tatneft" in the book "Sociology - Management Practice". One of the topics important for the sociology of organizations studied by Soviet sociologists is the topic participation non-management employees of the enterprise in solving urgent problems of its internal life, managing various processes in it.
The versatility and relevance of the problem are widely seen in the example of an interprofessional collection of articles published by the All-Russian Research Institute for System Research. One of the most detailed sociological works on this topic should be called the monograph by N. N. Bokarev "Expanding the participation of workers in the management of production" (1979). Here the author sees three types of such participation: in economic and social planning, in solving some issues of organizing production, in exercising control.

Having analyzed the social activity of workers using sociological methods, the author singled out among others the following factors of its expansion: economic and political education, awareness of the team, the right combination of material and moral incentives, etc. It is important to note that N. N. Bokarev, like many other researchers, connects the problem of such participation not only with the social goals of society (democratization of management), but also with production tasks ( improving management efficiency).
In the 1980s, another one appeared in this direction. important aspect- financial support for participation. The problem of material and material conditions for the participation of workers in management was first posed and substantiated in our literature in Zh. T. Toshchenko's book "Social infrastructure. Essence and development paths". The participation of working people in management cannot be carried out effectively without the necessary premises, inventory and equipment, press organs, and so on. Zh. T. Toshchenko singled out several groups of material and material elements used in this area: creating conditions for participation in government, production, for mass socio-political events and activities public organizations etc.
Very promising in this sense is the direction of work developed since the early 80s by some sociologists specializing in management consulting using the so-called group work method. This form of participation of factory specialists and workers in the development of managerial decisions then became widespread and recognized among the leaders themselves.
In the work of O. I. Kosenko, a critical analysis of the so-called "participation programs" in a number of countries was given. The book presents a fairly complete picture of such programs and their implementation.

A number of problems in the sociology of organizations were to some extent analyzed and solved in line with the then widespread social planning at enterprises in our country. Some of the work mentioned above has been done in this context. This included such problems as the participation of employees in management, ways to connect the interests of an employee with the goals of organizations, and through them - with the interests of society, the development of the material and technical base of organizations and the implementation of team stability, etc. Of the numerous works in this area, one should note the monographs of N I. Lapina, N. F. Naumova, E. M. Korzheva "Theory and practice of social planning" (1975), Zh. T. Toshchenko "Social planning in the USSR" (1981). However, the problems of participation considered in them are only limitedly associated with organizational and managerial relations and structures of enterprises and institutions.

Finally, a special monograph "Sociology of Organizations" appeared, published by the author of these lines in 1980, and then a number of books on the same topic, written by him: "Organizations: systems and people" (1983), "Innovations: incentives and obstacles" (1989) and "Restructuring: Transitions and Mechanisms" (1990).
Thus, despite the strict and even cruel party control, the problems of the sociology of organizations developed in our country in various directions, both at the theoretical and empirical levels. Obviously, these studies were not always directly aimed at the formation of this area of ​​sociological knowledge. But they were a necessary prerequisite for such a formation.
Assessing what has been done in general, it must be said that thanks to the mentioned studies, the importance of social problems of organizations and managerial relations in it was realized. Some categories and concepts from the field of sociology of organizations were introduced into scientific use. The specialization of researchers in this area began. Undoubtedly, the first positive results were also obtained, concerning, for example, understanding the experience of foreign sociology of organizations, developing the concept of the social organization of an enterprise, specific forms of management democratization were proposed and used, etc.

However, the formation of the Soviet sociology of organizations as an independent discipline did not take place, because its theoretical and methodological foundations were not created, many developments were made piecemeal, and the task of forming an integral direction of sociological research was not set.

post-soviet period

Already the first steps of Gorbachev's reforms to commercialize the national economy, to increase the independence of the still state-owned enterprises, greatly intensified the practically oriented sociology of organizations: it had a real client - an interested and strictly selective person, capable of concluding a contract with a specific specialist as a consultant. Commercial relations quite quickly and clearly put everyone in their places, depending on the qualifications of some and the solvent demand of others.
It is the consulting direction in the sociology of organizations that, in our country, as elsewhere, began to determine the value of methods, theories, schemes, models, and so on. Within this discipline, a new profession has developed: management and organizational development consultant. In 1991, the Association with the same name was formed. Private or semi-private firms have also emerged that use sociological and sociopsychological methods to help managers solve their problems.

In Soviet times, the author of these lines worked at an academic institute, and although I had so-called customers, funding was determined by people unknown to me from the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences. But even if my colleague worked in a self-supporting department (on self-sufficiency) in some university, his payment also did not depend on the quality of his work and on its volume. The administration could pay for his work only according to strict and universal standards, taking into account only the presence and type of an academic degree. Yes, and the funds for the work were allocated to the customer without regard to his real needs and did not belong to him. He spent them indifferently, often just to report to higher authorities in confirmation of his closeness to science.
The advent of the consulting services market has given new opportunities to the talented and hardworking, but has greatly tightened the requirements for the quality of their work.

It was natural in these conditions to turn to foreign methods. But only a few of them have proved to be acceptable in our business culture. We had to develop a lot ourselves, counting on our leader. To accelerate professionalization in this area, the first School of Management Consultants in our country was created in the structure of the Academy of National Economy under the Government of Russia.
Thus began a new stage in the development of the sociology of organizations in Russia and the CIS.

I Introduction

The main goal of the course is to familiarize with the theoretical foundations of the sociology of the organization, the problem area of ​​this area of ​​scientific knowledge and the application of management methods in the practice of economic activities of organizations.

Course objectives:

• 
  to give students knowledge about modern sociological approaches to understanding the essence of social organizations, the laws of their functioning and development:
• 
  form ideas about the relationship of the type of organization with organizational goals and objectives;
• 
  show the features of managing social organizations and the specifics of power relations in them;
• 
  to reveal the features of sociological research of actual problems of social organizations: organizational culture, innovative processes, leadership in the organization, etc.;
• 
  demonstrate internal communication in development various industries sociological knowledge.

This course is intended for 4-5 year students of all forms of education studying in the specialty "sociology". The structure and content of the course are determined by the requirements of the State Standard of Higher Professional Education in the specialty 040201 - sociology. Its assimilation requires a certain level of theoretical training of students: knowledge of the main provisions of the history of sociology and the course of general sociology, political science, the basics of general management, etc. Mastering the course will allow students to conduct specific sociological research in various types of social organizations to identify social problems and find the best ways to solve them. solutions.
Thematic plan of lectures and seminars.
1. Object, subject and methods of sociology of organization

2. The concept of "organization" and types of organizations.

3. Structure of the organization

4. Groups like structural component organizations

5. Group dynamics

6. Personality as a structural component of the organization

7. Power and leadership in the organization

8. Goal setting in the organization

9. Motivation in the organization

10. Communication in the organization

11. Decision making in the organization

12. Innovation in the organization

13. Control in the organization

14. Conflict management

15. Organizational culture and social

psychological climate in the organization
1. The place of sociology in the complex of sciences that study the problems of social organizations. The subject of the sociology of organizations as a branch of sociological knowledge.

(V. Shcherbina) Sociology of organizations, as a rule, is understood as a special sociological and managerial discipline, which is part of the general theory of organization and management and correlates with it as a particular with a whole. In relation to other management disciplines that are not part of the general sociological theory (cybernetics, economics and psychology of organizations, administrative law, etc.), its specificity is determined by the subject focus and perspective of the organization: here it acts as a social entity, while the organization itself described as an object having a cultural nature.

Among the sociological and managerial disciplines, the sociology of organizations can be characterized as a special theoretical discipline. At this level, it coexists with the sociology of management or with the sociology of management. The nature of the organization, its structure, dynamics, mechanisms of functioning and development, problems of survival, etc. are at the center of the study of the sociology of organizations.

The sociology of organizations is a rather young science. Abroad, its formalization as a kind of special theory took place in the mid-1950s, and in the USSR only at the end of the 1970s. However, from the very beginning of the formation of sociology as a science, leading sociologists - M. Weber, T. Parsons, R. Merton, P. Blau, D. Scott, M. Crozier, R. Likert and many others - paid close attention to the study of organizations. Of the Russian scientists who made the most significant contribution to the development of problems in the theory of organizations, G.V. Osipova, N.I. Lapina, A.I. Prigogine. The works of these scientists showed that the essence of the organization is, first of all, social relations between members of a social group. It is the consideration of the organization as a target social group with centralized management that is currently the most productive approach.

2. History of national sociology of organizations

The history of Russian sociology of organizations largely reproduces the history of the western one, but some stages of the latter in our country are omitted or are chronologically late. Four main stages can be distinguished: 1) the first years of Soviet power (20-30s), when the problems of this discipline were worked out mainly within the framework of the NOT concept; 2) the second half of the 60s - the middle of the 70s, when the sociology of organizations had not yet emerged, but some of its problems were already being worked out in the framework of other areas, in particular, historical materialism, scientific communism, general systems theory, cybernetics, economics, sociology of labor, sociology of professions, theory of social management; 3) the second half of the 70s - the middle of the 80s, when in in general terms the problems and the name of this science were determined; 4) post-perestroika stage - from the end of the 80s. and up to the present.

The first stage in the development of the sociology of organizations

NOT - scientific organization of labor. For the first time the term "scientific management" was introduced by F. Taylor.

The first sprouts of the scientific organization of labor and management appeared in Russia in Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, but became especially noticeable in the first decades of the twentieth century, when the teachings of Taylor, Fayol, and Ford gained wide popularity in the United States and Western Europe. Attempts to implement the principles of NOT were made at a number of factories on the eve and during the First World War, but they were rather spontaneous, not systematic. The reasons that hindered the development of management in Russia were the economic backwardness of the country.

The peak of interest in the work of F. Taylor in Russia falls on 1912 - 1914. In 1913, the Taylorist journal Fabrichno-zavodskoe delo appeared in Russia, where the most diverse information about the creator of "scientific management" was systematized. Opinions about the Taylor system were divided into two opposing camps - Taylorists and anti-Taylorists.

The formation of the domestic science of management unfolded in the 20s. against the backdrop of a heated debate around the Taylor system and issues of NOT. Some considered it acceptable almost without reservation, while others almost completely rejected the ideas of F. Taylor.

20s - this is one of the most interesting and fruitful periods when the domestic science of management created theoretical concepts and practical methods in the field of management. The science of management was understood quite broadly - from the management of the entire national economy to the management of a separate enterprise.

In the 20s. theoretical foundations of management science were developed by such scientists as A. Gastev, A. Bogdanov, N. Kondratiev, A. Chayanov.

In those years, there were about 10 scientific research institutes of NOT and management, thousands of bureaus, sections, laboratories of NOT, about 20 journals were published on problems of management and NOT.
At the first stage, in addition to the Notovites, philosophers were also studying sociological and organizational problems, among whom we must first name A.A. Bogdanov, who played an important role in the development of this discipline. He tried to create a universal organizational science - tektology. True, organization and organization in his works were not yet considered as specific social phenomena. His theory offered a set of universal principles for understanding the nature and principles of organization - both as a system and as a dynamic process.
Among management theorists, the figure of A.A. Bogdanov (1873-1928). His fundamental work “Tectology. General organizational science”, written in 1912. In this work, he tried to find the universal principles of organization inherent in animate and inanimate nature.
All manifestations of human life, according to A. Bogdanov, are literally permeated with organizational principles. Everyday life, human speech, communication, work activity, thinking are built in a certain plan, they have their own logic and sequence. That is, they could not exist if they were not organized.

Tectology - the doctrine of construction - acquires a truly universal meaning.

Bogdanov formulated the laws of tectology, which are universal. One of these laws is the "law of the least", according to which the strength of the entire economic chain is determined by its weakest link. This law applies to all spheres of public life. Thus, if the government is interested in raising the productivity of social labor, it is obliged to increase the efficiency of the lagging links. The idea of ​​this law formed the basis of network planning.
Bogdanov managed to anticipate a number of provisions of systems theory and cybernetics, which later had a strong influence on the development of the sociology of organizations. In particular, he introduced the concept (an analogue of the concept), which was determined on the basis of what later became known as the synergistic effect. He proposed an analysis of integration mechanisms (conjugation), disintegration mechanisms (disintegration of the complex), as well as the principle of the structure of complexes - the entry of one element into another (ingression).
Among the representatives of the Soviet concept of NOT, perhaps two figures stand apart, P.M. Kerzhentsev, whose theoretical work largely predetermined the development of the Stalinist model of organization and management, and N.A. Vitke, who turned out to be at the level of the most modern ideas of Western organizational science of that time. Both, without losing sight of the organization as a process, paid close attention to the problem of the formation and functioning of the organization as a collective social subject.

The organizational concept of P.M. Kerzhentsev, although it developed under the powerful influence of the school, especially the works of A. Fayol, was a fairly independent phenomenon.

A. Fayol's classification of management functions included 1) foresight, 2) command, 3) coordination, 4) control.

Russian researcher P. Kerzhentsev came up with a somewhat different program. He singled out the purpose, type of organization, personnel, methods of leadership, time and control.

He placed the emphasis on the social and managerial side of the organization: management techniques, the formation of a management structure, a system for the correct distribution of duties and responsibilities, the selection and placement of personnel - that is, on what A. Fayol called administrative management. P. Kerzhentsev tried to highlight the universal principles of management, applied regardless of the field and industry, and formulated the principle of justification for transferring organizational experience from one industry to another.

Among common features organizational order, he singled out the establishment of goals and objectives, the choice of the type of organization (an instrumental view of the organization), the development of a plan (he paid special attention to planning), methods of working with people, the use of human and material resources, accounting and control. In line with the organizational and managerial issues of the school are also the analysis of the features of the linear and functional management structure and the practical application of the principles of the linear staff structure.

The provisions of the theory of N.A. Witke, on the one hand, also correspond with the works of representatives of the school (primarily A. Fayol), and on the other hand, they anticipate the ideas of the organization model. His most important achievement was the concept of using the nature of the human factor in the organization, put forward in the late 20s and early 30s. In part, it resembled the principles of the school. True, N. Witke put forward his ideas earlier than E. Mayo.

Having put the worker in the control center, and not the tool of labor and equipment, and considering him as an active subject of activity, N. Witke proposed an interpretation of the organization, unusual for those years, as a kind of combination of human wills. The essence of organizational and managerial activity, according to his definition, is in the direction of human energy to achieve a specific goal. N. Witke uses the concept of A. Fayol's five universal management functions and, following him, distinguishes between the areas of management activity, emphasizing the administrative one. He connects the function of the latter, primarily with the task of integrating and coordinating activities. He considered the construction of human relations to be another aspect of administrative activity: the content of administrative work is to create a favorable socio-psychological atmosphere and motivate employees. Describing the ratio of administrative and logistical activities in the work of a manager, he formulates the thesis that the higher the position of the manager on the career ladder, the higher the share of administrative functions in his work compared to engineering. N. Witke talked a lot about the role of informal authority and informal leadership.
The second stage in the development of the sociology of organizations(from the mid-60s to the mid-70s) is deployed after a long break. During this time, management sciences in the West have gone far ahead, and at the junction of the theory of organizations and sociology, a special direction has emerged - the sociology of organizations. This stage can be designated as a period of a) mastering the theoretical and practical baggage accumulated by Western science, b) creating universal methodological principles for scientific analysis and managing complex systems, c) preparing to create a holistic concept of the sociology of organizations.

The development took place in conditions when the country was actively developing, on the one hand, the ideas of cybernetics and general systems theory, and on the other

General sociology. Such development unfolded under the slogan of criticism of the bourgeois ideas of managerism. During this period, several directions emerged in the development of the social problems of organizations.

The first direction is associated with the development of methodological principles for the analysis of organizational systems, primarily system methodology and cybernetics. We can note the contribution of such scientists as P.K. Anokhin, I.V. Blauberg, B.V. Biryukov, N.F. Ovchinnikov, V.I. .N.Sadovsky, A.I.Uemov, A.D.Ursul, B.S.Ukraintsev, G.P.Shchedrovitsky, B.G.Yudin. Their works analyze in detail such concepts as system, integrity, elements, structure, functions, levels, purpose, interconnection, balance, dynamics, complexity, organization.

Special attention should be paid to the developments of M.I. Setrov, who dealt with the problems of functional analysis of dynamic systems within the framework of the general system approach. His works should be interpreted as a certain attempt to return to the problems of A.A. Bogdanov, but at the modern level. Setrov's ideas influenced the development system version sociology of organizations in the late 70s. Based on the works of leading domestic and foreign scientists who worked in the system paradigm, and considering the system approach as a universal way of analyzing complex objects, M. Setrov operated in his study with such concepts as systemicity, organization, structure, functions, regulation, control, balance, variability.

The author considers organization as an attribute of systems, and organizations themselves as a type of complex dynamic systems. It describes the organization in two sections: 1) as a property, arrangement and interconnection of the elements of a certain complex (structural aspect of the organization); 2) as an action or interaction that is conditioned by the unity of purpose and the functions performed (functional aspect). The structure was understood by him as one of the ways to highlight the relations of the object, the system - as a way of aggregating the object by the researcher, and not the properties of the object. As initial principles organization of the system were identified: 1) the principle of compatibility as a condition for the emergence and preservation of the system (the possibility of interaction); 2) the principle of the relevance of the functions performed

One of the central properties of the system, according to M. Setrov, is its stability. The higher the organization of the system, the higher the stability of the structure and its elements and the lability of their functions. He uses the cybernetic understanding of regulation, seeing it as a specific function aimed at maintaining the stability of the system.

Although the developments of M. Setrov do not lie directly in the plane of the sociology of organizations, the conceptual apparatus proposed by him has been actively used in it since the mid-70s. A certain influence on the development of the sociology of organizations was exerted by his logic of functional analysis.

The second direction was the development and translation of foreign sociological and psychological-organizational concepts. The specific experience of management, suitable in socialist practice, was presented as a critique of the concepts of organization. Among the numerous publications designed in this way, one can single out the books of D.M. Gvishiani, O.N. Zhemanov, N.M. Keyzerov, A.I. I. Epstein, who tried to convey to the reader the most popular Western ideas in those years. None of them could yet be considered representative of the sociology of organizations.

Among the notable publications related to the translation of the main provisions of Western organizational theories, one can also include books on Western industrial sociology by A.I. Prigozhin, N.I. Lapin, N.M. . The works of the last two authors contained valuable material on the formation of humanistic models of organization, primarily the school of human relations. So, in the work of S. Epstein, the essence of the Hawthorne experiment, its methodology and the results obtained are described in sufficient detail, the social philosophy of E. Mayo, early organizational-romantic concepts of informal regulation of organizational behavior were covered. In the work of O. Zhemanov, this material was supplemented by a presentation of two principles of organization by D. McGregor (models of organization X and Y), a description of experiments in Philadelphia, California, experiments by K. Levin and later - on the participation of workers in profits

The third stage in the development of the sociology of organizations (with mid-70s - second half of the 80s) is associated, firstly, with its formation as a special sociological discipline, the designation of the range of its problems, subject and place in the system of scientific knowledge; secondly, with attempts to create domestic versions of sociological and organizational theoretical models; thirdly, with the formation of the language of the national sociology of organizations. A feature of this stage is that the methodology of the school of social systems and the sociotechnical approach was dominant, although there were other areas of research. Among the most prominent representatives of this period are N.I. Lapin, A.I. Prigozhin, V.G. Podmarkov, O.I. Shkaratan, R. Grigas, B.Z. Milner, N.F. Naumova.

N.I. Lapin in his articles, as well as in the book (1975), quite clearly outlined the subject area of ​​the sociology of organizations - the social organization of an enterprise, singled out the processes and relationships in a production organization, tried to trace and designate the social functions performed by the organization. It is typical for N.I. Lapin to consider the organization within the framework of the concept of a natural model of social systems and sociotechnical approach. He describes the organization as a heterogeneous system consisting of material and human components. In accordance with Western tradition, he defines such systems as sociotechnical. The totality of machines and technology is designated as a technical subsystem. Social relations between workers - social organization - is the subject of study of the sociology of organizations. The author defines it in a broad sense as a collective (organizationally formed set of workers united by the production of products necessary for society) and in a narrow sense - as a system of social groups and relations between them. Focusing on the problem of regulating the behavior of individuals, N.I. Lapin distinguishes two types of requirements for an employee: 1) value (justification of the organization's goal) and 2) normative (regulating the behavior of an individual).

He defines organization by function as a way of bringing together many individuals to achieve a specific goal (or goals). In its content, it represents a system of relations between people. Material resources are recognized as means of achieving goals. N.I. Lapin considers the formalization of relations to be the most important feature of the organization, emphasizing that the relations of power, subordination and coordination, the rules for admitting new members and leaving it are regulated especially carefully in the organization. Among the problems that require specific study, the discrepancy between the goals and values ​​of the individual and the goals of the organization and the involvement of the employee in the activities of the organization stand out. The scientist notes that the goals of an individual entering the organization are associated with the realization of the needs for work, prestige, communication and self-actualization (the tradition of the school of human relations). Following V.A. Yadov, he considers employee satisfaction to be an integral indicator of the individual's involvement in the organization and considers this satisfaction as the individual's psychological reaction to the labor situation.
The most complete representation of the organization from a systemic standpoint was given at that time by A.I.Prigozhin. It is with him that the identification and legalization of the sociology of organizations as a special sociological and managerial discipline are connected. The merit of the author can be considered the formation of an adequate language of the discipline, the clarification of its subject, a fairly accurate definition of the main directions and phases of its development, the adaptation of a number of Western organizational models to Soviet reality, and, finally, quite original developments in certain areas.

A.I.Prigozhin belongs to the modern definition of the subject, status and functions of this science. Following the objectivist logic inherent in system models of organizations, he defines the subject through the patterns of their construction, functioning and development, highlighting four functions of the sociology of organizations: 1) methodological (development of a system of categories to describe an organization); 2) research (analysis of organizational relations, behavior, interaction of socio-psychological and administrative factors, decision-making and implementation); 3) practical and managerial; 4) design and forecasting. A.I.Prigozhiy describes the organization as: 1) a tool for solving social problems, 2) a target community, 3) an impersonal structure of connections and norms]. Considering organization as a universal sign social formations, the author identifies three types of organizations - administrative, union (public), associative (family), - the differences between which are in the degree of formalization of relations and the ability of their members to influence the goals of the system.

Arguing with N.I. Lapin, he points out that an organization cannot be considered only as a collective (a set of individuals and groups), since it also includes a formal structure consisting of impersonal connections and norms. He identifies two fundamental problems in the sociology of organizations: the first is the relation between the personal and the impersonal, the individual and the general; the second is the unification of the goals and interests of the members of the organization at all levels. Unlike N.I. Lapin, he insists on the interdisciplinary nature of the sociology of organizations. Another feature of A.I.Prigozhin’s position is that he classifies the sociology of organizations as one of the understanding (as opposed to explanatory) sciences, considers it as a science in which development occurs through reflection and awareness. Anticipating the position of the problematic approach in consulting, he insists that the researcher, working in the field of sociology of organizations, must simultaneously perform an engineering (design) function. An important place in the works of A.I.Prigozhin is occupied by the problem of the content of managerial relations. He defines leadership as a set of relationships between statuses (place in the hierarchy), functions (professional positions), living people. His books analyze the problems of management and self-government, formalization of relations, informal organization, functioning and development of the organization, describe the mechanisms of power and types of preparation of decisions, interference in the process of information transfer.

In those years, the works of N.F. Naumova, B.Z. Milner, L.I. Evenko and some other authors were devoted to the study of particular issues of the sociology of organizations in those years. The work of R. Grigas (1980) stands somewhat apart, which acts as a kind of synthesis of the problems of the concepts of the development of a socialist labor collective, social planning (Z.I. Fainburg's version), certain provisions of the system theory, peculiarly interpreted provisions of the sociology of organizations and scientific communism. Based on the provisions of the model open systems and the natural model of organization, the author defines social organization as a set of social formations characterized by interaction with each other, with the external environment and subordinate to the fulfillment of the goals of the enterprise

Last, fourth stage starts in the second half of the 1980s. and covers the entire period of perestroika and market reforms. Known radical changes both in the conditions of the functioning of organizations and the existence of science itself determine the peculiarities of the development of the sociology of organizations, its characteristic features. Among them, in particular, is the theoretical and methodological pluralism and the orientation of many researchers towards the use of the developed provisions in management practice ( functional management and management consulting).

Describing the content of the stage, we single out the following main areas of work: 1) a new phase of turning to the organizational experience of Western countries, translation and understanding of previously little-known Western theoretical models of organization in the country (which arose mainly after 1970) and analysis of the possibility of their use in domestic conditions; 2) search for new methodological principles for understanding the nature of the organization and working with it; 3) continuation of original research developments in the field of sociology of organizations; 4) activities related to the teaching of discipline in universities.

Three trends can be distinguished in the field of methodology. The first is the displacement of normative models of organization by situational ones, interest in which has been visible since the mid-80s (Yu.Yu. Yekaterinoslavsky, D.A. Pospelov and others). Directly in the sociology of organizations and its applied versions, their development is associated with V.S. , A.I.Prigozhin, G.P.Shchedrovitsky, V.V.Shcherbina. The second is an appeal not only to natural-science (deterministic) models, but also to various versions of anthropomorphic, anthropocentric and activity models of organizations. The latter describe the organization as an aggregate subject of decision, as a dynamic, self-programming, self-learning, artificial social system capable of changing its nature, the main feature of which is the ability to freely choose its future (T.M. Dridze, N. F. Naumova, G.P. Shchedrovitsky). The third trend is the turn of researchers (starting from the 90s) to modern models of organization as an open system and various versions of the environmental approach to the analysis of organizations, which allow a better understanding of the relationship of an organization with a dynamic external environment. In this regard, it is expedient to indicate new directions in the domestic sociology of organizations that have shown themselves in the 90s.

1) Separate works related to attempts to clarify the subject area of ​​the sociology of organizations, its status, problems (A.I. Kravchenko, A. I. Prigozhin, V.V. Shcherbina).

2) Continuation of research on the study of the nature, principles of structure and functioning of the organization A.I. Prigozhin, E.P. Popova, V.V. Shcherbina. 3) Study of the problems of interaction between the organization and the external environment and the appeal to modern models of the organization as an open system, which is dictated by the emergence of the market, the increase in the dynamics and instability of the environment. These problems are discussed, in particular, in the publications of A.A. Seytov and I.V. Tyasina.

4) Study of models of organizational behavior, including models of rational and purposeful behavior (V.I. Verkhovin, A.I. Kravchenko, N.F. Naumova).

5) The study of the conflict in the organization (the direction laid down in the works of N.I. Lapin and A.I. Prigogine). The main emphasis is now placed on the study of the nature, functions, positive and negative aspects of the organizational conflict, the logic of its development, diagnostics and technology for their elimination (A.K. Zaitsev, A.I. Prigozhiy, V.N. Shalenko, A.G. Zdravomyslov ).

6) Finally, a special place is occupied by the development of problems and mechanisms of organizational dynamics and organizational development, where elements of almost all of the above directions are integrated. Here it seems justified to single out three approaches. The first, rationalistic, emphasizes the active role of the manager in organizational development (emphasis on voluntary mechanisms). This trend is most explicitly associated with the sociology of innovation. The second approach describes organizational development within the framework of natural logic. The third approach, associated with an attempt to create a synthetic model of organizational development, takes into account the first two mechanisms.

Introduction

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Today, in connection with socio-economic changes, the need to study the theoretical and applied aspects of managing society, its areas, organizations, institutions, etc. is increasing.

The crisis of management is being overcome in Russia with great difficulty, largely due to the fact that the public mind retains ideas about power and management as identical concepts. The most important task of the formation of a modern Russian leader is the development scientific approaches to management, understanding the essence of organizational processes.

Currently, much attention is paid not only to organizations, but also to those subjects (actors) that create and change organizations through their activities. In the anti-systemic approach to organization in the 1980s-1990s. (K. Weik, A. Pettigrew, D. Silverman, B. Rowan) management is the problem of translating personal goals and ideas of some actors into the plane of personal goals and ideas of other actors by forming similar ideas about reality and modes of activity (K. Weik).

Social organization is a functional object based on a system of model norms. These norms are set by the organization as a standard of activity. The essential characteristics of an organization are: stability, hierarchy, specialization and super-additivity (i.e. an increase in additional energy, the so-called synergistic or organizational effect). The main elements of the organization are: a) functions - goals, prescriptions, responsibilities; b) regulators - norms of behavior, means of control, incentives; c) connections (relationships) - a hierarchical system of official and functional dependencies; d) people are connected social roles and positions (statuses).

The organization always relies on the material resources necessary to achieve the goals and a certain system of relations. This system of relations ensures the stability and direction of the actions of all members of the organization.

The sociology of management, as part of general sociology, considers the process of formation, functioning and development of a certain sphere of life and culture of a coordinated community of people; explores the mechanism of social change and social relations, the patterns of social actions and behavior in management systems and processes.

Targetterm paper - to study the sociology of organizations and management, and define the organization as an object of social management.

The purpose of the course work involves the solution of a number of interrelated tasks:

explore the concept and meaning of the sociology of organizations;

identify the main problems of functioning and development of organizations;

reveal the essence and content of social management;

to analyze the sociology of organizations as an integral part of the sociology of management.

The structure of the work consists of an introduction, two chapters, four paragraphs, a conclusion and a list of references.

sociology management crisis russia

Chapter I. Theoretical problems modern sociology organizations

1.1 The concept and meaning of the sociology of organizations

In the system of sociological and managerial sciences, the sociology of an organization can be defined as:

) a special direction of empirical and theoretical research that has developed within the framework of sociological science and considers: a) as the central problem of its study - the phenomenon of social organization (a universal property of social life, to one degree or another manifested in all spheres and at all levels of society) ; b) as an object of study - the organization as a specific multi-element social formation, acting as the subject of purposeful, cooperative activity; c) as a subject of study - a set of social (powerful and sociocultural) means of regulating the behavior (and coordinating activities) of people included in the process of cooperative activity;

) a special sociological theory that arose at the intersection of sociology and management sciences. Focuses on the study and explanation of: a) the nature of the organization as a specific multi-element social entity and subject collective activity; b) the principles of ensuring the effectiveness of its activities; c) the conditions and logic of its emergence, development and functioning; d) the structure of the organization and its social environment; e) ways of dividing and coordinating activities; f) the nature of man and social groups as social objects of behavior regulation; g) power and socio-cultural means of control and regulation of behavior; h) phenomena of power and authority in the organization; i) ways of interaction and communication of active social elements of the organization among themselves and the organization - with elements of the external environment; j) factors and mechanisms that ensure, on the one hand, the predictability and reproducibility of relations, and on the other hand, the variability of the behavior of participants in collective activities; k) problems of formation, implementation and correlation of corporate, group and individual goals of participants in activities, etc.;

) is one of the important components of the basic interdisciplinary complex management theory, called the "theory of organizations". In this capacity, it coexists with other interdisciplinary narrow-subject theories that also consider the organization as an object of their study. Unlike other narrowly focused theories that make up this interdisciplinary complex theory, it tries to understand and explain the processes, mechanisms and nature of the organization, based on the subject specifics of sociology, based on knowledge gained in the framework of sociological science. The concept of "organization" is used in economics, biology, cybernetics, and many other sciences and fields of activity, i.e. wherever social groups operate and their activities are ordered.

The reality of the existence of social groups is manifested in their activity, which is possible within the framework of social organization (in the form of industrial, religious, national, scientific organizations, political parties, trade unions, etc.). Social organization forms social groups into a collective. A.I. Prigogine defines it as a group of people jointly and in a coordinated manner realizing a common goal.

A group of people in the form of a social organization receives the institutionalization of social differences that have formed in different spheres of people's life. Each member of the group has his own position, reflecting his position in the system of division of social labor. For example, the organization of an enterprise includes representatives of workers, engineering and technical workers of different professions and ages. It performs an integrative function on the part of the social system.

Social organizations have a number of basic features. Firstly, they have a target nature, since they are created to achieve certain goals, they strive to achieve this goal as quickly and efficiently as possible. Organizations are both a means and a tool for providing the function of bringing people together, regulating their activities to achieve a goal that cannot be achieved alone.

Secondly, members of the organization are distributed along the hierarchical ladder according to roles and statuses. Thus, a social organization is a complex system of interconnected social positions and roles of its members. It enables the individual to realize his needs, interests within the boundaries that are established by the social status of a person, the norms and values ​​adopted in a particular social organization.

Thirdly, the characteristic feature of the organization, according to Prigogine, is due to the division of labor, its specialization along functional lines. Organizations are built vertically and horizontally. In vertical structures there are always control and controlled subsystems. The control system coordinates the functioning of horizontal structures. Building an organization vertically ensures the achievement of unity of purpose, gives the organization efficiency and stability of functioning.

Fourth, the control subsystems form their own mechanisms and means of regulation and control over the activities of various elements of the organization. Among the most important means, a significant role is played by institutional, or intra-organizational, norms that are created by the activities of institutions with special powers. These institutions carry out, implement regulatory requirements in life and apply their sanctions for this. These four factors, according to Prigogine, determine the organizational order.

The effectiveness of organizational forms is explained by the emergence of the synergy effect (Greek synergia - cooperation, commonwealth). It is synergy that is the temptation for which organizations arise. This is the effect that arises in the community of people from such a combination of forces when 2 + 2 = 5 (or 6, 7,.). And this depends precisely on the way people are organized, on this or that combination of their efforts.

The manifestation of synergy in social organizations means an increase in additional energy that exceeds the sum of the individual efforts of their participants. Moreover, in organizations this phenomenon turns out to be manageable, it can be strengthened, modified, if we understand the sources of the organizational effect, namely: the increase in total energy depending on the type of intra-collective communication.

There are several stages in the process of increasing the energy of social organization. A tangible effect is already given by simple mass character, i.e. simultaneity, one-pointedness of many efforts. The same people cannot lift the same log in turn, but they are quite capable of doing it together. In addition, the so-called secondary effect of association arises here - the psychological interaction of participants, the feeling of "we", mutual comparison, competitiveness, group control.

The introduction of even the simplest forms of dismemberment common work, the distribution of participants in relation to each other in a consistent relationship further enhances the cumulative effect; for example, passing watermelons from shore to barge from hand to hand along a chain is more efficient than each carrying his burden from beginning to end. But here, as in the previous case, the uniformity of operations for all employees is preserved.

A new level of efficiency sets the division of labor according to specialties, i.e. specialization, when an employee achieves the highest results by improving skills in performing any one production operation. This gives rise to a new social product specialization - part-time worker. The division of labor turns into its fragmentation, the process reaches an upper limit: in the production of needles, for example, the wire passes through the hands of dozens of individual workers. This "partiality" of the virtuoso worker is overcome by the fact that his experience makes it possible to formalize the operations performed by him and brought to automatism and on this basis to create technical tools of labor - specialization is now transferred to them. However, at the same time, the functions of the operator of these machines are simplified; his specialization again becomes more and more narrow, tying the worker to the "position of one movement" (most often - pressing a button on the control panel of the most complex modern machines and mechanisms).

Thus, having reached the top point, the process ends with the appearance of machines that provide technical and technological unity more reliably and cheaper. On this line "squeezing" the specified effect is exhausted.

But new lines are laid, and they are manifested up to the present day (Taylorism, Meioism, etc.). Thus, the secret of the organizational effect is rooted in the principles of combining individual and group efforts: unity of purpose, division of labor, coordination, etc.; the ways in which the latter can be carried out are quite varied.

1.2 The main problems of the functioning and development of organizations

The sociology of organization addresses a number of issues related to general characteristics processes of functioning and development of organizations, the most relevant and controversial in modern organizational theory, namely: the problem of the external environment of the organization, the problem of the conservatism of the organization, the problem of organizational development, the problem of the rationality of organizational development, the problem of organizational culture.

The problem of the external environment of the organization. In modern sociology of organizations there is no single idea of ​​the external environment. This concept is central to environmental concepts based on the model of "open" systems and considering the life of an organization through the prism of its relationship with the external environment. These concepts include the concept of strategic management.

On the other hand, environmental theories can be divided into those that study macro-influences (the totality of social factors), and micro-social concepts that study the external environment that directly interacts (be it cooperation or competition) with the organization. Management concepts tend to be dominated by a micro-social approach.

The external environment has a certain complexity. The complexity of the external environment refers to the number of factors to which the organization must respond, as well as the level of variability of each factor. Considering the number of external factors an organization is forced to respond to, if it is under pressure from government regulations, frequent renegotiation of union contracts, multiple interest groups, multiple competitors, and accelerated technological change, it can be argued that the organization is in a more difficult position. environment than, for example, an organization concerned with the actions of just a few suppliers, in the absence of unions and slow technology change.

Similarly, when it comes to a variety of factors, an organization that uses only a few inputs, a few specialists, and does business with only a few firms in its country, should consider the conditions of collateral to be less complex than an organization that does not have these parameters. In terms of the diversity of factors in more than difficult conditions there will be an organization that uses diverse and different technologies that have evolved more rapidly than an organization, than an organization that is not affected by all this.

Along with the previously listed characteristics, the external environment also has mobility. However, while this trend is general, there are organizations around which the external environment is particularly fluid. It is believed that the most rapid changes in the external environment primarily affect such industries as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, electronics, aerospace, computer production, biotechnology, and telecommunications. This is primarily influenced by factors such as changes in technology and methods of competition.

In addition, the mobility of the external environment may be higher for some departments of the organization and lower for others. For example, in many firms, the R&D department faces a highly fluid environment because it must keep track of all technological innovations. On the other hand, the production department may be immersed in a relatively slow-changing environment characterized by a stable movement of materials and labor resources. At the same time, if production facilities are scattered around the world or inputs come from abroad, then the production process may be in a highly mobile environment.

Given the ability to function in a highly mobile environment, an organization or its units must rely on more diverse information in order to make effective decisions about their internal variables. This makes decision making more difficult.

There is one more characteristic of the external environment that should be highlighted - this is its uncertainty. The uncertainty of the external environment is a function of the amount of information that an organization (or person) has about a particular factor, as well as a function of confidence in this information. If there is little information or there is doubt about its accuracy, the environment becomes more uncertain than in a situation where there is adequate information and there is reason to consider it highly reliable. As business becomes more and more a global endeavor, more and more information is required, but confidence in its accuracy is diminishing. Thus, the more uncertain the external environment, the more difficult it is to make effective decisions.

The problem of organizational conservatism . When analyzing the problem of the external environment, researchers emphasize that the environment acts as a factor in organizational dynamics. But for concepts that analyze the macro-environment and micro-environment of the organization, the environment also acts as a factor of organizational conservatism. Most environmental theories, based on a specific understanding of the external environment, emphasize the presence of organizational development restrictions imposed either by existing institutional rules, or by a system of linguistic meanings, or by available resources, or by competition for resources if they are few, etc.

Within the framework of organizational ecology, the following advantages of the organization are distinguished: reliability and accountability. Reliability is understood as the ability of an organization to repeatedly produce a collective product with specified quality characteristics. In a rapidly changing world, potential investors and clients may value execution reliability over efficiency—that is, pay a high price for the certainty that this product or a service of a certain minimum quality will be available on demand. Accountability refers to the ability of an organization to make internally consistent arguments consistent with the rules and procedures for the rational allocation of resources and consistent with organizational activities.

T. Parsons singled out three systems (levels) in the organization: technical, managerial and institutional - and considered their relationship from the point of view of controlling the inflow of resources. Technical system is that part of the organization that is directly concerned with the processing of the resources used by the organization. The managerial or administrative system determines the relationship between technical activity and social utility. The third part - the institutional system - links the organization with society, being responsible for obtaining legitimacy for the organization.

Thus, the conservatism of the organization is reflected in the phenomenon of structural inertia, which includes a whole range of organizational characteristics and, above all, the tendency for the organization to preserve its original features, properties and methods of functioning throughout its existence. Emphasizing this organizational feature, E.P. Popova draws attention to the fact that in the course of the selection process, preference is given to organizations whose structure is inertial. Thus, it is inertial organizations that have that degree of reliability and accountability, which is a decisive factor in their struggle for survival.

The problem of organizational change and organizational development . In its most general form, "change" is defined as the replacement of one state by another. On the one hand, such a definition is too general, since it does not include the relation to such important characteristics, as a mechanism, a source of change, awareness of the process, etc. But, on the other hand, it covers any changes: both planned and occurring in the course of evolution, in the process of adaptation or by accident.

As for the development of the organization, there are also many approaches to this problem. Development can be defined as a change in the age of the organization (W. Starbuck), as changes in the state of the organization, which are characterized by innovation, the ability to grow and increase in size (J. Child and A. Kizer), as a strategy designed to change beliefs, attitudes, values ​​and structures of organizations in order to better adapt them to new technologies, markets, etc. (W. Bennis).

At the same time, representatives of the school of "human relations" and the school of social systems are characterized by the interpretation of development as, for the most part, a natural, evolutionary process associated with the creation of socio-cultural and institutional models and the differentiation of types and methods of activity.

From the beginning of the 70s. in organizational theory, a number of new concepts are being formed that fix already existing differences (rationality or naturalness of the change process) and add new ones (external or internal source of change, activity or passivity of the organization in the process of change, etc.).

Innovative approach. Representatives - M. Kirton, S.M. Siegel, W.F. Kammerer and etc.; in the domestic sociology of organizations - N.I. Lapin, A.I. Prigogine and etc. Authors working in this direction take changes in the external environment on faith and consider internal processes as the source of change. Moreover, if Western concepts see organizational change as a conscious adaptation within an organization, then within the framework of domestic innovation, emphasis is placed on purposefulness and manageability in the process of changing an organization.

Neo-Marxist approach. Representatives R. Edwards, M. Burawoy and etc. A distinctive feature of this approach is the consideration of organizations not from the point of view of statics, but the allocation of the dialectical aspect. The struggle for dominance acts here as a mechanism that generates organizational change.

Theory of random transformation. Representatives - J. March, J. Olsen. The random transformation theory sees organizations as "organized anarchies" because the preferences of the members of organizations are unclear and participation is fluid. Organized anarchies are very loosely connected, making change management a problematic initiative. Change is seen as the result of all these actions occurring in a highly contextualized manner.

Structural-situational theory. Representatives - P. Lawrence, J. Lorsch, J. Thompson. Supporters of this concept believe that the internal functioning of the organization should be consistent with the requirements of the task facing it, its technical equipment, external environment, as well as the needs of its staff. In accordance with this, the situational theory identifies changes that adapt the structure of the organization to its external environment. Moreover, various parts of the organization tend to correspond to their own subenvironment. varying degree change requires an unequal amount of time for the organization to make a decision and react. This differentiated adaptation creates problems of integration, which in turn leads to the development of new structures.

Theory of resource dependence. Representatives - J. Pfeffer, G. Selensik. Within theories that pay great attention to the relationship of the organization and the external environment, two options for the organization's response to a change in its environment are possible: either the organization can adapt in accordance with external requirements, or the organization can try to remake its environment in such a way that it corresponds to organizational capabilities. The structural-situational theory can serve as a classic example of the first approach; the theory of resource dependence represents the second option.

neoinstitutional approach. Representatives - J. Meyer, B. Rowan, P. J. DiMaggio and etc. Within this approach, it is believed that the organizational structure learns the prevailing, normatively confirmed ways of organizing. Organizations, especially those whose output is difficult to measure directly (e.g. education, health care), are forced to follow regulations or, at least, to create the appearance of such a following in order to obtain legitimacy. According to neo-institutionalists, these regulations have little bearing on technical efficiency. Organizations strive not for efficiency, but for institutional isomorphism with the prevailing normative standards of the respective structures. At the same time, the structures perform a "ceremonial" role, representing the competence and value of the organization as a social actor (the concept of "institutional isomorphism").

Phenomenological approach. Representatives - K. Weick, S. Ranson, B. Hinings, R. Greenwood and etc. Most of the authors within the framework of this approach develop the ideas of K. Weik, who was the first to question the concept of rationality in organizational development, believing that action precedes planning. He saw organizations as "organized anarchies" or "loosely connected systems."

natural selection approach. Representatives - X Aldrich, M. Hannen, J. Freeman and etc. The selection model is essentially a model of organizational evolution. This model is applied to populations of organizations. It is believed that the environment differentially selects organizations, basing such selection on the ability to organizational structure exploit the resources of the environment.

Further development of organizational theory and practical management showed the insufficiency and one-sidedness of both approaches. At the same time, the problem was posed of how an organization can combine the need to achieve goals (and an organization is created “to meet a goal”) with the possibility of survival. But, as a rule, most concepts interpreted organizational change unequivocally as a process either rational or natural. The understanding of the very term "rationality" practically did not change and was associated with goal achievement. Until the end of the 60s. in the Western sociology of organizations, it was precisely this interpretation that prevailed: rationality as expediency. Efficiency, on the other hand, was practically the only criterion for a positive assessment of an organization, and, consequently, a condition for the latter's survival.

Since the spread in organizational theory situational approach most researchers began to take into account the uncertainty factor (primarily the uncertainty of the external environment, but also internal goals, interests, etc.). Uncertainty began to be interpreted as a factor that imposes restrictions on the rational choice itself. Thus, the understanding of the term "rationality" has also changed: it began to be used to characterize the degree of adaptation of an organization to the external environment. However, most researchers reduced the analysis of the influence of the external environment on the organization to the analysis of the influence of its microenvironment "target environment". And this made it possible to absolutize the role of the manager in the choice of goals and means to achieve them. That is, one way or another, rationality was also described here in terms of "expediency" and "goal achievement". The only limitation with this approach is the following: the manager, when making his choice, is limited by the previous choice.

In the 70-80s. In the sociology of organizations, a stream of so-called "unorthodox" literature appeared, connected to one degree or another with various versions of phenomenological theory. This theory, as noted above, emphasizes the uncertainty factor in the functioning and development of organizations. However, uncertainty itself is considered not only as a characteristic of the external environment, but as an essential property of the organization itself. The rationality of the manager's actions in this approach is seen as problematic. It is assumed that an action is first performed, and then a more or less rational explanation (reason) is invented and retrospectively applied. An absolutely negative assessment of the manager's ability to determine the course of organizational processes is presented in the theory of random transformations (J. March and J. Olsen).

At the same time, most versions of the phenomenological approach, emphasizing the need to take into account the uncertainty factor in organizational change, attach a special role in this situation to the actions of managers who streamline events.

A common feature of the considered approaches to the problem of the rationality of organizational change in a situation of constant uncertainty is the assessment of the positiveness of organizational change in terms of goal achievement and efficiency. At the same time, efficiency is considered primary in relation to survival.

Simultaneously with the 70s. a number of concepts are successfully developed, for which the survival of the organization is the primary condition for its effectiveness. The very concept of "efficiency" is interpreted in many ways (neo-institutional theory, theory of organizational ecology), since the organization is evaluated not only from the point of view of achieving goals, but also from the point of view of performing other social functions. This approach allows us to answer the question why society spends scarce resources on building and maintaining organizations, although the latter are less effective compared to short-term associations of people created to solve a specific problem.

Organizational ecology, analyzing the process of organizational development under the influence of the macro environment, actively uses the concept of institutional isomorphism.

Survival in organizational ecology is understood as a largely random outcome, which does not exclude rationality in decision-making by managers. However, the rigidity of the connection between the intentions of the decision makers and the results of the implemented actions is denied. Based on this, it is assumed that the most "survivable" structure is not the one that is optimally adapted to specific external conditions, but one that is more or less adapted to different configurations of the external environment. This "average" fitness relieves the organization of the need to respond to all changes in the external environment and ensures the preservation of the organization's self-identity through the reproduction of its structure.

The Problem of Organizational Culture . The concept of "organizational culture" is widely used in modern theory of organizations. In the psychological and sociological concepts of an organization, organizational culture is sometimes described as a set of values, norms, patterns of behavior (activity) accepted by members of the organization, a system of meanings and meanings that predetermine ways of understanding the current situation and responding to it. The introduction of the concept of "organizational culture" into the language of organizational theory dates back to the end of the 70s. and are associated with the attempts of American scientists to comprehend the successes of the Japanese economy (for example, the studies of U. Ouchi).

The problem of studying the phenomenon of culture in the sociology of organizations goes back to the works of M. Weber, T. Parsons. Particular merit in the development of this problem belongs to C. Barnard and G. Simon, who first introduced the concept of "organizational morality" into the vocabulary of organizational theory, which is close in content and functions to the modern concept of "organizational culture".

The phenomenon of organizational culture was first seriously worked out within the framework of the phenomenological approach in the sociology of organizations, based on the views of D. Silverman. In the sociology of organizations, the term "organizational culture" was first used by A. Pettigrew. Considering a person as a creature that creates representations, symbols, language, ways of perceiving and constructing reality, he proposed to focus on considering the personality in the context of the organizational environment and the past and past experience of the organization, reflected in the system of collective ideas developed by the members of the organization.

Further development of the phenomenological model of organizational culture is associated with the studies of Louis and Robbins. They rely on the phenomenological concept of the so-called "social certainty". Its essence boils down to the fact that the process of interpreting social reality is seen as proceeding at three levels:

) universal - containing a set of meanings that are obvious to everyone within a given society;

) cultural - a unique set of potentially possible meanings that are inherent only to a given group (organization), expressed in the concepts of "group repertoire", "cultural code";

) individual - a set of meanings with which the individual correlates in the process of interpreting the situation and activity.

The development of this view is reflected in a number of rationalistic concepts of organizational change (I. Ansoff, J. Barney, W. Bennis, in our country - A.I. Prigogine, etc.), where organizational culture acts as a controllable factor, and in a number of works - as a factor hindering the implementation of strategic, innovative projects and organizational development. The destruction of a conservative organizational culture and the formation of a new one is often considered here as a condition for organizational development, and the very formation of an organizational culture as a conscious and controlled process.

These views on the content and functions of organizational culture have become the starting point for numerous studies and developments on this issue in the US and Europe. Today, various approaches to the study of organizational culture have been developed, for example, basic-ethnographic (in our country - V.M. Gaskov, A.A. Itskhokin, etc.), organizational-ecological, neo-institutional, etc.

Chapter II. The Role of Management in the Sociology of Organizations

2.1 Essence and content of social management

The sociology of management is a branch of sociology that studies the sociological aspects of managerial activity.

Management - built in social process, a consciously constructed and directed socio-cultural mechanism for regulating relations between participants in joint activities, combining their interests, organization and self-organization, formal and informal norms, achieving productive goals and the stability of social ties.

A problematic situation in practical terms is the social order for the modernization of management structures in connection with the spontaneous processes of the societal transformation of Russian society in the context of globalization and the global crisis. In scientific terms, we are talking about the development of a new management paradigm, corresponding to the post-industrial orientations of managerial thought, the theoretical possibilities of domestic sociology and other socio-humanitarian sciences, historical and socio-cultural features of the formation of government and management.

The object (of domestic sociology of management) is the process of institutionalization of management as a sociocultural mechanism for maintaining and changing the social order in the country, increasing the efficiency of the work of federal, regional, local governments, as well as the work of political, economic and public organizations.

The subject of sociology of management is the controllability of social objects and processes, the patterns of functioning and transformation of regulatory mechanisms that optimally combine the interests of participants in joint activities, their organization and self-organization, formal norms and informal rules, the achievement of productive goals and the stability of social ties and relationships. Along with the general methods of collecting, processing and analyzing sociological data, the sociology of management uses specific methods and procedures, which include: organizational structure, sociotechnical, identification, socio-communicative. In the methodological organization of the study, diagnostic procedures are introduced to establish the "problem shift" of the participants in the coordination of joint activities and predictive design.

The need for social management is primarily due to the fact of the division of labor in groups of people, in large teams, on a national scale, as well as the need for its cooperation.

Therefore, just as the joint work of people is the basis of any human society, so management is a necessary element. common labor, existence and development of society.

The key concept of management is impact. It is carried out in technical and biological systems. Let's say right away that we are interested in such an impact that is carried out in social systems and can be understood as the impact of the subject of control on the object of control in order to transfer it to a new desired state.

Therefore, the main element of management, with which it begins, is goal setting.

The goal of control is the desired, possible and necessary state of the system, which must be achieved. Determining the goals of management is the main and initial stage of management.

Goal-setting is the process of substantiation and formation of development goals of a managed object based on an analysis of social needs for products, services, the quality of social ties, based on the real possibilities of their most complete satisfaction.

We emphasize that in social systems the influence of the subject of control on the object is not only not spontaneous, random, unconscious, on the contrary, it strives for maximum rigor, economy, expediency and consistency. Let us note that any influence in society is of a conscious social nature, therefore, from now on, the word social can be omitted: it is implied, since we are talking about the management of public affairs.

The content of social management is mainly determined by the quality of goal-setting, which, in turn, is determined by the extent to which the set goals (operational, medium-term, strategic) most accurately and fully express the fundamental needs and interests of the whole society, its individual social groups that determine the motives people's behavior.

Objectively determined by the development and complication of society, the requirement for the ability to carry out managerial activities is organically linked to the development of a person's ability to self-government, which receives scope for improvement in the process of transition of society itself to more highly organized and complex forms of communication and activity. The very development of the individual and any social group or organization coincides with the progress of its ability to adapt to the changing conditions of the external and internal environment, i.e. manage the development of their own relations and activities within the framework of historically established and changing forms of social relations. Each stage in the development of management represents a significant shift in the content of diverse human activities, primarily production and labor. This shift requires more advanced forms of communication and activity that ensure the concentration of the creative energy of people, their communities and organizations on learning more deep levels objective world, on the accomplishment of more diverse and complex forms of activity, the interaction of people with each other.

So, management appears as a social process of conscious, based on reliable knowledge of the systematic impact of the subject of management (managing subsystem) on a social object (managed subsystem) through decision-making, planning, organization and control necessary to ensure the effective functioning and development of social system (organization), the achievement of its goal.

The management process is always the activity of the subjects of management united in a certain system, aimed at achieving the goals of the organization (enterprise) by implementing certain functions using management methods.

There are three main approaches to management: situational, process and system.

Situational approach (its other name is "concrete approach").

When using it, managers proceed from the fact that the specific situation is the basis for the application of possible management methods.

At the same time, the most effective method is considered to be the one that best suits the given management situation.

The situational approach is the concept that the optimal solution is a function of environmental factors in the organization itself (internal variables) and in the environment (external variables). In this approach, the main provisions of well-known management schools are concentrated through a combination of certain techniques. This concept is suitable for more effective achievement of the goals of the organization.

The process approach is based on the concept that management is a continuous chain of management functions carried out as a result of the performance of interconnected actions.

The main methodological approach to management is a systematic approach. With its help, the organization is considered as a single whole with all its most complex connections and relationships, as well as the coordination of the activities of all its subsystems.

A systems approach requires the use of the principle feedback between parts and whole; the whole and the environment (i.e. the environment), as well as between the parts and the environment. This principle is a manifestation of the dialectic of interdependence between different properties.

The smooth functioning of an organization affects many factors, the most important of which are psychological and socio-psychological phenomena.

System (system) - a unity consisting of interdependent parts, each of which brings something specific to the unique characteristics of the whole. Organizations are considered open systems because they interact dynamically with the external environment.

With regard to management problems in a systematic approach, the most important is the following actions:

a) selection of the object of study;

b) determination of the hierarchy of the goals of the system and its reflection in the goals of the subsystems;

c) description of the influence of each of the subsystems on the system in which they operate and the reverse influence of the system on the objects of the subsystem;

d) determination of possible ways to improve the activity of the studied subsystems.

The very essence of management in a systematic approach is considered as a combination of the following concepts: management organization, management process; information. The relationship of these elements of the essence of control allows us to distinguish three main blocks, which, in turn, consist of a number of elements.

2.2 Sociology of organizations - component sociology of management

The basis for the functioning of organizations is the presence of management. With regard to social organization, the concept of management is used in two aspects. First, we are talking about management in the organization itself. Secondly, this refers to the management activities of the organization in relation to any social communities, groups, processes, phenomena.

The problem of management in an organization was specially posed at the beginning of the 20th century. one of the founders scientific theory management by the French engineer and researcher A. Fayol. He gave a clear answer to the question, what is the content of this activity. It includes: planning the activity itself, its foresight, organizing human and material and financial resources for its implementation, making decisions and issuing orders based on them, adjusting and coordinating the actions of various participants in the management process, monitoring the achievement of goals and the behavior of members of the organization in accordance with accepted social norms.

Speaking about management in an organization, it is necessary to imagine two types of it: external, centralized and internal, or self-government. The first type means the management of organizations carried out from the outside, i.e. located outside their borders. The branch of the firm, located in Yekaterinburg, is managed from its headquarters in Moscow; the ministry manages subordinate enterprises located on the territory of the country; the regional center manages the districts, etc.

With all the advantages of centralized management (breadth of view, taking into account the interests of the system as a whole, and not just this organization), it cannot know and take into account the full potential of this organization, truly imbued with its needs and concerns. In this sense, management carried out from within the organization (self-government) is more fruitful.

Managerial activity, like any kind of work, is aimed at obtaining certain result. The whole question is how to determine its effectiveness. One can, of course, follow the traditional and tried-and-tested path for the recent past, seeing the effectiveness of organization management in the achievements of production, the growth of labor productivity and the increase in output. But a different formulation of the question seems more promising.

Effective will be considered that management activity that will lead to changes in organizational relations, attitudes, knowledge, goals, social positions and statuses of members of the organization. In turn, it is these changes that will have to lead to positive shifts in technology and direct; production results. In other words, between management in an organization and obtaining a direct production effect, it is necessary to see intermediate links, they are the result of managerial activity.

Since the sociology of organizations can be interpreted as an important subject component of the sociology of management, the specifics of the subject area of ​​sociological science play a huge role in determining its essence. The fact is that the main function of the organization, both as a process and as a specific social formation, is traditionally associated with the function of ensuring social order as the most important prerequisite for joint activity. But it was precisely the problem of ensuring social order, posed by T. Hobbes, that for many years was considered by most sociologists (and is still considered by many to this day) as a central problem. Accordingly, this was (and continues to be) reflected in the specific understanding of the subject area of ​​this concept.

The subject matter of the sociology of organizations is often understood to be either institutional processes, or the social regulation of people's behavior, or what is often called "social organization" - i.e. ultimately what T. Parsons called a way of organizing a social community. Such an understanding of the subject specifics of the sociology of organizations is due to the interest of sociologists in the study of types, factors of variability, principles and logic of formation, as well as the transformation of organizational structures.

From the standpoint of managerial influence and the specifics of management methods, formal and informal organizations are distinguished. Signs of an informal organization: the commonality of the problem, personal sympathies, interests without formal instructions for agreeing on goals and responsibilities; achievement of personal goals not provided in formal organizations; spontaneous creation, not formalized by any formal documents; a set of off-duty contacts; the emergence of a leader with moral authority who helps the group achieve its goals, maintain and strengthen its existence; social control over its members, taking into account group norms of behavior.

A formal organization has the following features:

created on the basis of formal documents;

statutory documents are approved in state organizations in accordance with the current legislation;

formalized horizontal and vertical division of labor;

fixing service relations in official acts;

formal recognition by all members of the organization of its goals, enshrined in the statutory documents;

appointment or election of an official leader, endowed with the powers of a single commander.

Researchers distinguish two types of social control - internal control, or self-control, and external, which is represented by a set of institutions and mechanisms that guarantee compliance with norms. External control exists in formal and informal forms. Formal control is based on approval or condemnation by the administration and official authorities in accordance with laws, decrees, instructions, regulations, etc. It is carried out by formal authorities and administrations, parties, mass media, administration of enterprises and organizations. Informal control is based on the approval or condemnation of relatives, colleagues, friends and acquaintances, public opinion. The agents of informal control are the family, the team of employees, religion and other social institutions and informal associations of the organization. In a large group, informal control is ineffective, as it is dominated by formal connections and relationships.

Any social control includes two main elements - norms and sanctions.

There are four types of sanctions: formal positive, informal positive, formal negative and informal negative sanctions. Formal positive sanctions are public approval from official organizations, documented with signatures and seals: awards, awarding orders, titles, promotion, etc. Informal positive sanctions are public approval that does not come from official organizations: a smile, a compliment, applause, etc. Formal negative sanctions are punishments provided for by laws, decrees, instructions, a fine, imprisonment, arrest, excommunication, etc. Informal negative sanctions are punishments that are not prescribed by law: neglect, censure, lectures, spreading rumors and slander. Norms and sanctions constitute a single whole, if any norm has no corresponding sanctions, then the norm loses its regulatory force. The choice of the type of social control and social sanctions depends not only on the type of organization, but also on its size - than more organization the more formalized the management.

The mechanisms for managing and coordinating the activities of an organization significantly depend on the model of this organization. In fact, the model of the organization is a supersystem within which all the activities of the organization take place. In modern literature, four models of organization are distinguished - these are:

the classical (mechanistic) model and its variety - the bureaucratic model;

neoclassical (organic) model;

institutional model;

system model.

The basis of the classical model is the idea that the organization is the result of the activities of only managers who fully control and own it. The organization is considered as an administrative pyramid with different levels of management, permeated with formal connections and relationships, it is an impersonal mechanism, its basis is the labor process, and a person is only a tool for solving problems and must be adapted to the needs of the organization with the help of formal economic levers of management. The main thing in the classical model is the unity of command and a clear distribution of responsibilities; these can be large enterprises with a linear and linear-staff structure. The main management methods in this model are planning, coordination, control. The organization is a closed system, and the improvement of its functioning is ensured by internal rationalization without regard to the external environment.

The neoclassical model is built taking into account the capabilities of a person, who is considered not only as an operator performing a given job, but also as a person with needs, interests and value orientations. In organizations adhering to the neoclassical direction, the majority of employees, and not just top-level managers, take part in decision-making. The unifying force of the organization is not administrative power, but mutual trust. The manager is more of a facilitator of communication within the organization. The functioning of the organization of this model is carried out not due to external control over the results of its work, but mainly due to the high responsibility and self-control of the members of the organization itself.

The institutional model sees the organization as political institution and association of groups, each of which pursues its goals. In accordance with this model, the normal functioning of the organization is determined both by the rationality of the structure and taking into account the socio-psychological characteristics of individuals, and by the demands of social groups inside and outside the organization.

The system model represents the organization as a system consisting of interrelated elements, which is part of a more complex system of society. This model is based on the concept of open systems and takes into account the relationship of the organization with the external environment. It is also based on the concept of social systems, that is, it includes behavioral and instrumental variables (technical, economic and organizational).

Ultimately, all models of organizations express two main trends in their understanding: organization as a tool for solving social problems and organization as a sphere of life of individuals. In practice, these models are not found in their pure form, since the achievement of the set goals is possible only as a result of joint activities. Optimal management quite fully correlates managerial actions with the potential of the organization. In the context of the transition to a market economy and the formation of civil society, there is a change in the mechanisms for managing organizations and the principles of relations between management personnel and subordinates, as well as between organizations and the state. The volumes and spheres of management, the ratio of the levels of the managerial hierarchy and the spheres of control are changing, since the reduction in the levels of the managerial hierarchy leads to an increase in the sphere of control. This factor contributes to faster adaptation to technical changes and market conditions, as well as reducing the cost of the top management.

Conclusion

An unambiguous definition of the concept of "organization" is difficult, since it is very multifaceted and very applicable in the most different situations. The concept of "organization" includes two components - differentiation, "dismemberment", and unification and coordination at the same time. In classical management theory, the concept of organization is associated with the division of labor. At the same time, the division of labor is characterized as a form of coordination of production; workers must know what their colleagues are doing and coordinate their activities with their work. Based on the foregoing, an organization can be defined as a social system in which subjects, aware of their belonging to this system, act to achieve a common goal.

Organizations are the result of purposeful rational thinking and regulated collaboration. They have the following features:

they are formed consciously and purposefully to achieve a specific goal or purpose;

they have a deliberately created and universally binding order or structure;

with their help, the activity of the members of the organization and the means used by them must ensure the achievement of the goal.

Organization in a certain sense of the word - a tool to achieve the goal. Interestingly, the specific goal pursued by the organization does not necessarily coincide with the goals of the people participating in its activities. Therefore, the organization is forced to create various incentive and reward systems, with the help of which it involves individuals in action to achieve a common goal.

The differentiation of tasks and the coordination that goes with it affect the structure and form of the organization. The more developed the specialization, the more versatile and complex will be the administrative functions of the organization, its planning, coordination, motivation, etc., the more multifaceted the structure of the organization will be. In their structure, organizations most often resemble a pyramid, in which tasks are differentiated at several levels.

In addition to the horizontal division of labor, there is always coordination, leadership and various specializations along the vertical line in the organization.

The founder of the sociological study of the organization M. Weber considered it as a system of power and developed the theoretical foundations of management, optimal for the organization as such.

Thus, sociology considers management as a constantly ongoing social process of expedient impact on the managed system. To achieve organizational goals, a management strategy is developed. Effective activity of the organization is possible only if the social factor is taken into account.

Bibliography

1.Alekhin E.V. Sociology of management / E.V. Alekhine. - Penza: Penz. state un-t, 2007. - 154 p.

2.Zborovsky G.E. General sociology / G.E. Zbrovsky. - M.: Gardariki, 2004. - 592 p.

.Ignatieva A.V. Research of control systems / A.V. Ignatieva, M.M. Maksimtsov. - M.: UNITI, 2008. - 167 p.

.Kravchenko A.I. Sociology of management: a fundamental course / A.I. Kravchenko, I.O. Tyurin. - M.: Academic project, 2005. - 136 p.

.Poltavskaya E.I. On the concept of "social institution" / E.I. Poltavskaya // Sociological research. - 2009. - No. 3. - P.68-71.

.Popova E.P. The problem of organizational development criteria / E.P. Popova // Sociological research. - 2004. - No. 9. - P.152-175.

.Popova E.P. Sociology of organizations, some aspects of formation and modern problems / E.P. Popov. - Volgograd: VolGU Publishing House, 2002. - 68 p.

.Sociology of Management / Ed. ed.V.E. Boikov. - M.: Publishing House of the RAGS, 2006. - 336 p.

.Tikhonov A.V. From the sociology of management to the sociology of management / A.V. Tikhonov // Sociological research. - 2011. - No. 2. - P.40-45.

10. Toshchenko Zh.T. Sociology of management / Zh.T. Toshchenko. - M.: Center for Social Forecasting and Marketing, 2011. - 300 p.

Personnel management of the organization / Under the editorship of A.Ya. Kibanova. - M.: INFRA-M, 2010. - 695 p.

Shcherbina V.V. Subject, status and problems of the sociology of organizations / V. V. Shcherbina // Sociological research. - 2000. - No. 8. - P.138-143.

Slide 11.1.

Having become acquainted with the features of the sociology of organizations as an interdisciplinary science, we will define it functions in the study of organizations and practical organizational activities.

· Theoretical-cognitive function. Her goal is study, comprehend, explain the patterns and laws of social organizations, comprehend new trends in the development of organizations and departments depending on the changing geopolitical, socio-economic, scientific, technical, political and socio-cultural factors, to formulate organizational paradigms of the 21st century.

· Predictive, prognostic function. It is aimed at foresight, prediction of the most likely changes in organizational systems and their management. Within this function, tasks development of the theory of strategic management of organizations, social forecasting and design, issues of socio-organizational futurology.

· methodological function. The sociology of organization as a complex theory, as a system of paradigms, also acts as a method, has a methodological function, i.e. helps to put research problems, solve old and new organizational and managerial problems. Scientifically, methodologically verified management of organizations should work in the mode of truth. The methodology of the sociology of an organization should lead us to reliable, true knowledge about the ongoing processes in organizational systems. In the implementation of the methodological function, the sociology of an organization relies on dialectical method, on systemic, complex, information-cybernetic, synergetic, structural-functional approaches, principles and laws of organization, laws of management . In line with this function, the tasks of managing theory and practical organizational activities are solved.

· Organizational (practical) function. The sociology of organizations is a model of organizational practice, an instrument of organizational activity. The sociologist is called to help the organization in conducting concrete sociological research concerning the diagnosis of the internal environment of the company (its strengths and weaknesses) and external opportunities and threats, the study of the consumer market, the use of game methods in working with members of the organization to make joint decisions, etc.

· axiological function. It consists of determining the ideology, goals, mission of organizations, value priorities of organizational culture, ethics and culture of management, social responsibility, worldview of managers. This function of the sociology of organizations dictates the task of bringing the activities of organizations as close as possible to human needs and values, to the value standards of human life, i.e., to a person.

· Innovative feature. The sociology of organizations is a socially active, creative science. It is most directly related to social innovations, social, organizational and managerial projects, to the launch of creative processes in organizational systems. This is where new challenges arise. explore organizations as a field of social innovation and creativity, to develop the problems of managing creative processes in organizations.

· Heuristic, creative function. Heuristics is the science of creativity, of prompting new ideas, thoughts and solutions. The sociology of organizations is deeply heuristic, has a huge creativity. Her task is to create new knowledge, new ideas in "one's own profile", knowledge that is needed in the course of social change, new social and humanitarian technologies, new requirements for modern management of organizations.

· Expert function. Sociology of organizations acts as organizational expertise and audit, consulting. She can give objective analysis of organizational systems, their shortcomings and advantages, analytical analysis of the organization's management system. Its expert function is directed against illiterate managerial and organizational decisions, unreasonable social reforms and projects, at assessing the effectiveness and humanity of organizational systems.

· managerial function. The sociology of organizations is a management science. The management function is the function of applying the sociology of organizations to specific areas and systems of organizational management: management system of state organizations, economic management, municipal government, etc.

· educational function. We are talking about mastering the sociology of organizations in the system of educational institutions, various institutes and centers for advanced training of managerial personnel. The sociology of organizations equips management personnel with the latest organizational concepts, technologies and management methods, tools for improving organization management systems..

5. Relationship of the sociology of organizations with other sciences.

Of course, such a complex organism as a modern organization cannot be understood only from the standpoint of one structural-formal approach, from the standpoint of one science. Along with the structural approach, which mainly reflects the statics of the organization, the integral-behavioral approach is of key importance, aimed at identifying the dynamics of the organization and the possibilities of managing it, putting the person, the system of relations between people, their competence, abilities, motivation to work and to achieve established goals.

Organizations should be considered as a subject of interdisciplinary study. In modern science, the sociology of organizations must considered as a complex, interdisciplinary, multi-paradigmatic discipline (from Latin multi - many and Greek paradigm - theoretical model, theory). Paradigm - theory, theoretical or methodological thought, accepted as a model for posing, substantiating, solving a problem within the framework of a particular science, subject of study. Multiparadigmatism means the use in the structure of organizational science of a whole set of theories (management theory, sociology, economic theory, law, cybernetics, information theory, communication theory, personality theory, etc.), their integration, their synthesis.

It is impossible to imagine the sociology of organization without philosophical and methodological foundations, i.e. without connection with modern scientific and social philosophy. Only knowledge in the light of universal philosophical categories makes it possible to comprehend the essence of large-scale organizational processes in one's own country and the world. The worldview of a manager, a political leader, must incorporate a complete picture of the world of organizations. Preference must be given holistic philosophy, and not private "mono-philosophies" (Marxism, liberalism, positivism, pragmatism, etc.). One-sided views, kaleidoscopic pluralism are the ideological basis for the degradation of the organizational worldview and thinking.

The sociology of organizations is related to general sociology as its theoretical and methodological basis . Sociology studies the laws of development of social systems, the interaction of political, social, economic and spiritual relations, social organizations in which individuals perform certain roles, functions and mutual connections and relationships act. Very important for the sociology of management are the conclusions concerning group dynamics, social stratification, socialization processes, status and power, organizational structure, bureaucracy, social characters of management participants. A special role for management has the study of social conflicts between individuals, small, medium and large groups, analysis of the factors of social activity and social degradation of people, the role of social opportunities and restrictions in human activity.

The sociology of organizations has no less close connection with organization theory. The subject of study of the theory of organizations: the essence, types of organizations, their goals, mission, internal and external environment, structures, communications, mechanism of functioning, adaptation, design, dynamics. All this is within the area of ​​interest of a sociologist who studies the influence of people and groups of people on the functioning of an organization, on the changes taking place in it, on ensuring effective purposeful activity and obtaining the necessary results.

The decisive role in ensuring the viability of organizations and the achievement of their goals belongs to management sciences- the general theory of management, the sociology of management, management, etc. The study of the laws of management opens the way for understanding the activities and structure of organizations, so the sociology of organizations is closely related to management sciences.

Relevant Sections modern political economy, economic theory act as a scientific basis for managing an organization, are part of the scientific foundations of the sociology of organizations. The conscious use of economic knowledge, economic laws is a very effective mechanism for managing organizations.

Relationship of the sociology of organizations with economics, economic sociology determined by the peculiarities of property relations, market and state regulation, knowledge of micro- and macroeconomic aspects of the functioning of economic objects, problems of efficiency and its measurements, methods of economic incentives.

Questions about how and why individuals act one way or another are answered general, individual psychology and social psychology. Social psychology studies issues of interpersonal influence, special problems arise in the psychology of managerial activity: motivation, job satisfaction, attitude to work and organization, etc.

Of particular importance for the sociology of organizations is the connection with law and legal sciences. Law is a tool, a means of social control. There is a connection between the sociology of organizations and all branches of law - constitutional, administrative, civil, criminal, labor, economic, financial, corporate and other types of law. Legal forms, legal regulation creates the necessary prerequisites for the effective management of organizations and enterprises.

The sociology of organizations is closely related to informatics(information flows, justification of decisions, information technology, telecommunications, etc.), the theory of communication and communications.

Particular attention should be paid to the connection between the sociology of organizations and the socio-humanitarian, human sciences. All these sciences reveal certain aspects of organizational culture. Synthesis of knowledge of human science disciplines brings managers in organizations as close as possible to a person and human problems. This is a natural stage in the development of modern science of organization management. A whole scientific direction is emerging - managerial humanities(V.M. Shepel). It includes knowledge of ethics, aesthetics, psychology, cultural studies, pedagogy, conflictology, rhetoric etc. They characterize the human competence of organizers and managers. Modern leaders should understand the issues of pedagogy, be sensitive to the moral and ethical problems of people, to the dynamics of formal and informal relationships between people, be the designers of a healthy moral and psychological climate in organizations.

The creative, creative effect of the sociology of organizations is based on the knowledge of objective organizational and managerial processes, which requires the leader, manager to have knowledge-intensive competence in the field of people management, in the management of social systems and organizations.

Slide 12.1.

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

1. What is the essence of the concept of organization?
2. Name the criteria used to classify an organization.
3. Prove the legitimacy of an interdisciplinary approach to the study of organizations.
4. What are the main problems a sociologist faces in the study of organizations?
5. What is the practical orientation of the sociology of organizations in modern society?

1. Make a conceptual table "The image of the organization and their characteristics" according to the article by Morgan G. Paradigms, metaphors and problem solving in organization theory // Organization Theory: Reader. 2nd ed./Trans. from English. ed. T.N. Klemina; graduate School management of St. Petersburg State University. SPb.: Publishing House "Higher School of Management", 2010. S. 2-22 or Morgan G. Images of the organization / Per. from English. M .: Publishing house "Mann, Ivanov and

Ferber, 2008.

2. Make a report on the head of Adizes, I. Management of the life cycle of a corporation / Per. from English. under scientific ed. A. G. Seferyan. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2008.

3. Select a specific organization for applied analysis, and prepare a brief description of what it does.