Object and subject of sociology of organizations. Theoretical problems of modern sociology of organization

INTRODUCTION

1. Sociology of organizations and its place in modern sociology

2. Social management as an object of scientific study

3. Management personnel and features of their training abroad

Conclusion

List of used literature

INTRODUCTION

In any enterprise, in any organization, structures are needed for management. And the entire future fate of the enterprise or organization depends on what kind of structures they will be, what goals they will pursue.

The sociology of management helps to choose certain methods and forms of managing social processes. And this essay examines what the sociology of management studies, the basic techniques of management, what a manager should be, how he should lead.

1 . SOCIOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS AND ITS PLACE IN MODERN SOCIOLOGY

The sociology of organizations is one of the most developed branches of sociological knowledge and is a discipline with an established subject area and certain problems. At the same time, this sociological theory is not distinguished by integrity and monolithicity, which is due to a number of problems that have not been resolved in science and, above all, the lack of a consensus on the issue of the dynamics and mechanisms of organizational development.

The special interest of sociologists in the problems of organizational development and the complexity of their research are associated with the integrative nature of the process under consideration, the study of which involves revealing the most controversial issues of organizational theory: understanding the nature of the organization, the characteristics of its functioning and interaction with the external environment, organizational conflicts and organizational behavior.

In modern sociology of organizations, the concept of organizational development still remains vague. In general, organizational development is understood as a process of positive qualitative changes in an organization, affecting ways, means of activity and interaction and reflected in the transformation of the organizational structure.

In the domestic sociology of organizations, three main directions can be identified in the study of problems of organizational development. According to the first, rationalistic approach, the manager plays an active role in the development of the organization. This understanding of the determinism of organizational changes is especially clear in the sociology of innovation, the modern problems of which have developed in Russian sociology largely thanks to the works of A.I. Prigozhin, N.I. Lapin, V.S. Dudchenko, B.V. Sazonova and others.

An important contribution to the study of organizational development by researchers in this area was the discovery of the target nature of the organization and the definition of its essence, revealed in three aspects: as an artificial association of an institutional nature, occupying a certain place in society and intended to perform more or less clearly defined functions; as a specific organizational activity, including the distribution of functions, networking, coordination, etc.; as a characteristic of the degree of orderliness of a social object.

According to researchers in this area, organizational change is an activity to transform other activities. The means of such transformation are the replacement of some organizational elements with others or the addition of new ones to existing ones. This allows us to talk about innovation as a kind of “cell” of purposeful change and assume that innovation is the main form of managed development.

The key to understanding the role of innovation in the process of organizational development is the concept of innovative activity, which is defined as a meta-activity that changes the routine components of reproductive activities. In other words, innovative activity as such has as its object other types of activity - those that were formed in the previous period and by this time acquired the character of reproductive activity, and their means or methods have become routine for a given community of people. Innovative activity is aimed, first of all, at changing these routine means, methods, and techniques of reproductive activity.

In addition to the rationalistic foundations in the innovative approach implemented by domestic researchers, one can also find other trends associated with the recognition of the existence of a number of factors that are outside the field of activity of the manager. Thus, it is emphasized that social organization has both the properties of a consciously created, purposefully functioning organization and some features of objectively developing systems; both of these sides are closely interconnected.

According to the second direction in the study of organizational dynamics, organizational processes are revealed by analogy with the functioning of a biological organism. An organization in this kind of theories is considered as a social organism (quasi-natural object), teleologically, evolutionarily and gradually developing according to its own laws, the main task of which is survival. The development of an organization is a natural process that involves the inevitable passage by the organization of a number of successive phases (stages), in accordance with which the logic of its functioning and the type of strategy change.

An alternative to the proposed directions for the analysis of organizational dynamics seems to be the third approach, represented by a theory that strives for a synthesis of rational and natural approaches. The result of this synthesis was an organizational-ecological, or selection, model of organizational development - a model that uses the provisions and logic of social ecology. This approach in the domestic sociology of organizations was substantiated in a number of works by Moscow scientists V.V. Shcherbina and E.P. Popova. In this concept, the influence of the ideas of Western sociologists is obvious - M. Hannon, J. Freeman, J. Britten, O. Volya, etc., developing the theory of ecology of organizational populations.

Organizational ecology emerged as a special direction in the American sociology of organizations in the second half of the 70s. in polemics with supporters of rationalistic concepts, who considered the development of an organization as entirely determined by the conscious activities of the manager. Organizational ecology is understood as “a historical-systemic approach within the framework of the objectivist direction of macrosociological theory.” The specificity of this direction is the desire to explain the current state and determine possible prospects for changes in any social formation, taking into account its previously formed properties and patterns of behavior and based on the characteristics of the elements of its social environment (communities, social populations, institutions, organizations that make up culture) with which it is in interaction.

The main element of analysis in the concept of organizational ecology is not a single organization, but a population of organizations. An organizational population is a type of social population and is a collection of organizations that perform similar types of activities and exploit the same type ecological niches, constituting the external organizational environment. Organization is considered as a specific form of existence of a social population that is adequate to the requirements of the environment. The organization and its environment appear as one system, in which the external environment, being a macro- and microenvironment, acts as a factor that predetermines the logic of organizational development and the possibility of its survival.

Thus, within the framework of the theory of organizational ecology, organizational development is defined as a process associated with the expansion of a set of sociocultural patterns of behavior and activity (the organization’s repertoire), which predetermines the list of possible reactions to changes in the state of the external environment and its consolidation in the organizational structure.

So, a special place in the series of modern studies of domestic sociology of organizations is occupied by the study of problems of organizational dynamics and organizational development. In sociological science, there is an extreme variety of approaches to understanding the essence and mechanisms of these organizational processes, which is largely determined by the dual nature of the organization itself as a phenomenon of social life. The views of domestic researchers were significantly influenced by the developments of Western, primarily American, scientists. Meanwhile, it can be stated that Russian sociologists, successfully integrating foreign experience, offer their own very original concepts of organizational development.

The relevance of problems of organizational development in Russian sociology is associated with the need to deepen the understanding of the possibilities, directions, factors, dynamics of organizational changes and the implementation of theoretical principles in the practice of organizational activities. Among the most controversial issues actively being developed in modern domestic sociology of organizations are: problems of adapting an organization to new conditions and successfully implementing changes, the role of a manager in an organization, the possibility of taking into account factors of the external and internal organizational environment, determining evolutionary and revolutionary changes, the problem of ontology ( life cycles) of the organization, the sequence and duration of the stages of organizational evolution, the relationship between the principles of efficiency and survival in the functioning of the organization, methods of organizational development, etc.

2 SOCIAL MANAGEMENT AS AN OBJECT OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY

Social management (or, simply, management), in contrast to technical and biological, is the management of people who are united in large or small social organizations, outside of which human existence is unthinkable, therefore the origin of management is inextricably linked with the origin of social organizations. Moreover, by social organization we understand a relatively stable social integrity that exhibits intelligent behavior, like a living organism. Reasonable behavior means the ability of an organization to adequately respond (respond) to challenges or solve its problems.

It is thanks to this ability, provided by management, that social organizations maintain their integrity and vitality.

Examples of social organizations are families, primitive communities, settlements, cities, nations, firms, parties, societies (civilizations), world communities, and humanity as a whole. The history of management begins with the primitive human herd. Already in those distant times (about 1 million years ago) at the dawn of mankind, control already existed on Earth, but it was of an unconscious nature. Human behavior in a herd was determined mainly by instincts (unconditioned reflexes), and was similar to the behavior of other so-called social animals (ants, bees).

A lot of time passed before people began to consciously relate to the world around them, began to separate themselves from nature with its powerful action of mysterious forces (earthquakes, thunder, lightning, rain, fires, snow, etc.), which people tried to explain with the help of myths , the main characters of which were various deities personifying the rulers of the world. It is from this moment that a person begins to submit not only to his instincts, which gradually began to be pushed into the background, to certain new factors (in particular, the idea of ​​God), which E. Durkheim called “social facts”, which significantly influence people’s behavior.

This is how the institution of power appeared as the first and constant attribute of management. The institution of power is often identified with management itself. So, in V.I. Dahl’s “Explanatory Dictionary” we find as one of the possible interpretations of the word “power”: Power - command, management.

To rule - to rule with authority, to dominate, to dispose. At the same time, this is not entirely true. Power is only a necessary prerequisite for management, but not management itself. You can have power but not know how to use it.

Following the institution of power, other “social facts” appeared, the nature of which was equally mysterious, and which also forced one to obey them. These include customs, traditions, taboos, rituals, religions, kings (pharaohs, kings), popes (cardinals, archbishops), church hierarchies, divine laws. As the number and variety of “social facts” grow, man gradually turns into a “social animal,” i.e. he is more and more subordinated not to personal, but to public interests. He begins to realize that he is a part of society, to which he must obey.

Thus, the basis of the phenomenon of social management is the institution of power and other “social facts” studied by sociology and social psychology. Therefore, modern management theory should closely interact with them, mutually enriching each other. The transition from unconscious submission to animal instincts to conscious submission to public interests is a key point in understanding the role of management in human history. Management awareness gave a powerful impetus social evolution, since it has become possible for the emergence of fundamentally new social organizations, where it is not nature, but man himself, who takes care of them.

It was thanks to man's conscious attitude to public interests and problems and the gradual awareness of management that the transition from primitive communities to settlements, then to cities, then to nations (countries), then to world communities, and in the near future - to a global society, became possible. Thus, it can be said without exaggeration that management opened the way for social evolution.

Along with the awareness of the usefulness of management, the time has come for its practical use. Witnesses of this are the Egyptian pyramids, the majestic palaces of the pharaohs, the “Hanging Gardens” in Babylon and other “wonders of the world.” With the help of management, victories were won, palace and city management was carried out. The art of management is gradually becoming professional. It has especially manifested itself and continues to manifest itself in politics, economics and military affairs. Politicians deal mainly with issues of public administration and management of society. Economists deal with issues of regulating the economy and managing firms. The military deals with the management of the army and military operations. At the same time, management practice has always needed and now needs science adequate to it, without which it is “blind”: science must show it the way and help it follow it. Unfortunately, traditional management theory lags significantly behind practice and does not have a noticeable impact on it. We will indicate four main, in our opinion, reasons for this.

We have already indicated the first reason - the impossibility of correctly understanding and explaining the phenomenon of social management without relying on science, in particular sociology and social psychology, which appeared relatively late and could not significantly influence the development of management theory. As a result, a one-sided view of management has emerged, which is seen mainly as a means of achieving the goals of social and socio-economic systems, while management has much greater potential. For example, it is also a means of survival for organizations, a means of solving complex social problems, and a means of organizing complex activities. The second reason is the still dominant rationalist paradigm, based on theistic traditions, according to which everything that exists on Earth was created for a specific purpose. From this it is often concluded that all social organizations are goal-realizing and goal-oriented systems of artificial origin, and management is a means of achieving the stated goal(s) and nothing more. At the same time, it is known that social organizations (for example, societies, civilizations) can also have a natural origin and do not always strive for any goals (if we do not consider the natural property of survival as a goal).

The third reason is that science has not yet freed itself from speculative philosophy (metaphysics). Although O. Comte predicted the end of the metaphysical stage of development of the human mind by 1800, he was seriously mistaken in his predictions, not taking into account the dependence of science on politics, market conditions and fashion. Finally, the fourth reason is the uncontrolled differentiation of management science. Not having time to properly stand on her feet, she began to divide. Now, along with management, one can find the sciences of political, state, municipal, corporate, and military management. This is a very dangerous trend, since the integrity of the perception of the SU is violated.

There is nothing wrong with differentiating sciences, but it can only be effective when there is a holistic understanding of the subject of research. Then the particular sciences will act in a coordinated manner and complement each other for a deeper understanding of the whole and its more effective use. Unfortunately, this does not happen.

Due to these shortcomings, today there is no adequate science of social management. Instead, many disparate schools and trends have formed, forming, in the figurative expression of G. Kunz, “the impenetrable jungle of management theory.” Moreover, this situation is observed not only in domestic, but also in Western science.

In this regard, the issue on the agenda is the need to create a general theory of social management (GTS) on the basis of accumulated knowledge not only within the existing “jungle” of management theory, but also in a number of related fields, such as sociology, social psychology, general theory of social organizations, political science, theory of state and law, social history. Therefore, our task is to create the foundations for such a theory.

3 MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AND FEATURES OF ITS TRAINING ABROAD

In the theory of personnel management, there are different approaches to personnel qualification, depending on the functions performed. This classification provides for two main categories of personnel involved in the production process: managerial and production.

Managerial personnel are employees whose work activities are aimed at performing specific management functions. These include line and functional managers and specialists.

Managers who direct, coordinate and stimulate production activities, manage the organization's resources, make decisions, bear full responsibility for achieving the organization's goals and have the right to make decisions are classified as linear. Heads of subsections, whose main task is to facilitate the effective work of line managers, are classified as functional. Managers and chief specialists together create the administration.

Specialists (engineers, economists, technicians, technologists, psychologists) engaged in the creation and implementation of new knowledge, technologies and the development of solutions to individual production and management problems. Technical specialists (employees) who provide technical and information assistance to the management apparatus (collection, processing, storage and transmission of information). The specificity of their activities lies in the implementation of standard procedures and operations, which are mainly amenable to standardization.

Management personnel are primarily engaged in mental and intellectual work. At the management level, managers are divided into lower-level managers (foreman, section manager, group bureau), middle (heads of workshops, departments, their deputies) and senior managers (enterprise managers, their deputies).

Personnel policies in American companies are usually based on more or less the same principles. General criteria Recruitment factors include education, practical work experience, psychological compatibility, and the ability to work in a team. Management personnel in the company are appointed.

American firms that use traditional hiring principles focus on specialized knowledge and skills.

Firms focus on the narrow specialization of managers, engineers and scientists. American specialists, as a rule, are professionals in a narrow field of knowledge, and therefore their promotion through the management hierarchy occurs only vertically, which means, for example, that a financier will make a career only in this field. This limits the opportunities for advancement through management levels and causes the turnover of management personnel and their transfer from one company to another.

In American companies, the dismissal of personnel, including managers, is always accompanied by a series of evaluation and educational techniques, with the exception of extreme situations (theft, fraud, obvious violation of order). Each employee is assessed once or twice a year. The results of the assessment are discussed by the employee and his boss and signed by them. They contain a list of shortcomings in work and ways to eliminate them, as well as, if necessary, a warning about dismissal or that continued tenure depends on improvement of work.

The final decision to dismiss an employee is made by a manager two to three levels above the immediate supervisor. If the dismissed person is a member of a trade union, then the reasons for dismissal are discussed with representatives of the trade union in accordance with the labor agreement. In any case, the employee can appeal the decision to dismiss at a higher level of management or through the court.

Japan has its own specifics in personnel management, which is based on the following features: hiring workers for life or for a long term; salary increases with length of service; participation of workers in trade unions that are created at the company.

The following basic principles of the Japanese type of management can be distinguished:

The interweaving of the interests and spheres of life of firms and workers, the high dependence of the employee on his company, providing him with significant social guarantees and benefits in exchange for loyalty to the company and willingness to protect its interests;

The priority of the collective over the individual, encouraging the cooperation of people within the company, within various small groups, an atmosphere of equality between employees regardless of their positions;

Maintaining a balance of influence and interests of the three main forces that ensure the functioning of the company: managers, specialists and investors (shareholders);

Formation of partnerships between firms - business partners, including between suppliers and buyers of products.

Thus, the personnel management system in Japan involves job guarantees, training of new employees, wages depending on length of service, and a flexible salary system.

Guaranteed employment is ensured in Japan to a certain extent by a system of lifetime employment, which applies to workers until they reach 55-60 years of age. This system covers approximately 25-30% of Japanese workers employed in large firms. Moreover, in the event of a sharp deterioration in the financial situation, Japanese firms still carry out layoffs; There are no official documents regarding job guarantees. However, it is believed that the job security that Japanese firms provide to their workers underlies the success they have achieved in increasing productivity and product quality, and in ensuring employee loyalty to their company.

Japanese companies are of the opinion that a manager must be a specialist capable of working in any area of ​​the company. Therefore, when upgrading one’s qualifications, the head of a department or division chooses to master a new area of ​​activity in which he has not worked before.

Firms use as a criterion the combination of professions, the ability to work in a team, understanding the significance of their work for the common cause, the ability to solve production problems, link the solution of various problems, write competent notes and draw graphs.

CONCLUSION

Thus, we can conclude that the sociology of management plays a big role in the management process, for solving management problems, when resolving issues of reorganization, introducing new structural units, etc.

With the help of social research, it is possible to identify optimal solutions to issues that arise in the production process.

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

1. Ageev, A. Organizational culture of a modern corporation // World economy and international relations / A. Ageev, M. Grachev. - 1990, No. 6.

2. Gvishiani, D.M. Organization and management. Ed. 2 / D.M. Gvishiani. - M.: Nauka, 1972.

3. Lebedev, P.N. Essays on the theory of social management / P.N. Lebedev. - L.: Leningrad State University, 1975.

4. Prigozhy, A.I. Modern sociology of organizations. Textbook / A.I. Comely. - M.: Nauka, 1995.

Preface

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

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

Modern sociology of organizations.
Without expecting ideological accusations this time, I will still hope for criticism on the matter, comments and advice on the merits.
I thank the Soros Foundation for funding this publication. With a warm feeling I remember my old and current colleagues who directly or indirectly contributed to this work.

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

Item

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

It is obvious that some of the listed issues are considered to one degree or another in other branches of sociology. With them, the sociology of organizations has common tasks and problems, which, however, are solved from different sides, complementing each other. Research results are being exchanged and conclusions are being mutually corrected.
So, sociology of labor, which studies people’s attitudes towards work, ways to stimulate them, the influence of the content of work on the individual, etc., provides valuable material for solving such problems in the sociology of organizations as connecting the interests of each employee with the objectives of the organization. Sociology of professions provides important information for the sociology of organizations about the social structure of organizations, the need to take into account professional orientation when forming personnel, etc. Without social psychology It is impossible to study such important concepts in the sociology of organizations as leadership style, participation of performers in making general decisions, intra-organizational conflicts, etc.
Some sociological sciences not only study other perspectives on the subject of sociology of organizations, but also partially overlap with it in the subject of study. For example, the concept of “sociology of management” is studied by the sociology of organizations in the part that deals with organizational management. Management at the level of society is considered by political sociology. It also studies issues of the functioning and participation of parties, blocs and other organizations in the affairs of society.
Economics, systems theory, and law, in one way or another, also address organizational problems.
But the sociology of organizations can also significantly enrich the understanding of other sociological disciplines about organizations. All these disciplines cannot do without knowledge of the organizational environment in which the individual “lives,” opportunities and boundaries, the restructuring of intra-collective relationships, group processes in organizations and other dependencies. And such knowledge is provided to them by the sociology of organizations.
In other words, by interacting and mutually enriching themselves with knowledge from related fields, different areas of sociology have a very positive influence on each other’s improvement. There are often no sharp boundaries between them; in some ways they overlap, but this only contributes to their unity. At the same time, some differences in the interpretation of individual phenomena by specialists of different sociological profiles are not excluded and even natural. Such differences are always interesting; their comparison gives a sort of stereo effect in theory and methodology, and in knowledge in general.
The world of organizations is deeply divided.

Basic contradictions

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

§ 2. FROM ELEMENTS OF ORGANIZATION TO ORGANIZATION AS AN ELEMENT

Organization as an object

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

Organization as a subject

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

Organization as an intermediary

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

Organization and environment

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

§ 3. METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS

So, organizations are among the most complex systems: they consist of elements and subsystems of different nature (technical, legal, psychological, sociocultural), they are multifunctional (produce products, services, shape people and the environment)... For an object of such complexity it is necessary to build and complex methodology.

Systematicity and dialectics

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

Functions of the organization

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

The organization is created as tool solving social problems, a means of achieving goals. From this point of view, organizational goals and functions, effectiveness of results, motives and incentives of personnel, etc. come to the fore;
- the organization develops like a human one community, specific social environment. From this position, the organization appears as a set of social groups, statuses, norms, leadership relationships, cohesion - conflict, etc.;
- the organization can be considered as impersonal structure of connections and norms. The subject of analysis of an organization in this sense is its organizational connections, built hierarchically, as well as its connections with the external environment. And the main problems here are balance, self-government, division of labor, controllability, etc.
Of course, all these properties of an organization have only relative independence, there are no sharp boundaries between them, they constantly transform into one another. Moreover, any elements, processes and problems of the organization must be considered in each of these three dimensions, since they appear here in various qualities. For example, an individual in an organization is simultaneously an employee, a personality and an element of the system. Organizational unit there is a functional unit, a small group and a subsystem.
It is obvious that the listed “social roles” of the organization give it unequal, largely contradictory orientations. However, as long as it functions normally, it remains in balance. This balance between the roles of the organization is fluid due to constant shifts towards one of them, and a new balance is achieved through changes, the development of the organization as a whole, as a system. It is the contradictory relationship between these orientations that constitutes the essence and basis of organizational problems.

Knowledge Integration

The exceptional complexity of the organization as a system forces us to talk about another problem in its study. We would unduly limit our possibilities if we tried to study organization within the framework of only one science. The fact is that different aspects of the life of organizations are “subordinate” to different sciences. It’s like a person who is studied by philosophy, psychology, biology, medicine and other sciences. When studying complex systems it is always like this: the sciences are different, but the object is the same. But in order to comprehend it in its entirety, the sciences must also unite. And the current state of science provides such an opportunity. We are talking about interdisciplinary approach .
There is no need to repeat the conclusions about its great advantages. It is more important to see its well-known limitations, indicating that it belongs to an intermediate, albeit necessary, stage in the unification of knowledge. This stage is characterized by the fact that the integration of sciences here is only partial and for particular reasons. To date, interdisciplinary study of an object does not provide holistic knowledge about it. It can be assumed that the growth of the process of integration of sciences will lead to the formation of the next stage of connecting knowledge, the stage general disciplinary when the interpenetration of special fields of science creates a new quality - integral knowledge without professional partitions, so to speak, knowledge post-disciplinary level.
The disunity of modern knowledge about organizations limits the possibilities of understanding administrative-legal, economic, socio-psychological, cybernetic models of organization, the concepts and values ​​of which sometimes turn out to be incompatible, even if the same words are used. Thus, “self-government” in cybernetics means the autonomy of an organization, while in sociology it means the problem of participation.
A post-disciplinary approach means revealing new, in-depth content and meaning of such a phenomenon, presenting it as a whole, “stereophonically”, and therefore new assessments and management conclusions. Thus, a conflict taken from one dimension acts as a form of disorganization in another dimension, but can turn out to be very functional and effective in the third. Integrative methodology is based on the objective unity of all manifestations of a real object.
With a postdisciplinary approach, we are talking about different properties of the same phenomenon. Integration of knowledge requires mutual and joint interpretation of the object. This means that each angle of view on the organization also needs its own independent development, but within the framework of a holistic science.
The emergence of research at the post-disciplinary level gives it a new measure of complexity of approach beyond specialization.

Two ways of knowing

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

"Third Nature"

Organization is an extremely difficult object to study. The reasons for this are her own internal complexity of ambiguity.
In fact, organization cannot be called either a purely material or a purely spiritual phenomenon. It includes economic relations and relations, for example, political ones. This applies to business organizations engaged in the production of both material and spiritual values ​​(factories and theaters). Although, in terms of their functions and the nature of labor, some of them operate in the sphere of material production, others in the spiritual sphere, but in terms of the content of the relations in them, the organizations are twofold. Any organization that employs workers participates in the economic life of society; at the same time, business organizations in our country are in the general political system, often actively participating in political life. An organization is a kind of micro-society; almost all the characteristics of social life are reflected in it (although not mirrored).
The same problems arise when trying to classify organizations based on characteristics material - ideal and objective - subjective. Organizations are undoubtedly objective, but not material objects. Buildings, equipment and even people are, in principle, multifunctional. Material carriers of organizational relations - instructions, schedules, subordination and others - are manifested only through the behavior of people and the relationships between them. But at the same time, they constitute a special non-individual reality that does not depend on specific people.
Organizations are the most common form of labor cooperation of people, organized group behavior. The efficiency of production and the economic potential of society largely depend on them. Organizations implement industrial relations, relations of power, communication, etc.
The rapid increase in the number of organizations is one of the signs of industrialization and the nature of the development of society as a whole. Improving organizations is an important source of increasing economic growth. There are also significant reserves of social progress here. Society creates organizations in abundance as a means of solving its problems, and the number of organizations in society is constantly increasing. The organization also covers previously unorganized areas of society (leisure).
At the same time, with all their advantages, organizations have certain limitations, namely, the particularity of the tasks they solve and the absoluteness of their own goals. To overcome the danger of “running away” targets that arises here, superorganizations, that is, organizations of the second and higher levels, engaged in the integration not of people, but of the lower-level organizations themselves. Society turns into a unified and continuous organizational system: Where one organization ends, another begins. Possessing one or another level of organizational potential becomes an important indicator of the level of development of society.
Organizational structures, norms, boundaries are an important component of the environment modern man and largely predetermining his life activity. Formalized organizational relations are artificial in nature; they are specially set and purposefully introduced into the social environment. Being impersonal and unambiguous, they have relative stability and independence in the system of social relations. It is also known that organizational forms are characterized by certain conservatism, durability, and a tendency to resist change.
Organizations are integral, independent worlds. And they all unite into the grandiose world of organizations.
At one time, K. Marx described technology as “second nature”, which humanity placed between itself and the environment. In the same way, the world of organizations can be defined as a special, “third nature” generated by social relations and occupying a specific place in them. It is comparable to the place of technology in society and, to a certain extent, also determines its condition.

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

The history of the sociology of organizations begins after the emergence of the organizations themselves, especially with the formation of industrial society, that is, somewhere in the middle of the 19th century. It is difficult to establish a more precise date, since it is impossible to distinguish the line where practical findings on the construction and functioning of organizations develop into science.
Western sociology of organizations of the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries. developed in the struggle of concepts. Some of them generalized the emerging practice, others tried to dictate their theoretical constructions to it, but in general it must be admitted that the realities of life prevailed, and science followed them.
Western science of organizations is often accused of having always been of an applied nature and lacking a general methodological basis. These reproaches are largely fair. But in addition to the justifying argument - the high final effectiveness of research in this area of ​​Western theorists and practitioners - one can also give an explanatory argument: this science was directly in demand by the practice of developing industrial market production and not only did not at first imply any abstract theorizing, but in general was considered as a science neither first nor second, or even not considered as such at all.
However, the consolidation of industrial production and the development of science have led to an increase in the demand for methodology and theory of organization development. But, firstly, the evolution of science, the traditions of its practical orientation in themselves provided Western captains of industry with interesting material to apply to their own experience. And, secondly, gradually and steadily they began to realize: improving organization and management is an important reserve for survival and prosperity. Capitalism has “wised up” and highly appreciated the new opportunities in competition: not only through expensive technical re-equipment or a change in manufactured products can you win big, but through changing organizational structures, norms, connections, management style, etc.
At first, domestic organizational science arose not much later than in the West. Through the works of A. Bogdanov, A. Chastev, P. Kerzhentsev and many other scientists and practitioners, an impressive breakthrough was made in the creation of organizational science. But Stalinism forcibly interrupted such a promising process. This science woke up from the shock only in the 60s, but under new conditions. Which ones?
Let's note three main ones.
- Centralized, command system for managing the national economy.
- The dictate of Marxist-Leninist ideology and on that basis is an exposing pathos in relation to “ideological enemies.”
- Available information about Western sociology of organizations, the presence, albeit fragmentary and dosed, of Western experience in this science.
An increasing number of Soviet sociologists, forced to work in such a painful atmosphere of the first two conditions, nevertheless sought to make maximum use of the third. They understood well that there are inherent laws of development of organizations that are common to all modern economic systems. They were aware that world experience cannot be ignored and science cannot be built anew. Even in critical speeches and publications, they found the opportunity to seriously analyze Western experience and convey it to their listeners, readers, as well as existing customers - enterprise managers.
But it is natural that the specifics of the domestic national economy and its organizational structures were the focus of attention of Soviet researchers and affected the tasks of Soviet organizational science.
The sociology of organizations in our country seemed to be built on a single Marxist-Leninist methodology. But in reality, this increasingly came down to formal and ritual “bows” to the general secretaries, congresses of the CPSU, quotes from Lenin and Marx, and abuse of capitalism and “bourgeois science.” The fact is that Soviet reality moved so far away from the ideas of the classics - the great projectors - that it could not stand any comparison with their criteria.
In the 70s, within the framework of the Soviet Sociological Association, a section “Sociology of Organizations” was formed under the leadership of prof. N.I. Lapina. A seminar of the same name began to be held monthly in Moscow. Gradually, their participants began to work more and more in the mode "active sociology", bring your research to the level of organizational diagnostics, develop and apply methods not only for analysis, but also for solving organizational problems with new sociological methods.
In post-Soviet times main line Intensification of work in the sociology of organizations, as throughout the world, in our country went through consultant-client relationships. A practically working sociologist of organizations has become a consultant on organizational problems, and the consumer of his services is enterprises and institutions. The success of these latter has become the main indicator of the professionalism and well-being of such a consultant.
In subsequent chapters, this side of the development of the sociology of organizations abroad and in Russia will be given a special place.

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

The peculiarity of the European tradition is historical view of the organization, special attention to the genetic aspects of the functioning of organizational structures at all levels of society, formulation of organizational problems in the light of general social reforms and development trends of a particular country.
Both of these features are interrelated, and it can be said that European sociology of organizations has moved from society as a macro-organization to organization as a micro-society.
The development of North American science in this area went, to a certain extent, in the opposite direction. The starting point there was not just business organizations, but rather even the elementary process of the employee’s labor act in them. The origins of this approach go back to the middle of the last century, when in 1832 the book by C. Wabage “On the Economics of Machine Production” was published in the USA, where the analysis of the performance of various works was brought to the center of management attention. So purely empirical orientation long determined the character of American sociology of organization and management. In addition, managers or even entrepreneurs themselves often acted as researchers of these issues in American industry, which also strengthened the practical orientation of American sociology of organizations.
The traditions of both continents could not help but interact, of course, and their mutual influence soon took its toll. Thus, in the works of American researchers, the social-critical tone intensified, and the philosophical development of organizational problems deepened. In Europe, overseas manipulation techniques were readily accepted, and a broad trend emerged social engineering. But one cannot help but see that, on the whole, American influence turned out to be stronger. French sociology has shown the greatest stability, but similar changes are growing there too.
Differences in Western sociology of organization are also found in the interpretation of basic concepts such as “organization,” “goal,” “structure,” etc. What is considered an organization? If we highlight communication as its primary element, then the organization acts as an impersonal structure of relationships, rationally constructed and balanced. Once a person is taken as the basis of a social organization, the organization turns out to be a community of people functioning according to the laws of a social group. When the defining element is called a goal, the organization is interpreted as a system of different-scale and mutually agreed upon goals, subgoals, tasks and assignments, in which the implementation of more specific goals and objectives contributes to the implementation of more general ones. Each concept builds its own image of the organization; in addition to those mentioned - as a system of social norms, a structure of statuses, a sequence of actions, a form of control, a method of division of labor, etc.
It is clear that such methodological diversity also developed under the influence of the economic development of society. Each significant stage in the evolution of production was reflected in the theory of organizational management in the form of far-reaching turns, the emergence of new approaches, the attenuation of previous ones and other changes. For example, the economic crisis of the late 20s and early 30s, numerous production “booms,” and changing stages of industrial development played a major role in the fate of science. Today, researchers are focusing on the consequences that the scientific and technological revolution caused in the theory of organizational management, as well as the reverse influence of this theory on scientific and technological revolution.
Thus, in the work of Z. Foss, the following main stages of industrial development of the United States are highlighted from the point of view of changes in the theory and practice of management: the first phase (1850 - 1950) - industry is focused exclusively on profit, the demand for products was only partially covered, management is completely in the hands of the highest managers and entrepreneurs, the main means of regulating relations with workers is wages. In the second phase (1951 - 1970), the stage of commodity accumulation was reached, but large-scale production faced new socio-economic difficulties of a highly organized nature. In working with personnel, the functions of top, middle and lower management levels were divided, and a decentralized and more motivating management strategy was developed. In the current, third phase, an awareness of the close connection between technology, economics, social processes and ecology has taken shape. This entailed a revision of the role of man in production, the influence of production on the living environment and social relations, etc. Each of these stages put forward a number of organizational concepts inherent in it.
To a certain extent, the organizational development of management science itself coincides with this. Thus, in J. Magee’s book “The Process of Management Science,” the following milestones of this process over the past 20 years in England are noted: 1950 - 1960 - scientists were little involved in organizing enterprises, few specialists were trained, universities were aloof from this matter, the connection with practice, only limited problems were solved; 1960 - 1970 - growing interest in organizations at universities (if in 1962 social courses were taught at 6 universities, then in 1968 - at 37), the production of specialists increased, quantitative methods spread, and there was more theoretical work; 1970 - awareness of the possibilities and boundaries of science and management itself, integration of socio-psychological, functional and statistical areas of analysis, emphasis on quality characteristics object.
The influence of related sciences and activities is also obvious: research into global environmental problems, improvement of technical and social forecasting, system analysis, etc. Of course, the sociology of organizations also has its own logic that predetermines its development.

"Models" of organization

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

Some lessons

The evolution of the methodology of Western sociology shows organizations that today's results are fundamentally different from the initial settings. Indeed: in the first models, efficiency was directly associated with high formalization, organizational creativity was entirely attributed to managers, fragmentation of the labor process into the simplest elements and narrow specialization meant high productivity. The worker's motives were reduced to primitive economic needs; the personal and social content of intra-organizational relations was considered a hindrance. In modern concepts, the emphasis is on the use of informal regulatory mechanisms, a reserve of productivity is found in the employee’s initiative, complex work acts as an additional motive, the psychological and social needs of the individual are brought to the center of management attention. So, most organizational factors are now assessed with the opposite sign.
The main direction of this evolution can be defined as movement from hard determinism to statistical laws. Mechanical causality in the understanding of organizational processes presupposed the complete dominance of purposeful influence in the organization, total controllability of the behavior of its members and goals. The probabilistic approach is based on the relative autonomy and spontaneity inherent to one degree or another in the functioning of an organization. This means limited management capabilities and recognition of high self-organization.
Such a reorientation could not do without methodological restructuring. More subtle methods turned out to be necessary for operating with a subject that was partially closed to science. The organization has ceased to be understandable, its elements no longer measurable. Now it has to be treated as a “black box”, about which only its “inputs” and “outputs” are known, and only a combination of manipulation experience with precise knowledge of the internal mechanism allows one to count on effective management of the organization. While attempts to determine, for example, the purpose of the organization are ineffective, it becomes elusive. The same with structure: accepting the coexistence of the formal and informal in an organization requires constant fixation of each of them, solving the problem of their interaction. However, the constant “floatiness” of the unprogrammed part of the organization makes the solution of such a task difficult to accomplish, and therefore methodologically ineffective. This is the case with motivation, decisions, etc.
IN last years There is a growing new trend in the systemic construction of an organization, which has not yet received final sociological expression, but is also penetrating the work of sociologists. The methodological credo of this direction can be called the well-known thesis of W. Ashby about “necessary diversity”. The principle “only diversity can absorb diversity” becomes the key to analysis and construction organizational systems. The “curse of multidimensionality,” which hangs over social organizations more than over technical, biological, etc. systems, can be removed or weakened, but not so much by reducing diversity in the system, but by increasing diversity in the regulator. Management not only allows, but also presupposes multiple states of an object, employee initiative, group autonomy, multiple goals, etc. In this case, targeted influence stops at a certain boundary in the hope that within certain limits (often unusually wide) self-organization will “work” more effectively.
The practical implementation of these ideas in a number of Western European countries and the United States has gone much further than the theoretical developments of the issue.
Not always quite consciously, sometimes almost intuitively pursuing this approach, industrial management discovered a real “internal market” in enterprises, where a measure of freedom (so to speak, non-management) is given a measure of productivity. The development of this “market” is based on fundamental changes in views on the place and capabilities of the employee in the organization and methods of working with him.

§3. DOMESTIC SOCIOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another important concept of research, in which certain problems of the sociology of organization were directly or indirectly posed, was work on social management.
One of the first who began to develop this issue in Soviet literature in terms of “communist self-government” was Yu. E. Volkov. From his point of view, social management includes, firstly, the management of social processes in a team, and secondly, the solution of social problems themselves production management. “Operational production management always includes not only production and technical, but also social aspects; management decisions, even of a “purely” production nature, usually have one or another social significance.” This position was important for expanding the scope of sociological research in the field of management. Yu. E. Volkov also proposed a number of key tasks of social management: progressive changes in the social structure of the production team, the formation of cohesion, collectivism, and expanding the participation of workers in management.
A similar analysis of the problems of the functioning of labor collectives in our society was given in the book by V.N. Ivanov “The labor collective is a subject of social management.” But this already contains an attempt to characterize the system of social management methods as ways of influencing workers, groups, and collectives in the process of implementing the intended tasks and realizing the goals of the enterprise. The author saw the specificity of social management methods in their focus on coordinating activities and uniting people into a single team. The typology of these methods is also given: the development and formulation of social goals, rallying the team around social goals, taking into account the interests of groups and individuals, changing living conditions in accordance with social goals, implementing educational, pedagogical and socio-psychological tasks, selecting, placing and promoting personnel, involving team members in active activities.

The task of developing applied sociology of management was posed in their joint book by A. A. Zvorykin and S. T. Guryanov: “Figuratively, we are building a conventional cube of applied sociology of management, where along three sides in decimal gradation we set aside three types of problems, the intersection of which in the volume of the cube gives all types of aspects of applied sociology of management. On the first facet we put aside methods, techniques and means of management, on the second facet - the main problems associated with the laws and mechanisms of all main types of management of people and groups... On the third facet - problems of managing the national economy with distinguishing branches of activity..." Next, the content of each type of problem is revealed. It is important to note that an attempt was made here to integrate social management into the broader context of managing social, economic, and organizational systems as a whole.

The collective monograph “The Work Collective as an Object and Subject of Management,” edited by A.S., was devoted to analyzing the place of work collectives in the system of management relations. Pashkova, published by the Research Institute of Complex Social Research of Leningrad University. The authors noted that the work collective is “a relatively independent stable integral social system, an objective social formation that has a certain organization, its own internal structure, and corresponding governing bodies.” This book contained some important provisions that brought the problems of the collective closer to the problems of the sociology of labor organizations. This can already be seen in the identification of the fundamental characteristics of the team. It acts as a specific organization of people, united by joint labor activity. A team is “a cooperation of labor that presupposes the unity of people’s actions and their common goal - optimization of work activity, increasing their efficiency, a comprehensively developed personality.” The third of the features highlighted here is the presence of group, collective interest. From the point of view of place in management relations, the following are distinguished: the administration, the collective of workers and employees, and public organizations and their bodies. Characterizing the position of the collective in the political system, the authors point out: being grassroots mass institutions of the system, they perform important functions of including individuals in certain forms of social and labor activity, participation in the affairs of society, and personal education.

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

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

A number of problems in the sociology of organizations were, to one degree or another, analyzed and solved in line with the then widespread social planning at enterprises in our country. Some of the works mentioned above were carried out in this context. These included problems such as the participation of workers in management, ways to connect the interests of the employee with the goals of organizations, and through them with the interests of society, the development of the material and technical base of organizations and the implementation of team stability, etc. Of the numerous works in this area, it is worth noting the monographs of N. I. Lapina, N. F. Naumova, E. M. Korzhevoy “Theory and practice of social planning” (1975), Zh. T. Toshchenko “Social planning in the USSR” (1981). However, the problems of participation considered in them are only limitedly associated with organizational and managerial relations and structures of enterprises and institutions.

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

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

Post-Soviet period

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

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

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

1. Definition of an organization and its internal structure.

2. Management of organizations.

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

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

1. Definition of an organization and its internal structure

In everyday practice, the concept of “organization” is often used, and a wide variety of contents are attached to it. A.I.Prigozhin gives the three most common meanings of the term “organization” (Prigozhin A.I. Sociology of Organizations. M., 1980. P.39-41).

Firstly, organization means some activity to develop new norms, establish stable connections, and coordinate the efforts of individual members of a social group. This activity is best characterized by the word "organizing." In other words, this is an activity aimed solely at achieving a synergy effect by providing conditions for coordinated actions, cooperation and integration of individuals in a group. For example, a manager organizes a production process. This means that he must place people at work in such a way that continuity and speed of operations are ensured. In addition, he must ensure interchangeability and establish production standards, working hours, interaction between site workers and suppliers, etc. This activity is called organizing the production process.

Secondly, organization is often understood as an attribute of an object, its property of having an ordered structure. This means that a social object has a certain internal structure and consists of parts that are connected in a certain way. Typically, the term "organization" in this sense is used to distinguish between organized and unorganized structures. They say, in particular, that a group is organized if it has stable social roles (that is, everyone performs their part of the common task), rules governing the behavior of people, as well as orderly connections with surrounding groups.

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

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

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

Definition of organization. There are many definitions of organization, from which the concept of organization as a rational system, or a system aimed at achieving a goal, usually stands out. There are four areas in defining an organization:

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

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

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

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

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

An organization is primarily a social group focused on achieving interrelated and specific goals. Each organization is expedient in the sense that the actions of its members are coordinated in a certain way to achieve a common result for it in a very specific area of ​​human activity. Thus, an enterprise exists to ensure the production of specific products, a political party - to implement a political program, a hospital - to treat the sick.

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

Based on the listed main specific features, we can define an organization as a social group focused on achieving interrelated specific goals and the formation of highly formalized structures.

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

Elements of organization. Organizations are highly fluid and highly complex social entities. However, their analysis must begin with a fairly simple model.

Schematic diagram of the organization

Let's consider the individual elements of this model.

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

Normative structure includes values, norms, and role expectations. Values ​​are criteria for attractiveness and reasonable choice of goals, as well as assessment of surrounding social norms. Norms are generalized rules governing behavior that change and improve, leading individuals to achieve collective goals and organizational goals. Roles determine the contribution to the overall activity depending on the position occupied, as well as the mutual expectations of the participants and mutual control over their behavior. Values, norms, and roles are organized so that they constitute relatively cohesive and enduring systems of mutual trust and prescriptions that govern the behavior of organizational members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three interrelated types of organizational goals.

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

2) Goal-orientations are a set of goals of participants realized through the organization. This includes the generalized goals of the team, which also include the personal goals of each member of the organization. An important point joint activity is the combination of goals-tasks and goals-orientations. If they diverge significantly, motivation to achieve goals and objectives is lost and the organization’s work may become ineffective. In an effort to fulfill goal-orientations, members of the organization brush aside goals-tasks or strive to fulfill them only formally.

3) System goals are the desire to preserve the organization as an independent whole, i.e. maintain balance, stability and integrity. In other words, this is the organization’s desire to survive in the existing external environment, the integration of the organization among others. The goals of the system must fit organically into the task goals and orientation goals. In cases of organizational pathology, system goals may overshadow other goals. At the same time, the desire to preserve the organization at any cost comes to the fore, regardless of its completion of tasks or satisfaction of the collective goals of the participants. This phenomenon is often observed at extreme levels of bureaucracy, when an organization, having lost its real goals, exists only to survive and maintain its independence.

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

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

4. Technology. An organization from a technological point of view is a place where a certain type of work is performed, where the energy of participants is used to transform materials or information. The concept of “technology” is usually attributed to three meanings. First, technology is often thought of as a system of physical objects that make up an organization. These can be machines, materials, duplicating means, transmitting and receiving equipment, etc. Secondly, technology is understood in a narrow, “mechanical” sense. A car and a radio differ only in that human energy is applied to them differently; Various actions are performed in relation to them, necessary for their production. In this understanding, technology is physical objects connected to human activity. Thirdly, the term “technology” is used to denote the totality of what people know about the processes occurring in a given area of ​​the organization’s functioning. An organization cannot engage in any kind of activity without knowing how to use the funds, transform them and implement them. Technology in this understanding (this is called “know-how”) is systematized knowledge of useful and most rational practical actions.

Currently, the technology model of Charles Perrault has become widely known. His argument brought together methods of product manufacturing, organizational decision making, and the influence of social structure.

Rice. 2 Technology model of C. Perrault

The vertical axis in the diagram shows to what extent it is possible to use analytical methods for solving problems in a given process. A high degree of analyticality allows you to decompose the process going on in an organization into separate operations and create an algorithm for it. The process can be automated or reorganized to work with less skilled workers, e.g. The complexity of operations can be reduced only if its algorithm exists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bridging strategies are designed to streamline the organization's exchange relations, expand the boundaries of business contacts, and acquire new spheres of influence in the external environment. These strategies include increasing the interdependence of various organizations, controlling each other. The most typical strategies of this kind are the strategy of concluding deals, the strategy of mutual diffusion, the strategy of searching for new areas of application of the organization’s forces, etc.

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

Slide 11.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Innovative feature. The sociology of organizations is a socially active, creative science. It is directly related to social innovation, social, organizational and management projects, to the launch of creative processes in organizational systems. New challenges arise here - explore organizations as an area of ​​social innovation and creativity, develop problems of managing creative processes in organizations.

· Heuristic, creative function. Heuristics is the science of creativity, of leading to new ideas, thoughts and solutions. The sociology of organizations is deeply heuristic and has enormous creative potential. Her task is create new knowledge, new ideas on “your profile”, knowledge that is necessary in the course of social changes, new social and humanitarian technologies, new requirements for modern management organizations.

· Expert function. The sociology of organizations acts as an organizational examination, audit, and consulting. She may well give objective analysis of organizational systems, their shortcomings and advantages, analytical analysis of the organization's management system. Its expert function is aimed against illiterate managerial and organizational decisions, unfounded social reforms and projects, and at assessing the effectiveness and humanity of the organization's systems.

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

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

5. Relationship between the sociology of organizations and other sciences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The connection between the sociology of organizations and economic science, economic sociology determined by the peculiarities of property relations, market and government regulation, knowledge of micro- and macroeconomic aspects of the functioning of economic entities, problems of efficiency and its measurements, methods of economic stimulation.

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

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

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

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

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

Slide 12.1.

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

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

1. Make a conceptual table “The image of an organization and their characteristics” based on the article by Morgan G. Paradigms, metaphors and problem solving in organization theory // Organization Theory: Reader. 2nd ed./Trans. from English edited by T.N. Klemina; Graduate School of Management St. Petersburg State University. St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Higher School of Management", 2010. P. 2-22 or Morgan G. Images of the organization / Transl. from English M.: Publishing house "Mann, Ivanov and

Ferber", 2008.

2. Make a report on the chapter from Adizes, I. Corporate Life Cycle Management / Trans. from English under scientific ed. A. G. Seferyan. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2008.

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

SOCIOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS is a branch of sociology that studies the patterns of construction, functioning and development of mainly labor organizations - enterprises and institutions. The main problem of the sociology of organizations is the relationship between personal and impersonal factors in organizations, the individual and the general in them, leadership and subordination, various goals, etc.

In Western sociology of organizations there is no single methodological basis; there is a great diversity of approaches and traditions. Thus, if in the North American sociology of organizations there is a predominant interest in purely applied aspects of organizational relations, social engineering methods of increasing them production efficiency, then the Western European tradition is characterized by a view of the organization as a micro-society with its own quasi-political conflicts. In general, the evolution of Western sociology of organizations has gone through several stages, each of which built its own model of organization. Under the name of Taylorism, the model of organizing the labor process is known for its emphasis on the primary unit of organization - “man-labor”, which in turn is broken down into elementary components, and the worker here acts as a passive appendage of production. In the “organization-machine” (A. Fayol, L. Urwick, etc.), the impersonal mechanism of formalized connections and norms is distinguished, first of all, where a person appears only in a functional manifestation. The “bureaucratic model” (M. Weber) is similar to the previous concept of extreme rationalization of organizational relations due to the displacement of the personal element from them. “Organization-community” (E. Mayo, F. Roethlisberger, etc.), as a reaction to the failures of previous models, puts the psychology of communication, collective self-organization, informal norms and connections in the spotlight. The “sociotechnical model” (E. Trist, A. Raie, etc.) emphasizes the interdependence of various technologies and forms of group relations. The “interactionist model” (C. Bernard, G. Simon, etc.) interprets the organization as a system of long-term interactions between employees, including formal and informal components, the interests of individuals and the goals of the organization. In such a system, management rationality is only partial, and unforeseen phenomena play a large role. “Natural organization” (R. Merton, A. Etzioni, etc.) considers the functioning of an organization as a self-perfecting process, while it itself is a homeostatic system. The goal is only one of the results of functioning; deviation from the goal is not an error, but a pattern. Thus, the sociology of organizations has evolved from deterministic concepts of organization to uncertainty, even blurring of its object.

Domestic sociology of organizations considers organizational relations as a manifestation of broader societies and relationships, directly linking the construction and functioning of organizations with the specifics of the social system, with specific problems and objectives of societies and development. Domestic sociologists have been developing problems of the sociology of organizations since the mid-1960s. Their focus is on optimizing the relationship between formal and informal structures, improving leadership style, increasing the manageability of organizations, making and implementing management decisions, introducing new forms of labor organization, participating in the development of general decisions, planning and implementing innovative processes, etc.

A.I. Prigogine

Sociological Dictionary / resp. ed. G.V. Osipov, L.N. Moskvichev. M, 2014, p. 470-471.

Literature:

Prigozhin A.I. Modern social organizations. M., 1995; Calverton M. Management consulting. M., 1999; Prigozhin A.I. Methods of development of organizations. M., 2003; It's him. Disorganization. Causes, types, overcoming. M., 2007.