Development of Russian sociology of management in the pre-war period. Development of the sociology of management in Russia

Development of sociology of management in Russia.

The development of management science in Russia began in the 17th century. and mainly within the framework of public administration theory. He played an important role in the development of this system. A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin(1605-1680), who made an attempt to introduce city self-government in the western border cities of Russia. Thus, A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin is considered one of the first Russian managers to raise the question of developing not only strategic, but also tactical (at the micro level) management.

Management ideas also deserve attention I. T. Pososhkova(1652-1726). To the original ideas of I.T. Pososhkov should include the division of wealth into material and immaterial. By the first he meant the wealth of the state (treasury) and the people, by the second - effective management country and the presence of fair laws. Principles of I.T. Pososhkov’s ideas about improving economic management were based on the decisive role of the state in managing economic processes. He was a supporter of strict regulation of economic life.

A special era in the development of Russian management theory is represented by Peter’s reforms to improve economic management. Circle of management actions Peter I very wide - from changing the calendar to creating a new state administrative apparatus. Detailing and specifying the managerial aspects of the reign of Peter I, we can highlight the following transformations in the central and local government: development of large industry and state support for handicraft industries; promoting agricultural development; strengthening financial system; intensifying the development of foreign and domestic trade.

Legislative acts Peter I and control over their implementation were regulated various areas activities of the state, in essence it was public administration.

The ideas of public administration are reflected in the works A.P. Volynsky(1689-1740). A consistent ideologist of serfdom was V.N. Tatishchev(1686-1750). In the field of management of economic affairs of Russia V.N. Tatishchev attached particular importance to the management of financial policy. He believed that the state is obliged not to observe economic processes, but to actively regulate them in the interests of Russia.

In the second half of the 18th century, management thought developed in the spirit of reforms Catherine II. In order to improve the management of the Russian economy, at the direction of Catherine II, the “Institution for the management of the provinces of the Russian Empire” was published.

By the beginning of the 19th century, the impossibility of governing the Russian State using old methods and the need for transformations were recognized by the highest authorities.

The main transformations in economic management at the beginning of the 19th century occurred during the reign of Alexandra I. In 1801, a manifesto was issued on the establishment of ministries, which were built on the principles of personal power and responsibility.

Special role played in the development of management in Russia MM. Speransky(1772-1839). He saw the goal of the reforms in giving the autocracy the external form of a constitutional monarchy, based on the force of law. The system of power M.M. Speransky proposed dividing it into three parts: legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative issues were to be the responsibility of the State Duma, the court - the responsibility of the Senate, and state administration - the responsibility of ministries responsible to the Duma.

In 1864 Alexander II approved the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions”, which approved all-estate self-government.

In the second half of the 19th century. Sociologically, the ideas of the Western world penetrate into Russia and find their supporters in the Russian intellectual environment.

Petr Lavrovich Lavrov(1828-1900) is known primarily as a political theorist and practical politician. It is difficult to find works by Lavrov that are strictly sociological in nature, that is, those that would explore social processes. His service to Russian sociology lies in the fact that he was the first to popularize Comte's positivist ideas in Russia; he spoke and wrote about sociology as a possible and scientific the right method research.

The fundamental ideas of subjective sociology were first formulated in the famous “Historical Letters” of P. L. Lavrov (1870). The essence of social development, according to Lavrov, is the processing of culture, namely: the processing of traditional social forms prone to stagnation into a civilization characterized by flexible, dynamic structures and relationships. Civilization is interpreted by subjective sociologists as a conscious historical movement. This movement is carried out primarily by critical thought. But since thought really appears only through the actions of an individual, they argue that the main driving force of social development is critically thinking individuals, the progressive intelligentsia.

Prominent place in social science that period is occupied by work MM. Kovalevsky(1851-1916). He was last representative classical positivism. Leading role in its sociological theory MM. Kovalevsky devotes himself to the doctrine of social progress.

In parallel with subjective sociology and positivism, in the fight against them, the sociology of Marxism developed in Russia, represented by two main theories: orthodox Marxism, led by V. Plekhanov and V. I. Lenin, and the so-called legal Marxism, whose representatives are P.B. Struve, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, H.A. Berdyaev.

At the beginning of the 20th century. management changes were carried out under the leadership of such individuals as S.Yu. Witte(1849-1915) and A. S. Stolypin ( 1862-1911). Reform program A.S. Stolypin affected all branches of public administration and was intended by its author to last for 20 years. The talk was mainly about the decentralization of governance in Russia.

In Russia, even before 1917, there was a school of administrative law, within the boundaries of which problems of public administration were studied. At each stage of the country's social development, attempts to reform the management system had to satisfy new management needs. Theoretical thought reflected these needs and sought to find the most effective forms of not only economic, but also social management society. However, truly scientific developments associated with the emergence of sociological interpretations and research in the field of management occurred already in the post-revolutionary period.

Sociology, social work and statistics

Features and main reasons for the development of sociology in Russia The social life of Russia has largely determined the uniqueness of its worldview theories in comparison with the social theories of the West and the USA. Firstly, for a long time, the problems of social science were covered in Russia mainly with the help of artistic means of poetry, prose, journalism, etc. The emergence of sociological thought in Russia is associated with the works of Yu. Secondly, the emergence of sociology in Russia as a completely independent field of scientific knowledge was preceded...

Domestic sociology of management: formation and development.

Features and main reasons for the development of sociology in Russia

The social life of Russia has largely determined the uniqueness of its worldview theories in comparison with the social theories of the West and the United States. The main ones are as follows.

Firstly , for a long time, problems of social science were covered in Russia mainly through artistic means (poetry, prose, journalism, etc.). It is no coincidence that Plekhanov, speaking about the great Russian critic Belinsky, described him as a “great sociologist.” The emergence of sociological thought in Russia is associated with the works of Y. Krizhanich, M. Lomonosov, A. Radishchev, P. Chaadaev, with the ideology of the Slavophiles, as well as with the works of the Russian religious philosopher, poet and critic B.C. Solovyova. In their works they showed brilliant examples of sociological analysis Russian society and personalities, have proven that in understanding many issues government structure And public relations Russian thinkers are not inferior to their colleagues from other countries, and in some ways they are significantly superior to them.

Secondly , the emergence of sociology in Russia as a completely independent field of scientific knowledge was preceded by a preparatory stage that coincided with the development of two ideological orientations: Westernizing and Slavophile. The first direction was focused on the assimilation and development, already on Russian soil, of the ideas of the great European philosophers - Kant, Hegel, Fichte, etc. Slavophilism presupposed, first of all, an understanding of the historical fate of Russia, its culture and place in world civilization. By and large, Russian social scientists did not adhere to a narrow framework, but sought to synthesize ideas and debate with Western science.

Third and perhaps main feature initial stage development of sociology in Russia was almost simultaneous in origin in mid-19th V. two trends emerging on the basis of Western ideas: positivism and Marxism. And this is not accidental, since for all the originality of Russian sociology, its development basically proceeded in the general mainstream of the world movement.

The reform of 1861, which marked a watershed between the pre- and post-reform stages of Russian history, sharpened the problems of economic, social and spiritual life. The disintegration of the feudal system and the development of capitalist relations had the following consequences: a) weakening of the position of communal socialism; b) the growth of bourgeois-liberal views: c) the strengthening of the influence of Marxist theory based on the active growth of the social base. The need for understanding traditions and innovation in a rapidly changing social order is also clearly evident.

Thus, the following factors contributed to the development of sociology in Russia:

1. the ever-increasing interest of the intelligentsia in social structure And social problems society;
2. the rapid development of capitalist relations, the complication of the social structure of society and the growth social mobility population;
3. the development of humanistic theories that seek to help oppressed people.

The main directions of development of sociological thought in Russia on turn of XIX-XX centuriesSociological concept of Kovalevsky

Despite the fact that among the founders modern sociology there are no Russian scientists, public thought in Russia became interested in the sociological project of O. Comte already in the 40s. XIX century

Initially, as in the West, Russian sociology developed within the framework of philosophical approaches. For the period from the late 60s. XIX century until the 20s XX century Three stages can be distinguished.

On first stage, in the 60-80s. XIX century, the dominant direction was positivism. He attracted domestic thinkers not only with his “scientific” nature, but also with his constructiveness, since he promised to build a new, just society on a strictly scientific basis. The problems of the decomposition of the feudal system and the development of industrial capitalism were the most thorny issues Russian social science.

On second stage, falling in the second half of the 80s to the 90s. XIX century, criticism of naturalistic concepts intensifies, Marxism and anti-positivist movements develop (B. Kistyakovsky, P. Novgorodtsev, L. Petrazhitsky). P. Lavrov and N. Mikhailovsky create a subjective school in sociology, trying to substantiate the ideas of Russian socialism and populism. The following were formed: sociocultural theory (N. Danilevsky), the sociological concept of Russian conservatism (K. Leontiev), the theory of anarchism (M. Bakunin, P. Kropotkin), genetic sociology (M. Kovalevsky), etc.

Third stage The development of sociology in Russia occupies the first two decades of the twentieth century. An important event This period should be considered the publication of the two-volume work of Maxim Maksimovich Kovalevsky (1851–1916) “Sociology”. Understanding sociology as the science of the organization and evolution of society, he tried to synthesize the positive aspects of various sociological schools and movements based on theories of social progress.

The initial fund for the formation Kovalevsky’s sociological view was inspired by the works of Comte, Spencer, Durkheim and Marx. He considered the subject of sociology to be the organization of society and its evolution. He proposed his own method for studying sociological phenomena - comparative-historical. He believed that the study of society is possible only with the help of many sciences that deal with the development of society. If the data obtained from the sciences coincide, then the result is more or less objective. He believed that all social phenomena are interconnected. However, in each globally social phenomenon it is possible to identify a group of leading causes that caused certain phenomena. In general, when analyzing changes in society, it is necessary to take into account these many reasons (pluralistic concept).

A number of Russian universities are starting regular sociological seminars and clubs. Sociology is beginning to be included in the programs of some secondary educational institutions and colleges.

However, after the publication " Short course history of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" by I.V. Stalin, sociology was declared a "bourgeois pseudoscience" hostile to Marxism, and excluded from public life for three decades.

Sociology of organization.

Problems of sociology of organizations:

organization as a social community

· types of organizations

· organizational culture

· problems of functioning of organizations in modern society

Social organization(from Late Latin organize - communicate a slender appearance) represents a system of social groups and relationships between them to achieve certain goals through the distribution of functional responsibilities, coordination of efforts and compliance with certain rules of interaction in the process of functioning of the management system. Various social groups interact in it, whose members are integrated by interests, goals, values, and norms based on joint activities.

Social organization usually characterized by the following main features:

1. having a common goal (production of products or provision of services);

2. formalization of relations in the organization and normative regulation of the behavior of members of this organization;

3. hierarchy of relationships The existence of a system of power and management, which implies the subordination of workers to management in the process labor activity;

4. distribution of functions (powers and responsibilities) between groups of workers interacting with each other;

5. availability of communication. A set of rules and regulations governing relationships between people.

The general structure of the social organization of an industrial enterprise arises and develops both in work time(during production process, in the process of work) and in free time from work.

Any organization has an internal and external environment.

External environment of the organization– a set of factors influencing the life of an organization. Internal environment organizations includes:

Goals, (one or more);

Organization strategy (defensive, positive);

Technology (set of means);

Organization size;

Type of personnel (culture carriers);

Organizational and business culture.

Organization structure:

Two types of structures of social organization can be distinguished: production And non-productive:

Production type of social organization structure is formed depending on the production factors of human activity and includes the following components general structure, How:

a) functional (labor content);

b) professional (training and retraining of personnel);

c) socio-psychological (interpersonal relationships);

d) managerial (management system).

Qualitative signs of functioning production type of social organization structure the needs and interests, the employee’s requirements for work and, first of all, for the content and conditions of work, for the conditions of his professional growth, for the organization of work come into play. A specific area of ​​phenomena associated with the production type of structure of a social organization is a system of measures to develop motivation for production activity (this is moral and material incentives, etc.).

Production organization only applies to sphere of material production, in which workers unite for the purpose of producing material goods.

Labor organizations operate in all spheres of public life and differ from each other mainly according to two criteria:

1) by form of ownership. Currently, the following forms of ownership can be distinguished:

a) state;

b) cooperative;

c) joint stock;

d) property of the labor collective;

e) private;

f) joint with foreign capital;

g) foreign;

2) by areas of activity:

a) organizations operating in the field of material production (in industry, construction, transport, agriculture etc.),

b) organizations operating in the non-production sphere (cultural institutions, healthcare, education, etc.).

Non-productive type of structure of social organization arises when members, for example, of a labor organization (team) participate in various types non-production activities that fill the non-working and free time of employees. The non-productive structure of a social organization includes a significant part of the activities of public, cultural, sports and other organizations.

Social organization is one of the most complex types of organizational systems, because in there is a certain duality inherent in its nature:

· firstly, it is created to solve certain problems,

· secondly, it acts as a social medium for communication and substantive activity of people.

A whole system of interpersonal relationships is superimposed on a pre-created social organization.

For example, before labor social organization As a rule, two tasks are set:

1) increase economic efficiency production and quality of products, services and labor provided;

2) social development the team or the employee as an individual.

In many formal organizations, there are informal organizations that emerge spontaneously, where people cluster around one person and regularly interact with each other.

Two specific features distinguish organizations from other types of social groups:

· Firstly, organizations are, first of all, social groups focused on achieving rational, functional, specific goals;

· Secondly, Organizations are groups that are characterized by a high degree of formalization. Their internal structure is highly formalized in the sense that rules, regulations, and routines cover almost the entire sphere of behavior of its members.

Culture has a significant impact on individual and group behavior and activities of people. However, only in last years managers began to understand and appreciate the importance of a common culture for production.

What is culture? The term “culture” (from Lat. culture) - the concept is multifaceted, complex, ambiguous.

First of all culture is communicated knowledge that is passed down from generation to generation to help members of groups live in a particular time, place or situation.

Culture - this is a phenomenon that distinguishes the human species from other living creatures society In conjunction with biological evolution, culture not only helped to the human species survive, but also grow and develop on this planet and even in space.

Culture - it is also learned behavior and knowledge that is integrated by the group and shared by group members. Group beliefs and practices become habitual, traditional and distinguish one group (civilization, country or organization) from another.

Thus, we can distinguish cultural features:

Shared by all or almost all members of some social group;

Passed on by older members of the group to younger ones;

Forms behavior (morality, laws, customs) and the structure of perception and vision of the world.

Culture gives meaning to many of our actions. Therefore, it is possible to change anything in people’s lives only by taking into account this significant phenomenon. Culture is formed over years and decades, therefore she is inertial and conservative . And many innovations do not take root only because they contradict the cultural norms and values ​​that people have mastered.

IN in a broad sense culture is a mechanism for reproducing social experience, helping people live and develop in specific environment, maintaining the unity and integrity of their community. Of course, the need to reproduce acquired and borrowed social experience is also relevant for the organization. However, until recently, the processes of formation of organizational culture proceeded spontaneously, without attracting the attention of either the subject of organizational power or researchers.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

The issue of organizational culture is relatively new and little studied both in our country and abroad. Even in the USA, research into this problem began only in the 80-90s, and in Russia even later. Interest in this problem is evidenced by requests from managers and specialists, as well as actual orders from organizations to carry out research projects.

Despite the variety of definitions of organizational culture, they include general points.

· samples, which members of the organization adhere to in their behavior and actions;

· values, which an individual can adhere to: what behavior should be considered acceptable and what should not. Accepted value helps an individual understand how he should act in a particular situation.

· symbolism, through which value orientations are transmitted to members of the organization (legends, myths).

We will determine organizational culture How: it is a set of the most important assumptions accepted by members of the organization and expressed in the organization's stated values ​​that give people guidelines for their behavior and actions.

In organizations with a long history and tradition, almost every employee can recall a story, legend or myth that is associated with the origin of the organization, its founders or prominent members.

Thus, organizational culture sets a certain coordinate system that explains why the organization functions in this particular way and not in another way. Organizational culture allows us to significantly smooth out the problem of coordinating individual goals with the overall goal of the organization, forming a common cultural space, which includes values, norms and behavioral patterns shared by all employees.

Organizational culture includes not only global norms and rules, but also current operating regulations. It may have its own characteristics, depending on the type of activity, form of ownership, position in the market or in society. In this context, we can talk about the existence of bureaucratic, entrepreneurial, organic and other organizational cultures, as well as organizational culture in certain areas of activity, for example, when working with clients, staff, etc.

The bearers of organizational culture are people. However, in organizations with an established organizational culture, it seems to be separated from people and becomes an attribute of the organization, a part of it that has an active influence on employees, modifying their behavior in accordance with the norms and values ​​that form its basis.

Related information.

Sociology of Management - Definition and Historical Development

test

The formation of sociology of management at the present stage

Sociology of management is one of the young sociological disciplines. Obviously, this is largely due to the fact that it “still does not have its generally accepted place in the system of sociological knowledge and the established conceptual apparatus.”

The immaturity of its methodology is expressed in its extensive borrowing from the sociology of labor, the sociology of organizations, the foundations of management and other sciences and scientific disciplines.

The need for scientific reflection on the changes taking place has become especially acute in the context of the transformation of Russian society, at the time of the transformation of basic institutions. Qualitative changes have affected the entire Russian institutional system: forms of ownership, labor laws, economic rights of enterprises. At the same time, it was discovered that during the reforms there was a weakening of the integrity of the institution of enterprise management, which manifested itself in a violation of the “mutual consistency and internal balance of management functions and end-to-end management processes, as well as innovation processes in this system." While the design of the “Soviet” management institution was nominally preserved, a significant change in its functions and regulatory capabilities occurred. In these conditions, it seems to us, the development of the theoretical and methodological foundations of the sociology of management, clarification of its subject should create the prerequisites for studying the transformation of the social institution of management and the formation of the post-Soviet institution of management as a whole.

We view the sociology of management as a cross-disciplinary, middle-range sociological theory. The object of sociology of management as an interdisciplinary sociological theory of the middle level is “the process of joint activity of people, in which, under certain conditions, an artificial structure arises, the main functions of which are the coordination and programming of this activity.” The separation of this artificial structure from the depths of joint activity is a process of institutionalization of social management. The subject matter of the sociology of management is management relations, the processes of their institutionalization and functioning, as well as social mechanisms for optimizing management influence.

The point of view according to which management is considered as a social institution has become popular recently. Many authors use the sociological category “institution” when analyzing management: G.V. Atamanchuk, A.I. Kravchenko, P.V. Romanov, V.I. Franchuk. In our opinion, the social institution of management represents stable types and forms of social practice, through which the stability and regulation of connections between subjects of management relations are ensured.

As historical development The institution of management is evolving. A.V. Tikhonov proposes to distinguish institutional, managerial and technical levels of management analysis. The Institute of Management, in his opinion, “functions both together with these levels and with other public institutions with which it interacts.” M.V. Pavenkova draws attention to the fact that the process of creating a management institution is usually “a process of reconfiguration, and not a process of creating something new. In this regard, it invisibly contains subjects of management not only of the current generation, but also of previous generations, as well as the results of past activities.” Developing this idea, the author identifies three problem areas around which failures may arise, leading to transformation of the institution (“reconfiguration” in the terminology of M.V. Pavenkova): the composition of management subjects in time (between previous and current generations) and at the present moment in a spatial context (in the vertical and horizontal of power) (1); product of the institute, i.e. establishments, management relations (both past establishments and current ones) (2); the process of transformation itself as a combination of possibly incompatible things (3).

A more in-depth understanding of a social institution can be obtained by analyzing its structure. When considering social institutions, most sociologists recognize the systemic nature of their structure. For example, J. Feibleman identifies six elements in the structure of a social institution: social group, institutions, customs, material tools, organization, a specific goal. J. Szczepanski includes goals, functions, institutions and means of achieving the goal, and social sanctions as the constituent elements of the structure of a social institution.

To understand the structure of the institute of industrial management, it is important to consider management relations. According to V. Afanasyev’s definition, management relations include “the entire complex of relationships between subjects of any type of activity regarding the management of this activity.” Managerial relations were formed throughout the development of management and went through a long evolution of their content and composition of participants, gradually “overgrown” with a social infrastructure, including norms and rules, mechanisms and organizations, roles and statuses. Adhering to the given framework, the structure of a social institution can be represented as a system, the elements of which are the roles and statuses of its actors; a stable set of formal and informal rules, principles and norms governing the status-role interaction of actors in management relations (this role is played by organizational culture); social sanctions that control the fulfillment of prescribed roles, statuses and compliance with the “rules of the game”, and, finally, informal and formal organizations to implement the sanctions mechanism.

Understanding and interpreting management as a social institution within the framework of sociological theory thus brings a number of significant advantages. The focus of research attention includes the institutional level of management relations; productive norms associated with the institution’s fulfillment of its main purpose, and norms of subordination, according to which the activities of some people are subordinated to the activities of others. At the same time, the tasks of considering the technical and managerial level on which the effective tools achieving results, creating and maintaining an organization are also included in the subject field of the sociology of management. The selected analytical framework also allows us to highlight the subject of sociology of management and carry out a demarcation section with the subjects of other sociological disciplines: sociology of labor, sociology of organizations, management psychology, etc. The proposed approach makes it possible to place disparate facts of empirical research in the broad context of modern social theory, which makes it possible to explain the directions of transformation of the most important social processes and analyze the potential and vector of development of the country as a whole. The results of the institute’s activities can be interpreted as functions and dysfunctions for social system in general, and the transformation of the institution means changing a significant part social space in the form of roles and statuses.

Cognition, sociological justification and interpretation of management as the most important social institution are the main functions of the sociology of management, which is experiencing a rebirth. This is especially important in conditions of social change, when the existing and functioning institution of management in society cannot remain unchanged, and the transformations taking place in it are of a fundamental nature.

Analysis of problems of pension reform in modern Russia

A new milestone in pension reform is associated with the global financial crisis of 2008–2009. The main vector in development pension system Russia is transitioning from 01/01/2010 to an insurance model. In accordance with Federal law from 24.07...

Anti-globalism as a social movement modern world

The contribution of Russian scientists to the development of the sociology of labor

After the 20s of the 20th century began modern stage evolution of the sociology of labor, which continues to this day. This stage is characterized by an orientation towards the development of general theoretical issues and applied sociology...

Family Institute. Past and future

Modernization of the pension system Russian Federation

A new milestone in pension reform is associated with the global financial crisis of 2008–2009. The main vector in the development of the Russian pension system is the transition from 01/01/2010 from the unified social tax to insurance contributions. Unified social tax is being abandoned...

The Constitution of the Russian Federation (1993) enshrined the provision that childhood is under the protection of the state, basic guarantees for the life support of children, including health care, the opportunity to receive an education, the right to housing...

Symbolic interactionism as a sociological paradigm

Current state French sociology

The intellectual climate in France was characterized by the great influence of Marxism, which served as a point of reference for both his friends and enemies. In all the “fashionable” philosophies such as existentialism and structuralism...

State and trends of demographic indicators and their regional characteristics

Demographic policy is a purposeful activity government agencies and others social institutions in the field of regulation of population reproduction processes...

Social policy of modern Russia

Economic models are becoming increasingly important social orientation, where, along with the traditionally competing mechanisms of the market and the state, social and moral regulators acquire decisive importance, i.e....

Level and quality of life of the Russian population

1. Development of Russian sociology of management in the pre-war period 1

2. Formation of the sociology of management in the post-war period 4

3. Development of factory sociology in Russia 5

4. Development of psychotechnics in the 20-30s of the XX century. 5

Advantages and disadvantages of psychotechnics 6

5. Post-war stage of factory sociology 6

6.Academic and factory sociology: status and structure 7

Relations between academic and factory sociology 8

Comparison of two stages of development of factory sociology 9

7.Applied sociology and market relations 10

1. Development of Russian sociology of management in the pre-war period

In Russia serious attention They began to pay attention to management issues already in the 17th century.

outstanding Russian scientist M.V. Lomonosov. Great merits in reforming the Russian management system P.A. Stolypin, who since 1906 combined two positions - Minister of Internal Affairs and Prime Minister.

Movement for scientific organization labor (abbreviated NOT) and management originated in Russia at about the same time as in the USA and European countries. According to the famous Soviet theorist and practitioner of NOT and production management A.K. Gastev ( Alexey Kapitonovich Gastev), already in 1904, “somewhere in the Urals, attempts were made to apply the principles of NOT” 12.

The first domestic scientific school of Professor N.I. is also beginning to take shape. Savin, who published the work “Metal Cutting,” which in Western European literature was placed on the same level with the works of F. Taylor. The students of this school were engaged in practical activities to introduce the principles of NOT at a number of factories, primarily at the Aivaz machine-building plant in St. Petersburg. Before the First World War, there were eight enterprises in Russia, the work of which was organized according to the Taylor system, while in France there was only one.

The movement for the scientific organization of labor and management was also reflected in the literature. A special publishing house arose, headed by the engineer Levenstren, and the magazines “Russian Wealth”, “God’s World”, “Magazine for Everyone” were published, in which articles on this issue were actively published.

The crowning achievement of the legitimization of F. Taylor’s ideas in Russia should be considered 1913 - the year of the appearance of the world’s first Taylorist magazine, “Factory Business,” which systematized a wide variety of information about the creator of “scientific management.” At the same time, attempts to implement the principles of NOT in pre-revolutionary Russia were mainly spontaneous rather than systematic. The reasons that held back large-scale innovation in Russian industry were the country's economic backwardness.

During the First World War and “war communism”, the scientific principles of labor organization could not become widespread; they were used in a truncated form and only at certain military production enterprises. At the end of the war, with the transition to a new economic policy, the movement for the scientific organization of labor and management quickly intensified.

Gave a powerful impetus to the process of formation of domestic scientific management The First All-Russian Initiative Conference on the Scientific Organization of Labor and Production, convened on the initiative of L.D. Trotsky and began its work on January 20, 1921. They worked in 5 sections:

1) organization of work in mechanical production, in particular in railway workshops;

2) organization of work on railway transport;

3) organization of management and its parts;

4) labor reflexology;

5) measures to combine work on NOT and their practical implementation.

The process of formation and development of domestic scientific management took place in difficult historical conditions. During the recovery period, with an acute shortage of resources, science was primarily required to develop purely practical guidelines. Scientists' attention was focused on such particular problems as

rational organization of the workplace,

improving the structure of the management apparatus,

simplification of office work,

creation of simple and cheap forms of accounting and reporting,

establishing control over the completion of tasks, etc.

Many works were devoted to the study of individual functions and methods of economic management.

In the 1920s in our country there were theoretical and methodological research. Discussions took place, for example, on such issues as the definition of the concept of “management”, the possibility and necessity of identifying a special science of management. The subject, method, and ways of developing the latter were discussed. Thus, according to the majority of Russian scientists, production management could not be interpreted solely as an art, without noticing the presence of general principles in it And cause-and-effect relationships. Management science was considered by Russian scientists to be intersectoral, and the development of scientific management from the very first steps was carried out by them in the organic unity of applied and general theoretical research.

Second conference on NOT

The need to determine the main line of further development of organizational and management science led to the convening of Second Conference on NOT, which began its work on March 10, 1924 in Moscow under the leadership of V.V. Kuibysheva ( Valerian Vladimirovich Kuibyshev). The most numerous of its seven sections was the management section.

Great attention to practical problems.

In accordance with the developed line, the main tasks in the field of NOT were identified:

1) processing the achievements of Western theorists and practitioners and exchanging experiences with them;

2) linking research activities with production needs;

3) establishing close connections between institutes and laboratories of scientific and technical sciences and their specialization;

4) experimental study of labor in production and management, as well as the study of individual labor processes;

5) organizing schools to train instructors capable of introducing best work methods;

6) introduction into work and study at all levels and in all types of schools of the principles of NOT.

After the Second Conference, applied research begins to dominate theoretical and methodological research, and the NOT movement is increasingly called rationalization.

Mass movement for the scientific organization of labor and management

developed in Russia in five main organizational forms:

♦ research institutes and laboratories, whose main task was to study problems of labor organization and management, develop generalizing theoretical principles, and create systematized concepts in the field of management. Academic research here was closely intertwined with practical work: most research institutes of that time were also rationalization centers. In addition to research and innovation, many leading institutes carried out another function - personnel training. The triune interweaving of the above-mentioned functions was one of the most valuable finds of Russian organizational and management thought of the 1920s, because it contained the essence of the mechanism for the formation of domestic scientific management;

departmental organizations in the field of NOT and management(Initiative Commission for the Organization of Scientific Organization of Production at the Supreme Council of Agriculture - Central Bureau of Production Organization at the Technical Department of the Main Directorate of Military Industry of the Supreme Council of National Economy, Section of NOT at the Higher Technical Committee of the NKPS, etc.). Unlike institutes and laboratories, the listed organizations performed primarily rationalization functions;

rationalization bodies of institutions and enterprises(experimental stations, organizational stations, organizational bureaus, rationalization bureaus), designed to “excite and push rationalization thought, practically implement rationalization measures to improve the organization of production and management” 17;

♦ amateur public organizations(cells of the League “Time” - League “NOT”, NOT circles, production circles), which were strongholds and sources of strengthening the activities of scientific organizations of labor and management;

central bodies that led the entire movement for NOT and management and played the role of administrative and coordinating centers. The XII Congress of the RCP (b), held in April 1923, decided to create a united body of the Central Control Committee of the RKI (Central Control Committee of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate) and entrusted it with leadership of the entire matter of rationalization of labor, production and management. The new commissariat was headed by Valerian Kuibyshev. At the board of the commissariat, the Council for the Scientific Organization of Labor and Management (Sovnot) was created, designed to harmonize, plan and coordinate all research and practical institutions and organizations in the field of scientific labor. However, it was not possible to “embrace the immensity”: this soon became obvious, and in November 1926 Sovnot was abolished.

In general, the development of scientific management in our country has been very successful, including due to the presence of bright, talented scientists who have headed original scientific areas:

A. Chayanov (Alexander Vasilievich Chayanov),

N. Kondratiev,

S. Strumilin (Stanislav Gustavovich Strumilin),

Alexey Kapitonovich Gastev,

Alexander Alexandrovich. Bogdanov.

Nikolai Andreevich Vitke,

Platon Mikhailovich Kerzhentsev,

Osip Arkadievich Ermansky

Alexey Feoktistovich Zhuravsky

Alexander Romanovich Luria,

Joseph Mendelevich Burdyansky,

I.N., Zimmerling et al.

In the 20-30s. XX century There was a wide network of psychotechnical and psychophysiological laboratories in the country, opened at factories and factories. There were laboratories that conducted comprehensive studies of human factors and labor activity.