Management as a social phenomenon. Management as a type of activity Management as a social phenomenon

Date of writing: 01.07.2022

Reading time: 41 minutes

When starting to study the content and features of public administration, it is necessary first of all to determine what management is? This term has become a universal means of characterizing a certain type of activity, i.e. a set of actions performed to achieve relevant socially significant goals.

In its broadest sense, management means directing something (or someone). It is interpreted in a similar sense today. However, limiting ourselves to such a statement is not enough. There is a need to disclose the contents of this manual and its functional significance. General theoretical positions, including cybernetic ones, provide sufficient grounds for the following conclusions:

1. Management is a function of organized systems of various natures (biological, technical, social), ensuring their integrity, i.e. achieving the tasks facing them, maintaining their structure, maintaining the regime of their activities.

2. Management serves the interests of the interaction of the elements that make up a particular system and represent a single whole with tasks common to all elements.

3. Management is the internal quality of an integral system, the main elements of which are the subject (control element) and the object (managed element), constantly interacting on the basis of self-organization (self-government).

4. Management involves not only the internal interaction of the elements that make up the system. There are many interacting integral systems of various hierarchical levels, which involves the implementation of management functions of both an intra-system and inter-system nature. In the latter case, a higher-order system acts as a subject of control in relation to a lower-order system, which is an object of control within the framework of interaction between them.

5. Management in its essence comes down to the control influence of a subject on an object, the content of which is the ordering of the system, ensuring its functioning in full accordance with the laws of its existence and development. This is a purposeful ordering influence, implemented in the connections between the subject and the object and carried out directly by the subject of management.

6. Control is real when there is a known subordination of the object to the subject of control, the controlled element of the system to its control element. Consequently, the control (ordering) influence is the prerogative of the subject of control.

These are the main features that characterize the general concept of management. They are completely acceptable for understanding management in the social (public) sphere, where the roles of subjects and objects of management are people and their various associations (for example, the state, society, territorial entity, public associations, production and non-production objects, family, etc.). P.)

Of course, this takes into account the characteristics of the social sphere, the most important of which is that management ties are implemented through the relationships of people. Society is an integral organism with a complex structure, with various kinds of individual manifestations, as well as functions general. Hence the need to express the general connection and unity of social processes, which finds its manifestation in the implementation of social management. It is one of the leading conditions for the normal functioning and development of society.

Social management as an attribute of social life is expressed in characteristics predetermined by the general features inherent in management as a scientific category, as well as the peculiarities of the organization of social life. The following are the most significant.

Firstly, social management exists only where the joint activities of people are manifested. In itself, this kind of activity (production and other) is not yet able to ensure the necessary interaction of its participants, the uninterrupted and effective implementation of the common tasks facing them, and the achievement of common goals. Management organizes people specifically for joint activities and certain teams and formalizes them organizationally.

Secondly, social management, its main purpose, has an ordering effect on the participants in joint activities, giving organization to the interaction of people. At the same time, the consistency of the individual actions of the participants in joint activities is ensured, and the general functions necessary to regulate such activities and directly resulting from their nature are performed (for example, planning, coordination, control, etc.).

Thirdly, social management has as the main object of influence the behavior (actions) of participants in joint activities and their relationships. These are criteria of a conscious-volitional nature in which the management of people's behavior is mediated.

Fourthly, social management, acting as a regulator of people's behavior, achieves this goal within the framework of social relations, which are essentially management relations. They arise, first of all, between the subject and the object in connection with the practical implementation of the functions of social management.

Fifthly, social management is based on a certain subordination of the wills of people - participants in management relations, because their relationship has a conscious-volitional mediation. The will of the managers takes precedence over the will of the governed. Hence the authority of social management, which means that the subject of management forms and implements the “dominant will”, and the object submits to it. This is how the power-volitional aspect of social management is expressed.

Consequently, power is a specific means of ensuring that the will of the governed follows the will of the managers. This is how volitional regulation of people’s behavior occurs, and in the conditions of state organization of public life, the necessary “intervention” of state power in social relations is ensured.

Sixthly, social management needs a special mechanism for its implementation, which personifies the subjects of management. This role is played by a certain group of people, organizationally formalized in the form of relevant governing bodies (public or state), or individual persons authorized to do so. Their activities, which have a specific purpose and special forms of expression, are managerial.

Management, understood in the social sense, is diverse. In the broadest sense, it can be understood as a mechanism for organizing social relations. In this sense, we can say that its tasks and functions are practically performed by all government bodies, regardless of their specific purpose, as well as public associations. Local self-government is also an element of the social management system. The object of management here is the whole society as a whole, all the variants of social relations developing in it.

Social management also has a special meaning. In this version, it is usually characterized as public administration, which is understood as a specific type of government activity, distinguished from its other manifestations (for example, legislative, judicial, prosecutorial activities), as well as from the management activities of public associations and other non-state formations (labor collectives, commercial structures, etc.).

Public administration as a system and as a process.

From a scientific point of view, a rational explanation of the nature and essence of public administration presupposes its comprehensive consideration as a system and process in interaction with the surrounding social environment.

The public administration system is formed by subsystems of goals and principles for implementing state power influence on public life. This impact is usually expressed in legal forms. It includes the organizational structures of the state apparatus (state agencies), the system of state bureaucracy (personnel), the set of functions they perform, the complex of methods, means and resources used, as well as direct and reverse relationships between subjects and objects of management, the necessary information flows, document flow and etc.

The process of public administration is a conscious and purposeful activity associated with the implementation of state powers by subjects of public authority and regulated by legal norms, as a result of which there is a direct change in social conditions, events and phenomena. In other words, in the process of public administration a certain set of actions is carried out, leading to the desired dynamics of management results. In particular, adopted laws and policies proclaimed by the highest public authority are implemented.

Studying the social environment in which public administration is implemented, on which it influences and which, in turn, has a reciprocal impact on it, means searching for answers to questions about what are the characteristics of civil society and the ways in which it influences the government and management activities of the state. In fact, the problem of the relationship between public power, state administration and civil society is being solved, i.e. interaction of political institutions in the implementation of public administration.

Civil society is nothing more than a free and relatively independent social life from the state, including not only the economic sphere, but also sources of people’s cultural initiative. Democratization is a classic step towards its autonomy from the state apparatus. This position is confirmed by the fact that various currents of social thought prove the impossibility of democracy if civil society is not autonomous in relation to the state apparatus. However, this, although necessary, is in itself an insufficient condition for democracy. At the same time, complete autonomy is practically impossible here.

In its broadest sense, management means directing something (or someone). It is interpreted in a similar sense today. However, limiting ourselves to such a statement is not enough. There is a need to disclose the contents of this manual and its functional purpose. General theoretical positions, including cybernetic ones, provide sufficient grounds for the following conclusions:

2. Management serves the interests of the interaction of the elements that make up a particular system and represent a single whole with tasks common to all elements.

7. In the management process, its functions, determined by the nature and purpose of management activities, find their direct expression. This means that management has a functional structure.

Management functions are understood as the most typical, homogeneous and clearly defined types (directions) of activity of the managing entity, corresponding to the content and serving the interests of achieving the main goals of management influence. These usually include: forecasting (planning); organization (formation of a management system and ensuring its normal operation); coordination (ensuring coordinated actions of various participants in relations in the managed area); regulation (establishing the mode of interaction between the subject and the control object); management (authoritative resolution of specific issues arising in the managed sphere); control (monitoring the functioning of the controlled sphere).

These are the main features that characterize the general concept of management. They are completely acceptable for understanding management in the social sphere, where people and their various associations act as subjects and objects of management.

Of course, this takes into account the characteristics of the social sphere, the most important of which is that management ties are implemented through the relationships of people. Society is an integral organism with a complex structure, with various individual manifestations, as well as with general functions. Hence the need to express the general connection and unity of social processes, which finds its manifestation in the implementation of social management. It is one of the leading conditions for the normal functioning and development of society.

Firstly, social management exists only where the joint activities of people are manifested. In itself, this kind of activity (production and other) is not yet able to ensure the necessary interaction of its participants, the uninterrupted and effective implementation of the common tasks facing them, and the achievement of common goals. Management organizes people specifically for joint activities into certain teams and formalizes them organizationally.

Secondly, social management, with its main purpose, has an ordering effect on the participants in joint activities, giving organization to the interaction of people. At the same time, the consistency of the individual actions of the participants in joint activities is ensured, and the general functions necessary to regulate such activities and directly resulting from their nature are performed (for example, planning, coordination, control, etc.).

Thirdly, social management has as the main object of influence the behavior (actions) of participants in joint activities and their relationships. These are categories of a conscious-volitional nature in which the guidance of people's behavior is mediated.

Fourthly, social management, acting as a regulator of people's behavior, achieves this goal within the framework of social relations, which are essentially management relations. They arise primarily between the subject and the object in connection with the practical implementation of the functions of social management.

Fifthly, social management is based on a certain subordination of the wills of people - participants in management relations, since their relations have a conscious-volitional mediation. The will of the managers takes precedence over the will of the governed. Hence the authority of social management, which means that the subject of management forms and implements the “dominant will”, and the object submits to it. This is how the power-volitional aspect of social management is expressed.

Consequently, power is a specific means of ensuring that the will of the governed follows the will of the managers. This is how volitional regulation of people’s behavior occurs, and in the conditions of state organization of social life, the necessary “intervention” of state power in social relations is ensured.

Sixthly, social management needs a special mechanism for its implementation, which is personified by the subjects of management. These roles are played by certain groups of people, organizationally formed in the form of relevant governing bodies (public or state), or individual persons authorized to do so. Their activities, which have a specific purpose and special forms of expression, are managerial.

Management, understood in the social sense, is diverse. In its broadest form, it can be understood as a mechanism for organizing public relations. Here we can say that the tasks and functions of this mechanism are practically performed by all government bodies, regardless of their specific purpose, as well as public associations. Local self-government is also an element of the social management system.

Social management also has a special meaning. In this version, it is usually characterized as public administration, which is understood as a specific type of government activity, different from its other manifestations (for example, legislative, judicial, prosecutorial activities), as well as from the management activities of public associations and other non-state formations (labor collectives, commercial structures, etc.). Public administration is a type of social management, the functioning of which is traditionally associated with the formation of a special legal branch - administrative law.

Abstract on control theory

Management as a social phenomenon and an object of knowledge

Management as a social phenomenon. Its social essence and institutional character

Philosophical and general scientific levels of knowledge of management phenomena

Specially - scientific level of knowledge of management phenomena

Sociological approach to the study of management phenomena

5. Object, subject and tasks of management sociology

level of knowledge phenomenon social management

1. Management as a social phenomenon. Its social essence and institutional character

An extremely important place in the knowledge system of a modern public affairs specialist should be occupied by knowledge of the sociology of management, as well as its methods for studying social processes and relationships.

This is due to the fact that building effective public administration and its mechanism - the civil service - is impossible without relying on the research potential, theories and methods of the sociology of management.

To date, the sociology of management has not yet received a generally accepted, completed design as a private sociological direction, such as, for example, the sociology of labor, education, youth, politics, etc. etc. This largely explains the diversity and rather significant differences in the structure and content of the corresponding textbooks and teaching aids.

There are 2 points of view on management.

Management is a function of organized systems of various natures (biological, technical, social), ensuring the preservation of their specific structure, supporting the implementation of programs and goals in the mode of activity.

Management of society is social management and in this regard, the specifics of this type of management are studied as an impact on society and its subsystems

Management, by origin and role in human activity, is a purely social phenomenon. Its influence extends to physical and biological objects, is used in technical devices, in social production, in organizing the work of sectors of the national economy, regions, in the social and spiritual spheres and in government activities.

Management is a means of regulating the life and activities of people in their relationships with nature and culture, in their relationships with each other. Management itself is a complex social problem that is studied in close interaction with management practice by various sciences. Today management thought is in a state of crisis. The reason is an outdated management paradigm (does not correspond to the post-industrial stage of development of society)

The first approach is developed within the framework of cybernetics, which asserts that control exists in nature, technology and society. Here management is presented as a mechanism for achieving goals through the construction of feedback loops.

This approach is not entirely justified, since it obscures the social nature of management and inhibits its consideration as an object of socio-scientific knowledge.

In nature, without humans, mechanisms of self-compensation, self-regulation, and self-organization function spontaneously. But we have no right to classify them as management phenomena. These powerful natural processes can be classified as proto-control.

Management without aspiration to the future, without a desired result formulated or modeled by a person and a scheme, a plan for achieving it and, of course, without the conscious construction of a feedback mechanism loses its fundamental property.

The factor of human consciousness, in principle, distinguishes management in society from the processes of regulation and self-organization in nature due to its unique ability to project the future.

Confirmation of the ever-increasing power of man is the short time during which he created equipment and technology comparable in its capabilities to the actions of natural forces. This fact is one of the main arguments in favor of the social genesis and social essence of such a phenomenon as management.

In Russia, the problem of management, the problem of our civilizational movement forward, is aggravated by the protracted process of institutional emancipation of management from the functions of power and the functions of managing property. This distorts management and complicates the country's transition to an innovative path of development.

To understand management, it is not enough to say that management in society differs from the processes of self-regulation and self-organization in nature. It is necessary to show how and why the division of people into managers and managed is maintained, how the managed combine objective (subordinate) and subjective (spontaneous, not subject to external influence) behavior, how managers under these conditions organize regulation and achieve their goals.

Management as a social phenomenon has existed for millennia (bureaucratic organizations in China and Rome, religious organizations such as the Catholic Church, military organizations), management theory and teaching management as a professional activity appeared in the late 19th to early 20th centuries.

What causes this discrepancy? First of all, because management was not initially distinguished from other mechanisms of social regulation,

In a class society with the advent of the state, power and wealth formed the basis of the syncretism of the regulatory mechanism of the ruling layer. The separation of executive power from representative and judicial power marked a special historical moment in the separation of management into a separate social institution.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. industrialization led to the growth of monopolies and large corporations. Increasingly, the owner-owner and the manager-manager turned out to be different persons. In addition, large corporations established a joint-stock organizational and legal form of capital ownership. It was natural to invite a specialist as an employee to carry out direct management functions. This is how the separation of property (ownership) and management occurred.

There is a growing layer of people engaged in management as a specialized activity (in state and municipal bodies of democratic power, in large and medium-sized businesses). Observations of these processes were summarized by the American James Bernheim in his book “The Managerial Revolution.”

Saint-Simon already had a premonition of such a “revolution”. In particular, he predicted that the engineering and technical intelligentsia would soon replace the capitalist owners.

To be fair, the social class of people who control other people has indeed existed since time immemorial. The difference between ownership of property and management was already recognized by Russian nobles when they left their estates to especially trusted people - “managers”. But the idea of a “revolution of managers” arose only when this traditional layer of people penetrated all institutions of society in a new capacity, as professionally trained specialists. This, indeed, has never happened before in the history of mankind.

The emergence of a modern social institution of managers (or management, which in this case is the same thing) is a major civilizational event. However, one cannot assume that this layer is fulfilling a civilizational mission simply by the fact of its existence.

The separation of management into an independent type of social activity began to occur in a much later period through the separation of powers and the separation of management from property ownership. This process has not yet been completed for many countries, including Russia.

What is important here is the problem of the range of social space in which management is possible (management that goes beyond this range is a danger to society).

In a period when power, ownership and management were inseparable and indistinguishable, and the social objects of management did not differ in consciousness and in the practice of management from objects of nature, management felt the need for information mainly about material production. This gave a powerful impetus to the development of natural science. Managing people, based on the repressive apparatus of power, did not require special science.

The emergence of sociology occurred within the framework of the natural science paradigm. Auguste Comte believed that for the scientific management of society (solving the acute problems of the strike movement and unemployment for that time) a “social science”, modeled on the example of the natural sciences, was necessary. It is very important that society itself was considered “objectively”, from the standpoint of power in the interests of power.

With the emergence of a new social stratum of managers, who experienced significant difficulties in managing people: methods of violence and economic coercion ceased to work, and new ones had not yet been invented, a social order came from management for research in the field of the “human factor” of production. Empirical sociology, experimental psychology, social statistics, social psychology, etc. began to work on its implementation.

The achievements of these disciplines were used in the construction of various management theories, which for a long time were (and in many ways still remain) captive to the ideas of the natural science paradigm. The “human factor” of production turned out to be a “tough nut to crack.”

The subject of management itself turned out to be a complex, developing social formation, stratified into various types of activities and the people assigned to them.

The object of control has ceased to be only a subordinate and dependent individual on the subject. Interacting individuals do not always require external influence to direct and regulate their relationships. They themselves are capable of self-organization and self-government, and can resist forceful interference in an organized manner.

Control systems created by people cannot be perfect and unchanged for a long time. They constantly require modernization, bringing them into line with new conditions and tasks.

It cannot be said that society, its individual subsystems and organizations are successfully coping with the problem of timely and adequate reconfiguration of management.

During the period of transition from industrial to post-industrial (information) society, a tendency towards new syncretism began to appear: towards the unification of organization and self-organization as the dominant method in the regulation of social relations.

To a first approximation, it is logical to determine that management is a civilizational invention, a cultural phenomenon, a widely used method of rational regulation of human activity aimed at mastering and transforming objects of any nature, as well as creating means of influencing them.

Management has a special social significance in solving the problems of society's transition from the industrial to the post-industrial stage of development (hopes for a better future, fears of new shocks).

2. Philosophical and general scientific levels of knowledge of management phenomena

The so-called systems approach to management was associated with the application of general systems theory to solve management problems. He suggests that managers should view the organization as a collection of interrelated elements, such as people, structure, tasks, technology, resources.

In the 60-70s. XX century In global management thought, a systems approach to management, based on systems theory, is increasingly coming to the forefront.

The main idea of systems theory is that no action is taken in isolation from others. Every decision has consequences for the entire system. A systematic approach to management allows you to avoid situations where a solution in one area turns into a problem for another.

In the 1970s, the idea of an open system emerged. An organization, as an open system, tends to adapt to a highly diverse internal environment. Such a system is not self-sustaining, depends on energy, information and materials coming from outside, and has the ability to adapt to changes in the external environment.

The most famous representatives of this direction are the leaders of structural-functional analysis - T. Parsons and R. Merton, as well as J. Forrestor, R. Simon, L. Gjuvik and others.

The application of systems theory to management has made it easier for managers to see the organization they manage in the unity of its constituent parts, which not only interact with each other, but also inextricably intersect with the outside world. After all, all organizations - large and small, simple and complex - are systems. Because people, their social interactions, and the social roles they perform are components (namely, social components) along with machinery and technology that are used together to perform a specific job (constituting technical components), all this is called a socio-technical system.

The constructive role of a systems approach to management, as well as to any management problem as a system, is that it allows you to see broad opportunities and prospects, as well as critical variables and limitations, features of their interaction with each other, forcing scientists and practitioners in a particular field Always remember that you cannot approach any element, phenomenon or problem without taking into account their previous and subsequent interactions with other elements of the sociotechnical system.

The creators of the general theory of systems are L. von Bertalanffy and L. Rappoport. In sociology, the systemic concept of structural-functional analysis was developed by T. Parsons, R. Merton A. Gouldner and A. Etzioni.

Here, any collection of interacting people began to be considered as an organizational system. From the perspective of a systems approach, it is a complex consisting of a number of subsystems and supersystems: formal and informal organizations and corresponding structures, statuses and roles, internal and external conditions and variables.

The complexity of organizational systems is brought to the fore and the problem of studying the interaction of their parts or subsystems is raised. The central methodological concept is the concept of connecting processes: communication, balance and decision making.

Here, for the first time, it was shown that management goals and organizational goals do not automatically coincide. The goals of the organization are universal. These are the goals of growth (development) and survival. And management goals can reflect the interests of the organization as a whole, or they can pursue private goals of individual groups and individuals and generally be inadequate to the universal goals of the organization.

The “social systems” approach is closely intertwined with the cybernetic approach.

Ideas about management, the importance of information in it, feedback and a number of other aspects of the management process were formed in biology, physiology, technical sciences, and sociology long before the advent of cybernetics. However, it was in the latter that the laws of information transformation in complex dynamic systems were formulated and a general understanding of management in its modern interpretation was developed. One of the founders of cybernetics is the American scientist N. Wiener (1894-1964)1 .

The merit of cybernetics lies in the development of a general theory of control, scientific principles and technological approaches to solving management problems in any self-governing, including social, systems.

She showed the decisive importance informationin management, without the collection, transmission and processing of which to develop management algorithms, no management process is possible. Cybernetics has also proven that the presence feedbackis the most important management principle in any self-governing system.

But as V.A. rightly noted. Bokarev, cybernetics primarily solves the question not of “why manage,” but “how to manage.” The specific goal of control “in most cases appears for cybernetics as something given, because goal setting is carried out by such sciences as economics, military, etc.” Not only setting management goals, but also determining the content of information necessary for management, ways to provide feedback characterizing the quality and effectiveness of management and solving other management problems is the prerogative of sciences that study specific social or other objects.

Cybernetics had a great influence on the formation of the sociology of management, but the sociology of management has a relatively independent pedigree.

The fathers of cybernetics, as a universal science of management, are, as is known, N. Wiener W. R. Ashby, S. Beer. Cybernetics has many predecessors. N. Wiener himself referred to Russian scientists academicians A. N. Krylov, N. N. Bogomolov and A. N. Kolmogorov. In the system part of cybernetics, among the predecessors was the author of the universal organizational science of “tectology” A. A. Bogdanov.

Academician A. I. Berg, who for a long time was the chairman of the Scientific Council on Cybernetics at the USSR Academy of Sciences, also played a significant role in the recognition and rooting of cybernetics on domestic soil.

The basic law (principle) of cybernetics is the law of necessary diversity: only a control device that itself has sufficient diversity can successfully cope with diversity in a controlled system. Here, diversity is understood as information about the state of the elements of the system, the number of its real and possible states.

Diversity can be dealt with not by analyzing cause-and-effect relationships, which are never carried out in practice, but by using the “black box” method.

None of the principles of cybernetics raises doubts regarding their scientific nature. The objection is

Their direct transfer to the practice of managing social systems that are not cybernetic.

2. indistinguishability of management in technology and management in society.

That. Despite attempts to present cybernetics as the most general theory of control in technical, biological and social systems, it never materialized in this capacity.

Synergetics studies the general principles of the processes of formation and self-organization occurring in systems of a very different nature: physical, biological, technical and social.

Synergetic thinking is systemic, only the systems it considers are characterized by such fundamental features as nonlinearity, nonequilibrium, openness (continuous exchange of matter, energy, information with the external environment), and coherence. Synergetics is also called the science of the processes of the emergence of order from chaos,

At the same time, synergetics speaks more about new phenomena in the evolution of objects and adds little new to the understanding of the role and actions of management subjects. The main conclusion from the consideration of the crisis state of management thought is not that the system-cybernetic paradigm does not affect the effectiveness of management and should be discarded, but that it does not reflect historical changes in management practice, its real reorientation towards socio-cultural mechanisms regulation of human activity. Knowledge about management, produced on the basis of the system-cybernetic paradigm, which is imposed on practice through monographs and textbooks, increasingly comes into conflict with the needs of management in another type of knowledge, among which sociological, socio-economic, psychological, socio-psychological acquire the greatest share .

The main thing that cybernetics does not take into account is the human personality, which cannot be modeled, calculated mathematically and put into the schemes of scientific laws. As a number of countries transition to a post-industrial civilization, the priorities of which are the values of individual rights and freedoms, quality of life, experts have come to realize the role of culture as a factor that integrates all aspects of administration: functional, behavioral, and systemic. The sociocultural approach synthesizes the achievements of individual scientific schools and directions.

3. Specially - scientific level of knowledge of management phenomena

Sociology of management as an independent scientific management and a special academic discipline is still just taking shape, does not have a unified status and standard, and the logic and methodology of the subject have not yet been built at the level of the requirements that are presented to this branch of knowledge and academic discipline.

By its genesis from the sociology of labor, the sociology of management does not give a recipe for how to work better, but answers the question: what is management today as a rationally constructed mechanism of social regulation and the reason social change in various areas of human activity?

The sociology of politics intersects with the sociology of management at the level of social institutions (state and management, parties and management), at the level of communities (management in parties, socio-political movements) and at the level of processes (management of the formation public opinion, management of the election process).

The central category of the sociology of politics is the category of power. The essence of power is the relationship of dominance and subordination. The dominant class, group, and individual have the means and will to subordinate other classes, groups, and individuals to their interests. Relations of domination and subordination are not equal to relations of management, but are closely intertwined with them historically.

Control can be transformed into domination (just as an army general can turn into a dictator), but then it ceases to be control, and power may not cope with control and “be lost.” State power is the main object in political struggle. After gaining power, it is carried out in various ways: economic, ideological, power and administrative (managerial). After the loss of political power, problems of management in society remain the inheritance of the new government.

The sociology of law studies the contradiction between legal norms and their implementation, between their regulatory and controlling prescriptive role and the real self-organization of social life, guided by natural social norms and rules. Here the sociology of law noticeably intersects with the problems of the sociology of management.

No legal norm works on its own: it requires a management mechanism for control and execution. Moreover, the rules of law themselves are means of achieving the goals of certain dominant subjects in society and are considered in the sociology of management as one of the ways to establish cause-and-effect relationships.

The subject of economic sociology is the social mechanism of economic development, which is understood as a stable system of social behavior and consciousness of social groups in the economic sphere, as well as their interaction in this area with each other and with the state.

The main problem of economic sociology is the influence on the effectiveness of the economy as a social institution of other social institutions: political, legal, religious, cultural.

Economic sociology intersects with the sociology of management directly, since it is generally accepted that the economy needs to be managed, as well as its subsystems (production and distribution). In turn, economic conditions are the most important prerequisite and resource for managing social processes.

4. Sociological approach to the study of management phenomena

Despite the fact that the sociology of management appeared relatively recently in our country (mid-70s of the 20th century), its history is quite dramatic.

The principal reason for its emergence was the awareness of the insufficiency of relying only on formal norms and mechanisms for the successful functioning of social management systems, the recognition of the need to identify and use in management activities informal, strictly human factors, deep reserves of the social and socio-psychological components of society.

In essence, this marked a departure from the technocratic paradigm, its overcoming in the conceptual foundations of analysis and management of social systems. The fundamental achievement of the sociology of management was the substantiation of the position that optimal management in social systems necessarily presupposes the establishment and achievement of correspondence between the subjective motives of human activity and the objective needs and goals of society.

Let us consider in more detail what is the essence of the sociological approach to the study of management processes in society.

Sociological approach to managementfocuses on the social aspects of management activities, on the motives, needs and interests of people determined by their participation and interactions in management processes. Management in this approach is understood as a specific type of social activity designed to coordinate the interests of all subjects of economic, political, and social life. That is, management is viewed as a social process. In accordance with this view of management, the sphere of interests of the sociology of management includes:

Social foundations of management processes and their dynamic characteristics;

social functions and principles of management activities;
peculiarities management decisions, the degree of their effectiveness in the conditions of social relations existing in society;
processes of social self-organization;
systems for analyzing and monitoring the transformation of a managed social process, caused by the actions of the subject of management.

The sociology of management was the first to pose the problem of controllability of social processes without their destruction, the problem of determining the boundaries of controllability and mechanisms for maintaining social processes within these boundaries as more important and comprehensive than the problem of achieving a utilitarian goal.

Controllability is one of the little-studied social phenomena. Despite the frequent use of the term “governability” in scientific and policy discussions, its rationale and analysis are rarely seen. Therefore, it is necessary to outline an approach to the sociological study of controllability.

In cybernetics, which first introduced the term “controllability” into broad scientific circulation, controllability and controllability are closely related. Cybernetically understood controllability means the ability of a system to achieve controlled parameters.

The understanding of controllability, developed in the technical sciences, was transferred to society, which caused a certain negative reaction from social scientists. Thus, the liberal tradition and critical theory of society see in “managed society” and “managed democracy” features of the crisis of modern society.

In the liberal tradition, controllability is seen as a negative characteristic of an individual, zombified by means mass media, or a “sick” civil society incapable of critical analysis of power. Managed democracy is declared to be a direct road to dictatorship and fascism.

Thus, in the theory of society, controllability has long been associated with its cybernetic definition as controllability. However, on this basis, a contradictory idea arose about the dynamics of the controllability of society.

On the one hand, the Frankfurt School (for example, G. Marcuse), A. Touraine, and domestic sociology spoke about the growing capabilities of the social state and saw a trend toward increased controllability of social phenomena.

On the other hand, this trend has been questioned. For example, A. Gehlen in his work “The Sociology of Power: Sociological Tests” wrote that the direct domination of man over man in the 20th century is increasingly considered unbearable and is being dismantled. In a modern social state, people are no longer subject to true domination (E. Forsthof).

The decisive question that follows from this is whether the controllability of social relations is increasing or decreasing. at all. It became obvious that the problem of society's controllability is more multifaceted and complex.

Rethinking the phenomenon of controllability also began in the technical sciences and is associated with the emergence of synergetics. “A new understanding of the problem of managing complex systems has emerged: it should be guided not so much by the desire of the manager, but by the own development trends of these systems, and also allow for the possibility of the existence of zones (and moments) free from control - unpredictable.”

Newly understood controllability began to be viewed not as total continuous subordination, but as targeted subordination with continuous self-government and self-organization. Controllability is needed to set the direction of self-development.

This approach was quickly adopted by modern management science. The modern view of management is trying to break the link “coercion - submission - control” and find other mechanisms for the emergence of controllability. Manageability should be achieved not through control, but through constant “empowerment,” where “empowerment” is understood not as standard delegation of authority, but as assistance in setting tasks and special friendly sympathy during their execution.

From the point of view of sociological theory, the influence of power on controllability depends on the relationship between management and power. There are two main models that examine this relationship:

dialectical-conflict - “dialectic of property - power - management”, asserting the fundamental interdependence of power and management: those who govern have power, those who govern have power; their privileged position ensures property, the size of which, in turn, depends on the presence of power and access to management;
consensus, requiring the division of power and management: those who have power should not govern, since the control of the management system by the entire society is necessary.

Essential for our research is the definition of the concept of power, since the nature of its connection with management and controllability depends on this. Both of these approaches are based on a very specific classical concept of power as the will of some subjects, subordinating other subjects. This idea of power was adhered to by K. Marx and M. Weber, and it is the most widespread in sociology. So, for example, in the “Encyclopedic Sociological Dictionary” in the article “Power” by L.S. Mamut notes that the task of power is to subordinate all subjects of the system to the will of the bearers of power.

At the same time, another non-classical concept of power has consistently developed in management theory and sociology. For example, M.P. Follett created the concept of "shared or dominant power." In her opinion, power in an organization is not associated with a vertical hierarchical change in the structure of the organization. It is considered as a function that is inherent in management in general and inalienable from other management functions. Power is the result of the functions an employee performs, specific tasks and the situation he encounters. In this regard, the importance of delegation of authority by the first person with power in the organization (the concept of L. Urwick) is generally denied; delegation of authority occurs on the basis of authority. Based on this, V. Shcherbina concludes that the concept of M.P. Follett makes it possible to introduce the idea of administrative power in a modern organization as an illusion.

M. Crozier also sees power as a property inherent to one degree or another in all members of the organization. He defines power as “a relationship of force in which one person may have more influence than another, but no one is ever deprived of the full extent of influence over others.” The subordinate can ignore the order and this is his freedom.

In the classical and non-classical understanding of power, we need to highlight what is common to power in general, since. only in this case can we compare it with control and controllability.

Despite the difference between classical and non-classical understanding, in both cases, power acts as the exercise of power and influence. Regardless of whether power is inherent only in managers or subordinates also have it, power is the volitional implementation of certain decisions or their volitional boycott, which can be associated with various factors (position, status, personal qualities, the nature of the tasks performed, activities in general ).

The use of power gives rise to relations of dependence and autonomy, i.e. the use of power generates a certain field of dependence, beyond the boundaries of which autonomy reigns.

From these positions, let us return to the issue of the relationship between power and management. In our opinion, management differs from power in the following features.

In contrast to the strong-willed nature of power, management is more rational, conscious, purposeful, and gradual. This understanding brings management closer to Weberian bureaucracy. Bureaucracy, as presented by Weber in Economy and Society, represents the most striking manifestation of the process of rationalization. It is characterized by the following features: constant organization of cooperation based on rules, impersonal, explicit and mandatory; division of activities into clearly demarcated areas of competence that create relationships of subordination; centralization of tasks and hierarchization of positions so that each individual, depending on his education and qualifications, plays a specific role; complete separation of personal and professional life; written confirmation of all administrative actions. According to M. Weber, we are talking about the most objective solution, best adapted to the complexity of modern society.

Management is indeed in many ways close to this understanding, but it is not exhausted and does not coincide with it. Firstly, management is not essentially related to hierarchization. Hierarchization is not a management principle even for the classical school of management; it is a consequence of exceeding the controllability norm, i.e. the number of subordinates that one manager can control. Exceeding the norm of controllability requires the introduction of new levels of management, and, consequently, hierarchy.

Secondly, the total rationality of management activities in a number of concepts (for example, G. Simon) is questioned, since it has many limitations. Management strives for rationality, but whether it is rational or not is a matter of evaluation or effectiveness.

Despite the indicated shortcomings of M. Weber’s concept of rational bureaucracy, it is still of great importance, since it places the coordinating function of management at the forefront, and thereby captures the central difference between management and power.

Management is, first of all, coordination of activities and interactions. Also, management is orderliness that ensures progress (O. Comte). Management is the very process of interaction between subjects (managers and managed), allowing one to achieve a goal. To summarize these definitions, management is the process of organizing heterogeneous activities in time and space into a single coordinated system focused on a specific result.

As such, management is not necessarily associated with power, much less with violence. Management does not require the use of power as a volitional basis for decision-making, although it may use it (or may not use it).

Ideal management does not resort to power; it provides control independently. Power, and then violence, is used in case of “slipping” in the implementation of activities or decisions that obviously will not receive support. In this regard, we can conclude that the very fact of using power is evidence of a loss of controllability.

At the same time, in most concepts, the use of power is considered as a means of restoring controllability, and then violence acts as the same means (here we adhere to Luhmann’s understanding of the relationship between power and violence). These views can be combined by introducing a typology of controllability, indicating that controllability achieved by management, controllability achieved as a result of the use of power, and controllability achieved as a result of the use of violence are different controllability. For example, one can distinguish between communicative controllability associated with control, instrumental controllability associated with power, and coercive controllability associated with violence and direct coercion. Thus, if the control system does not cope with the tasks of coordinating the activities of the subjects, and communicative controllability is lost to a certain extent, the subjects use force and influence to restore controllability. In the absence of the possibility of achievement and instrumental controllability, a number of subjects use violence and direct coercion, achieving forced controllability. In this process, a certain cyclical nature is also possible, especially when coercion has not achieved its goal, and a new consensus arises, leading to communicative controllability.

It should be noted that power and violence are not the best means of achieving controllability. Since their use in itself is evidence of uncontrollability, types of controllability introduced with the help of power and violence have a smaller “margin of safety.” Thus, the consensus model seems more correct, requiring the separation of power and management as fundamentally different approaches to organizing life in society.

5. Object, subject and tasks of management sociology

Sociology of management is one of the branches of sociological knowledge. The very combination of the words “sociology” and “management” speaks of the borderline status of this science. It was formed at the intersection of the development of two independent disciplines: sociology and management.

Management occupies an intermediate position between violence (coercion as a form of violence) and self-government.

Relations of violence and coercion are built on the subordination of some people to others, on the dependence of inferiors on superiors, on the transformation of people into objects of manipulation and, ultimately, on the alienation of the subject and object of control.

Relations of self-government and self-organization are built on the coordination of interests. These interactions can be direct and indirect, strongly or weakly structured, but always partner, equal, subject-subject.

Management differs from those and other relationships primarily by its two-level nature, the combination of two qualitatively different states into a single system, ensemble or process social reality- artificially planned and consciously organized activities of people for the sake of solving certain problems and a naturally developing system of relations between participants in joint activities as relations of self-government and self-organization.

Hence, as an object of management sociology, we can consider the process of formation in our country of management as a social institution in connection with other social institutions,

The object of the sociology of management is the process of institutionalization of management as a sociocultural mechanism for maintaining and changing social order, increasing the efficiency of federal, regional and local government bodies, the work of political, economic and public organizations.

The subject of management sociology is

controllability of social objects and processes,

regulatory mechanisms that optimally combine the interests of participants in joint activities, their organization and self-organization, formal norms and informal rules,

achieving productive goals and sustainability of social connections and relationships.

The specificity of the sociological approach to the process of social management is that “objects of management” are considered not as passive elements, but as completely independent participants in management interaction. They have their own algorithms of functioning and development, which must be taken into account.

They may have their own social activity and self-sufficiency, which, of course, complicates the nature of the interaction between subject and object, forcing the former to move away from primitive technologies and sometimes make changes to its structure.

That is, management is understood as interaction, coordination, and a kind of consensus. In accordance with this, improving the quality of management involves improving not only the subject of management, but also the object and the methods of their interaction.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

When starting to study the content and features of public administration, it is necessary, first of all, to determine what management is? This term has become a universal means of characterizing a certain type of activity, i.e. a set of actions performed to achieve relevant socially significant goals.

General theoretical positions, including cybernetic ones, provide sufficient grounds for the following conclusions:

1. Management is a function of organized systems of various natures (biological, technical, social), ensuring their integrity, i.e. achieving the tasks facing them, maintaining their structure, maintaining the regime of their activities.
2. Management serves the interests of the interaction of the elements that make up a particular system and represent a single whole with tasks common to all elements.
3. Management is the internal quality of an integral system, the main elements of which are the subject (control element) and the object (managed element), constantly interacting on the basis of self-organization (self-government).
4. Management involves not only the internal interaction of the elements that make up the system. There are many interacting integral systems of various hierarchical levels, which involves the implementation of management functions of both an intra-system and inter-system nature. In the latter case, a higher-order system acts as a subject of control in relation to a lower-order system, which is an object of control within the framework of interaction between them.
5. Management in its essence comes down to the control influence of a subject on an object, the content of which is the ordering of the system, ensuring its functioning in full accordance with the laws of its existence and development. This is a purposeful ordering influence, implemented in the connections between the subject and the object and carried out directly by the subject of management.
6. Control is real when there is a known subordination of the object to the subject of control, the controlled element of the system to its control element. Consequently, the control (ordering) influence is the prerogative of the subject of control.

Of course, this takes into account the characteristics of the social sphere, the most important of which is that management ties are implemented through the relationships of people. Society is an integral organism with a complex structure, with various individual manifestations, as well as with general functions. Hence the need to express the general connection and unity of social processes, which finds its manifestation in the implementation of social management. It is one of the leading conditions for the normal functioning and development of society.

1. Social management exists only where the joint activities of people are manifested. In itself, this kind of activity (production and other) is not yet able to ensure the necessary interaction of its participants, the uninterrupted and effective implementation of the common tasks facing them, and the achievement of common goals. Management organizes people specifically for joint activities and certain teams and formalizes them organizationally.
2. Social management, its main purpose, has an ordering effect on the participants in joint activities, giving organization to the interaction of people. At the same time, the consistency of the individual actions of the participants in joint activities is ensured, and the general functions necessary to regulate such activities and directly resulting from their nature are performed (for example, planning, coordination, control, etc.).
3. Social management has as the main object of influence the behavior (actions) of participants in joint activities and their relationships. These are criteria of a conscious-volitional nature in which the management of people's behavior is mediated.
4. Social management, acting as a regulator of people’s behavior, achieves this goal within the framework of social relations, which are essentially management relations. They arise, first of all, between the subject and the object in connection with the practical implementation of the functions of social management.
5. Social management is based on a certain subordination of the wills of people - participants in management relations, because their relationship has a conscious-volitional mediation. The will of the managers takes precedence over the will of the governed. Hence the authority of social management, which means that the subject of management forms and implements the “dominant will”, and the object submits to it. This is how the power-volitional aspect of social management is expressed.

Consequently, power is a specific means of ensuring that the will of the governed will is followed. This is how volitional regulation of people’s behavior occurs, and in the conditions of state organization of public life, the necessary “intervention” of state power in social relations is ensured.

7. Social management needs a special mechanism for its implementation, which personifies the subjects of management. This role is played by a certain group of people, organizationally formalized in the form of relevant governing bodies (public or state), or individual persons authorized to do so. Their activities, which have a specific purpose and special forms of expression, are managerial.

Social management

interaction of two factors:

management.

Types of social management:

property);

Features of the formation of public administration in Russia.

Opportunities, methodological and political limitations of the study, main problems of public administration.

The main organizational problems of public administration in modern Russia include:

1. Undeveloped legal and regulatory support of the state. management, especially in terms of powers, specifics of government bodies, relationships, both between government bodies, and the relationship of government bodies with citizens.

2. Authoritarian management methods. The managerial spirit and atmosphere developed in a command-planned economy; to some extent, the methods remain the same today. New organizational forms do not correspond to the old content of managerial relations in the state apparatus.

3. The vertical of power in the country has not been sufficiently developed; many issues of interaction between federal and republican entities remain controversial Russian Federation) controls. In most of these cases, the population, society as a whole, loses. In this atmosphere, federal, republican and regional bodies have an excellent opportunity to evade responsibility by shifting their mistakes and shortcomings onto each other.

4. Insufficient level of education and qualifications of civil servants. Many of the employees do not have professional education in their job profile, although the degree of importance, responsibility, and level of requirements in the public administration system clearly require this. Moreover, it is not uncommon for civil servants to have no higher education at all.

5. Corruption. Corruption is literally corroding the public administration system.

In short

Availability of a certain territory

Sovereignty

Variety of resources used

Striving to represent the interests of the entire society

Monopoly on legitimate violence

Right to collect taxes

Public nature of power

Availability of symbols

Form of government

Government

Typology of states.

According to the source and sovereign bearer of imperious power from the time of

Aristotle's classifications of states are subdivided:

A) to the monarchy , capable of perverting into tyranny; sole

the rule of the monarch (from top to bottom) with local governors and under

b) aristocracy , capable of perverting into an oligarchy; collective

control by the elite with thoughtful distribution

power “vertically” and “horizontally”

V) democracy , capable of perverting into ochlocracy. construction of state bodies

gift power and government bodies from below

upward - from the people through forms of direct expression of will,

representation and open civil service.

By form of government, i.e. national organization

(or, as they sometimes say, the highest state)

authorities distinguish parliamentary and presidential republics.

There are also mixed forms: semi-presidential republic and

parliamentary monarchy. The main thing here is recognition of the principle

on the separation of powers and the specifics of the mechanisms of its practical

what kind of implementation.

In a parliamentary republic known priority belongs

elected legislative body, which from among its members

forms a government accountable to it (Italy, Germany). Ta_

What is the mechanism of formation and correlation of legislative

and executive powers in a parliamentary monarchy (Great_

Britain, Denmark, Spain, Japan). That's what it's here for

there is a post of prime minister.

In a presidential republic Legislative body and head of is_

the executive authority (aka the head of state) is equally elected_

shared by the population, independent in their functions, but connected

among themselves through checks and balances (USA, Argen_

Tina, Mexico, etc.). Presidents - heads of state - have a special status

states in Russia, France and other countries that are

of the arbitrator and the guarantor ensure the functioning and mutual

the influence of “divided” government authorities. In that_

which countries exist government, accountable primarily

to the president.

According to the form of government, i.e. according to the method once_

dividing the state into certain parts with corresponding

division of power to manage them, there are mainly

two types of states - unitary and federal . Sometimes it says_

They also talk about a confederal state, but such an expression is difficult

but accept it as correct: confederation - is a union of states, with_

created by them to realize some common goals. Unitary

states are divided into administrative_territorial

units governed vertically by a single system of state_

government power. They can create autonomous images

tion, as well as the existence of developed local self-government.

Federation is also a single state with a vast

new state autonomy of its constituent parts.

delimitation of states

By political regime- content

methods and techniques for the practical implementation of state

despotic, which includes totalitarian, auto_

realization of the state will, personified by some_

or the supreme ruler (emperor, king, Duce,

leader, Fuhrer, helmsman, etc.), are violence, suppressing_

deprivation, arbitrariness, restriction of freedom, establishment of non_

rarely detective control over the behavior of each person;

liberal, in which state power comes from

primarily from human rights and freedoms and their implementation

niyu subordinates his capabilities; the authorities seem to serve_

gives freedom; unfortunately, this mode is more often used

lytic slogan than reality, and for reasons

which depend not only on the state;

democratically(legal , the essence of which is pro_

implementation of a democratically formed universal

the will of the people (power) strictly within the framework of the mother_

legal and procedural legislation. Today in

In many countries there is a desire to establish names_

but such a political regime

14. Levels of government decision-making: political, macroeconomic, administrative.

at the political level.

Political parameters of decision-making show that the main source and way of developing and promoting decisions at the political level is political will.

The most fundamental component of the political mechanism for making government decisions is the presence of a leadership center, which is a form of unconditional leadership of one or another actor (a participant in world politics who can influence the processes occurring in the world), embodying certain goals and values in their activities. Political leadership is a form of targeted regulation, in which the activities of the center are aimed at consolidating the actions of all counterparties around certain tasks.

The most common forms of development and decision-making at the political level are populism (characterizing the stable style of the authorities flirting with society, promoting unrealizable goals), the politics of party priorities (in which government decisions are based on the programmatic guidelines of the ruling or authoritative parties), voluntarism (expressing the arbitrary nature of setting goals by an individual political figure or group of leaders), corporatism (giving target priorities to one or another organization), bureaucracy (where the dominant position in decision-making belongs to the administrative apparatus and its private interests), pluralism (creating relative equality among groups competing in politics) and clientelism ( positioning the state as a service structure in relation to society).

Macroeconomic level of government decision-making.

The main goal for the state is to serve the population and integrate society as a socio-economic whole. Therefore, the dominant style of relationship between government agencies and the public is the relationship between managers and managed. This format of relations assumes that governing bodies will act by stimulating the behavior of citizens, who in turn will have the opportunity to deviate, agree, or demonstrate other reactions to the challenges of the state. In this case, the state is already using methods of control and stimulation, but not force.

This focus on purely managerial criteria for their activities presupposes the interest of government agencies in maintaining social stability, compliance of decisions made with current legislation, increasing the competence of their apparatus, as well as solving other problems aimed at increasing management efficiency. At this level, the position of “top officials” (in the government, ministries and departments) is of significant importance.

The specificity of this level of decision-making is also manifested in the fact that mainly two main types of regulators are used here: political priorities and values, as well as current legislation. The leading sources of development of this level of government decision-making are personnel mechanisms that contribute to improving the quality of management activities of civil servants (conducting professional exams, taking into account experience and merit, etc.); improving legislation and increasing the efficiency of adoption of necessary legal acts, clarifying the procedural side of management actions; improvement of the organizational management structure; accumulation and optimal redistribution of key resources and other similar mechanisms.

Administrative level of development and adoption of government decisions.

At the administrative level, the state appears as a set of hierarchized organizations in a certain way, subordinating their activities to the formulated goals of political and macroeconomic management. Compared to the first two, higher levels, the administrative level performs essentially auxiliary tasks. However, they are not technological, but essential for the state. The management task that is solved at this level is twofold and consists in maintaining (developing) the organizational structure of the public administration system and maintaining direct contacts with citizens as consumers of government services.

The main regulators of the activities of administrative structures are service instructions, business technologies, a system of professional knowledge and internal (ethical) codes.

Management as a social phenomenon

Social management- a social relationship between the subject and the object of management, conditioned by the powerful organizing influence of the subject of management on people's behavior. The main feature of social management– authority of management, i.e. empowering the management subject to implement the functions assigned to it.

Social management must ensure interaction of two factors:

2. voluntary compliance by the object with social norms

Characteristic features of social management:

1) Social management arises in connection with the need to regulate activities

people and setting standards for their behavior.

2) Social management is aimed at achieving management objectives.

3) Social management uses existing authorities and functions.

4) Social management is carried out on the basis of subordination to the will of the subject

management.

Types of social management:

1. public administration – the influence of public authorities with the aim of

implementation of state functions to streamline public relations