Classical theory of scientific management. Basic theories of management. Theories of "human relations"

Introduction

1. Prerequisites for the emergence of management science

2. Brief description of the main provisions of the school of scientific management

3. Practical aspects of the application of the main provisions of the school by its followers and their significance at the present stage

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The early period of development of the theory of organizations is characterized primarily by the weakness of the organization's management system, the uncertainty of management functions. This is mainly due to the fact that the owner and manager were combined in one person, which resulted in a small number of managers and a lack of specialization in the implementation of managerial tasks.

As a result of the separation of the owner of the enterprise from the process of production management, which occurred after the collapse of the factory system of labor organization and the emergence of large-scale machine production, a specialized management apparatus appeared, whose tasks included monitoring the activities of ordinary members of the organization and taking measures to improve the efficiency of their work.

One of the first theoretical schools that considered the problems of organization theory was the so-called classical school of scientific management. The basis of the organizational theories of this school is the idea of ​​rationalization of all components of the organization, in other words, the orientation of all structural units of the organization towards its goals, general expediency. Achieving the universal expediency of rationality is, first of all, a rigid hierarchy of management of all organs and positions of the organization, which contributes to the implementation of the most rigorously comprehensive formal control. It is obvious that the creation of a system of such control is possible only under the condition of a clear distribution of functions (rights and duties) between the members of the organization, and, therefore, requires the development of interrelated role requirements, cutting off unnecessary actions, simplification and maximum rationalization of existing technologies.

The founder of the classical theory of scientific management is the American engineer and scientist F.W. Taylor, whose name is given to the direction in the theory of organizations - "Taylorism". The slogans of this direction were: “coordination”, “integration” and “control”. The followers of Taylorism paid special attention to the problem of workers, the solution of which was to make production operations as easy as possible, to streamline the remuneration system through the introduction of piecework wages and to ensure labor safety.

1. Prerequisites for the emergence of management science

Taylor believed that the work of each individual worker should be paid according to the result. His approach was in clear opposition to the norms of the trade unionists, who professed ideas of collective solidarity and therefore opposed what seemed to Taylor to be the natural desire of first-class people to achieve material prosperity and promotion based on their talents. Taylor denied the existence of an insurmountable conflict between capital and labor; on the contrary, he believed that they had common interests. The cooperation of the company's managers and workers is the key to the success of the enterprise and its economic growth, which is beneficial to everyone. Presenting his theory of scientific management in 1911, Taylor spoke of it as the source of the nation's future prosperity:

The main goal of management should be to ensure the maximum prosperity of employers, coupled with the maximum prosperity of all employees. The words "maximum prosperity" are used here in a broad sense; they mean not only serious dividends for the company or for its owner, but also bringing all aspects of business activity to perfection, which is the key to the permanence of this prosperity. At the same time, the maximum prosperity for each person of wage labor means not only a high level of wages for this category of workers, but, more importantly, the development of each person to the highest possible level of industrial perfection for him.

That the maximum good for the employer, together with the maximum good for the wage earners, should be the two main objectives of management seems so self-evident that it could be left out. However, there is no doubt that in the industrialized world the majority of employers' and wage-workers' organizations favor war rather than peace, and probably most on both sides do not believe that anything can be achieved. that is a community of interests. Most consider these interests to be exclusively antagonistic. As for scientific management, it proceeds from the opposite thesis about the common interests of the parties; the well-being of the employer cannot be of any duration if it is not accompanied by the well-being of the workers, and vice versa.

This provision makes unfounded Taylor's accusations that he allegedly considered workers to be something like robots and only sought to increase the level of production, while completely neglecting the human factor. Instead, we are dealing with the demand that workers be able to grow according to their skills and with the realization that the well-being of workers should never be sacrificed for the purpose of maximizing profits.

We have already said that Taylor in 1893 joined Bethlehem Steel as a consultant, where he developed the theory of scientific management. He was strongly supported by Joseph Wharton, the founder of the first business school in America and the main shareholder of Bethlehem Steel. Operational management of the company was weak, and Taylor's ideas were met with hostility by management. By the time he joined Bethlehem Steel, Taylor had already worked successfully as a consultant for the Simonds Rolling Machine Company, which made rolling bearings for bicycles. In this company, he studied the work of the quality control department, in which 120 women were involved in identifying bearing defects. These women worked 10-12 hours a day for 6 days a week, and this work, according to Taylor, "required intense attention and concentration, which caused nervous strain in the controllers, even if their workplaces were properly equipped." He decided that the work of these women was ineffective due to the aforementioned overstrain due to the excessive length of the working day. Instead of doing work, women tried in every possible way to rid themselves of boredom. Taylor was a proponent of introducing adequate rest periods that would allow workers to "work during work and rest during breaks without mixing them together." Changing working methods, a significant reduction in the length of the working day, careful selection of employees, the introduction of breaks for rest and incentive payments made it possible to reduce the number of controllers from 120 to 35 and significantly improve the quality of control. The wages of these women increased by an average of 80-100%, the duration of their working day was reduced by two hours, and each of them felt that "she is the subject of special care and interest on the part of the management, and if something happens to her not so she can always turn to the administration for help and advice." Such a significant reduction in the number of jobs (resulting in layoffs rather than labor displacement) undoubtedly caused both workers and unions well-founded alarm.

During Taylor's time at Bethlehem Steel, he was assisted by Henry Gantt, who worked at Midvale Steel and exercised some control over Simonds operations. He was also joined by Dwight W. Merrick, an expert in timekeeping, and Karl Barth, a mathematician who invented the slide rule to solve many of the complex equations Taylor used to describe metal cutting. While working at Bethlehem Steel, Taylor worked in two directions: he continued his research in the field of metallurgy and metalworking, and at the same time improved his job management system. In fact, in his works, discoveries in the field of metalworking (especially metal cutting) often coexist with measures to rationalize and standardize the production process, which make it possible to increase its efficiency. He was able to show that the combined use of the scientific theory of machining and the methods of management developed by him could lead to a revolutionary change in the very essence of the production process. According to Taylor, a firm's long experience in a certain area does not give it much advantage in terms of increasing production efficiency. Rather, something the opposite is observed - such firms usually adhere to once and for all routines, that is, they are rather uncritically related to the methods of production they use. Accordingly, he was a supporter of a separate consideration of the functions of machine operators and managers. Taylor writes: “If intelligent and sufficiently educated people find that the possible progress in this or that branch of mechanical production is connected not with the workers employed in this production, but precisely with themselves, they inevitably embark on the path of developing scientific methods of production, designed to replace the traditional methods and empirical knowledge that existed before.

This clear separation of the functions of managers and workers implies that the former will make all the important decisions that determine the methods of production, while the latter will more or less passively assume the role assigned to them in the production process. Of course, Taylor's "managers" did not at all resemble the former managers and foremen, for they were representatives of the technical elite who had assimilated the principles and methods of Taylorism. To the objections that a clear distinction between the work of those who manage and those who are managed negatively affects the labor activity of workers, Taylor replied that, with proper attitude to the selection of personnel, it is possible to recruit only such workers who will satisfy the requirements determined by specific aspects of this production process. He expressed his position by naming its three fundamental principles:

1) replacement of decisions made by the worker performing this function with scientifically based decisions;

2) scientific selection and training of workers, requiring the study of their qualities, education and training ... instead of their unsystematic selection and training; and

3) close cooperation between managers and workers, allowing them to carry out their work in accordance with established scientific laws and patterns, and not an arbitrary solution of each individual problem by an individual worker.

Taylor's attempts to substantiate and reinforce the idea that his analysis of the work gave rise to "scientific laws" seem highly dubious. However, despite the fact that his methods in some cases caused active rejection by both managers and workers, he was able to show that knowledge of the technical aspects of production, coupled with timing and the use of material incentives, can significantly increase the degree of production efficiency. . Of course, he was aware that the increase in the level of technical complexity of production requires an increase in the level of managerial control. Naturally, the degree of autonomy of the individual worker in such a situation is severely limited. In order to be convinced of the viability of the production methods developed by Taylor, it is enough to visit any automobile manufacturer. However, the most famous was not Taylor's theory of managing the interaction of complex technologies and the work of an individual worker, but the situation he studied, in which the level of technical complexity is negligibly small and the significant qualities of the worker are limited by his physical strength and endurance. In 1899, Taylor undertook a systematic study of the work of workers in the so-called "yard" of Bethlehem Steel. The number of such workers was about 400 or 600 people, they were divided into separate teams, which were managed by foremen who once acted as warehouse workers themselves. Their duties consisted mainly in unloading wagons and platforms and storing bulk materials. Then they were engaged in transshipment of raw materials (ore, coke, limestone, sand, coal, etc.) and their transportation to blast and open-hearth furnaces. Among other things, warehouse workers were engaged in the transportation and loading of finished products (pig iron) from furnaces and billets from rolling mills to railway platforms intended for the export of products outside the plant. The workers were paid $1.15 a day and, as Taylor was told, "worked confidently, but very slowly; yet nothing could make them work faster."

Using the services of a specially trained assistant, Taylor tried to determine how much work a first-class worker could do without overstressing. He used his task management system, breaking down the work into separate elements and timing the execution of each of them. After determining the duration of individual elements of work and taking into account the time necessary for the rest of the workers, he came to the conclusion that a first-class worker is able to load daily 45-48 tons of pig iron. The average amount of cast iron per one member of the team, which employed from 5 to 20 people, was only about 12-13 tons per day. Taylor proposed a 60% increase (that is, to $1.85) in the daily wages of workers capable of shipping 47 tons of pig iron per day. He selected a suitable worker, a Dutch immigrant named Henry Nolle, and after training him in proper working methods, gave him such a task.

Nollet dealt with it, after which Taylor, despite the protests of many workers, managed to transfer warehouse workers from time to piecework wages. It took him two years to do this. Here is what he writes in this connection: “When the author left the ironworks, the pieceworkers of Bethlehem were the best group of workers he had ever seen. Almost all of them were people of the first class, because they could cope with tasks that only such people could do. These tasks were deliberately chosen so difficult that only every fifth (at best) worker could cope with them. Each newcomer immediately knew that he would either earn his $1.85 a day or be forced to give up his seat to someone else. Perhaps the most significant difference between these workers and other pieceworkers was their significantly different attitude towards the employer and towards work, as well as their complete absence of pretense of any kind.

There is nothing surprising in the fact that this seemed to be irrefutable evidence of his desire to achieve maximum production efficiency at any cost, with complete oblivion of the human factor, although, as we have already shown above, such a conclusion, to put it mildly, did not correspond to reality; however, the early rejection of the "speed of production" led to the fact that Taylorism to this day has a rather dubious reputation. At one time, the methods of Taylor himself, as well as those of his followers and like-minded people, provoked such a strong reaction from American labor unions that he even appeared before a special committee of Congress created specifically to deal with such production management systems.

In August 1911, at the army depots in Watertown, Massachusetts, there was the first protest against scientific management, which by that time had received this name. General William Croisier, head of the ordnance department, after studying Taylor's experience, came to the conclusion that scientific management methods could be used in army depots. Croisier chose Watertown and Rock Island, Illinois as test sites for these methods, and brought in Dwight W. Merrick (who worked at Bethlehem Steel under Taylor) as a consultant. Although the preliminary phase of work in Watertown was quite successful, the International Engineering Association began agitation among the workers of Rhode Island against the timing of manufacturing operations. It soon became clear that the workers' organizations and especially the trade unions were embarking on a joint campaign against the introduction and spread of scientific management. Taylor advised Croisier to be extremely cautious and introduce scientific management gradually, taking each step only after serious consultation with the workers. Subsequently, he considered the main cause of the problems that arose in Watertown, not so much the resistance of the union, but the lack of proper communication. However, whatever the underlying causes of the Watertown strike, the immediate cause of it was the dismissal of a foundry worker who refused to help Merrick, who was involved in the timing of operations. Although the riots in Watertown did not last long, they were the subject of special consideration by Congress, and it was believed that the reason for them was the mistreatment of workers due to attempts by the administration to introduce Taylorist methods.

The Special House Committee, established by the House of Congress to investigate the causes of the unrest, included William B. Wilson, formerly of the miners' union and later chairman of the House Labor Committee and President Wilson's labor secretary, William S. Redfield, businessman, who became Secretary of Commerce under President Wilson; and John C. Tilson, the only Republican representative on the committee. The atmosphere was quite heavy and hostile; as Wren writes, “hounded and humiliated, Taylor finished his testimony and staggered down from the pulpit, feeling that the Congressional committee had trampled his life’s work into the dirt” (Wren, 1994, p. 125). However, the commission could not come to a definite decision. She failed to prove that scientific management violates the rights of workers, and accordingly she did not pass any legislative decisions restricting its use. However, clauses were introduced in the appropriations bill that prohibited the use of such methods, and above all the use of a stopwatch.

Taylor's testimony given by the Special House Committee runs to 280 pages; most of them are his answers to Wilson's questions. Generally speaking, Wilson believed that the combination of scientific management, improved production methods, and new technologies led to the disappearance of the remnants of worker control over the production process and to unemployment. Naturally, his position on this issue exactly coincides with the position of the majority of trade unions, who had a negative attitude towards scientific management. As a fresh look, a Marxist analysis of this phenomenon was presented in the works of Harry Braverman, which appeared in the 70s. Taylor, on the other hand, proceeded from the fact that the revival of the economy due to the use of scientific management ultimately leads not to a decrease, but to an increase in employment. Workers who have lost their jobs due to innovation may find another job if they are willing to retrain and/or relocate. Wilson remained a supporter of the conclusion of a collective agreement, while Taylor defended the principle of individual material incentives.

2. Brief description of the main provisions of the school of scientific management

Harrington Emerson (1853-1931) was the son of a Presbyterian minister who believed in Protestant ideas of resource efficiency. Waste and inefficiency were the evils that, according to Emerson, permeated the entire American industrial system. According to Emerson, one of the biggest problems was the lack of organization. The twelve principles of efficiency that he defined, which became a new benchmark in the history of management development, were to contribute to the solution of these problems. A chapter was dedicated to each of the twelve principles; the first five chapters dealt with relationships between people, and the remaining chapters dealt with methods, institutions, and systems. The principles were not isolated, but interdependent and coordinated to create a structure for the formation of a management system.

In the preface, Emerson emphasized the basic premise: It was not labor, capital, or land that created and is creating modern wealth today. Ideas are what create wealth. And all that is required today are ideas that make wider use of natural conditions, as well as the reduction of labor, capital and land per unit of production. Ideas were the dominant force and they had to be focused on eliminating waste and creating a more efficient industrial system. The principles were the means to that end, and the basis of all principles was the linear form of organization. Emerson felt that the main disease of industry was defective organization.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

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

The formation of management as a scientific discipline took place in an evolutionary way. Clearly distinguishable schools of managerial thought developed in the first half of the 20th century. Chronologically, they can be presented in the following order:

• (1885-1920);
• (Administrative) School of Management (1920-1950);
• and behavioral sciences (1930-1950);
• school of quantitative methods (since 1950).

The founder of the school of scientific management, F. Taylor, tried to find an answer to the question: how to make the worker work like a machine? Representatives of this school created the scientific foundations of production and labor management. In the 1920s independent sciences emerged from this scientific direction: the scientific organization of labor (NOT), the theory of organization of production, etc.

The goal of the classical (administrative) school was to create universal principles and methods for the successful management of an organization. The founders of this school, A. Fayol and M. Weber, developed the principles and methods of managing an organization and wanted the whole organization to work like a machine.

The School of Human Relations placed the main emphasis on the collective, on increasing attention to the social needs of workers. The Behavioral Science School focused on interpersonal relationships, motivation, leadership, and the study of the individual abilities of individual workers.

A key characteristic of the school of quantitative methods is the replacement of verbal reasoning with models, symbols, and quantitative values. It is based on the achievements of such sciences as mathematics, cybernetics, statistics; on the use of mathematical methods and models in the preparation of management decisions.

School of Scientific Management

From the very beginning, she sought to find the most productive use of human and material resources.

The basis of the theories of this school is the idea of ​​rationalization of all components of the organization, the orientation of all structural units of the organization to its goals, general expediency.

The achievement of universal expediency and rationality in the organization is primarily a rigid hierarchy of management of all organs and positions of the organization, which contributes to the implementation of the most stringent comprehensive control.

Frederick W. Taylor(1856-1915) is considered the father of the classical theory of scientific management. The formation of the school of scientific management is associated with the publication in 1911 of his book "Principles of Scientific Management". He was the first to substantiate the need for a scientific approach to management in order to make the most productive use of human and material resources. Taylor was not interested in the effectiveness of the individual, but of the organization. In his approach to improving the management of the organization, priority is given to engineering solutions.

His theory provided for the unilateral influence of the control system on the worker and his subordination to the manager. Taylor considered the receipt of material remuneration for work and the interest in personal economic gain to be the motive and driving forces of labor activity.

Taylor put forward four scientific principles of management:

• introduction of economic methods of work;
• professional selection and training of personnel;
• rational placement of personnel;
• collaboration between management and employees.

Taylor's ideas were developed by his followers - G. Gant, F. Gilbraith, G. Emerson.

The concept of scientific management was a turning point, thanks to which management was recognized as an independent field of scientific research.

The merits of the school of scientific management are that its representatives:

• substantiated the need for scientific management of labor in order to increase its productivity;
• put forward the principles of the scientific organization of labor;
• approached the need to solve the problem of effective labor motivation.

However, the human factor practically remained outside the sphere of attention of this school.

Classical School of Management

She pursued such goals as increasing the efficiency of large groups of people and creating universal management principles that affected two main aspects:

• development of a rational structure of the organization;
• building on its basis a rational system of personnel management - a bureaucratic model.

Henri Fayol(1841-1925), French sociologist, considered the founder of the administrative school of government. Fayol's merit was that he divided all management functions into general, related to any field of activity, and specific, related directly to enterprise management.

According to Fayol, it is first necessary to create a well-thought-out structure, where there is no duplication of functions and unnecessary levels of management, and then to look for suitable employees, i.e. the principle of conformity of employees to the structure.

Classic organization model, formed on the basis of the developments of Fayol and his followers, is based on four principles:

• a clear functional division of labor;
• transmission of commands and orders from top to bottom;
• unity of management (“no one works for more than one boss”);
• observance of the principle of the range of control (management by a limited number of subordinates), which assumes that with an arithmetic increase in the number of subordinates, the number of possible connections between them that the manager has to control increases exponentially (L. Urwick).

Thus, according to the classical theory of organization, the latter must be built for workers.

Max Weber(1864-1920), a German sociologist, at about the same time analyzed the activities of bureaucratic systems, built a model of an ideal bureaucracy based on strictly regulated principles of hierarchical structure, and formulated the concept of rational management. From his point of view, the ideal, most effective management system is bureaucratic. Bureaucracy in an organization is characterized by:

• speed of decision making;
• efficiency in solving production issues;
• the rigidity of ties, which contributes to the stability of bureaucratic structures and a clear focus on achieving the goals of the organization.

Weber's most important idea adopted in management was the concept of social action.

According to this concept, the basis of the social order in society is only socially oriented and rational actions, and the task of the members of the organization should be considered

understanding of their own goals and subsequent optimization of their own activities. Each action of an employee in the organization must be rational in terms of both fulfilling his own role and achieving the overall goal of the organization. Rationality is the highest meaning and ideal of any enterprise or institution, and the ideal organization is characterized by extremely rational technology, communications and management.

However, the administrative school of management is characterized by ignoring the person and his needs. Its supporters tried to increase the efficiency of the organization bypassing the person, through the implementation of administrative procedures for managing the formal side of the organization. As a result, the administrative school, recognizing the importance of the human factor, failed to realize the significance of the effectiveness of labor motivation.

School of Human Relations

Concept ""- a new school of management theory - begins to develop in the 1930s. This school was born in response to the inability of the classical school to recognize the human factor as the main element of effective organization and management. Lack of attention to the human factor had a negative impact on the work of "rational organizations", which failed to increase efficiency, despite the availability of resources.

Elton Mayo(1880-1949), an employee of Harvard University, has a special place in the creation of the theory of "human relations". This American sociologist and psychologist conducted a series of experiments called the "Hawthorne experiments." Studying the influence of factors such as conditions, work organization, wages, interpersonal relationships, leadership style, he concluded that the human factor plays a special role in production.

The "Hawthorne Experiments" marked the beginning of research: relationships in organizations, taking into account psychological influences in groups, identifying motivation to work in interpersonal relationships, identifying the role of an individual and a small group in an organization.

Thus, the beginning of the use of sociology and sociological research in personnel management has been laid; in contrast to the approach to the employee from the standpoint of biologism, when such resources of the employee as physical strength, skills, intelligence (scientific and administrative schools of management) are mainly exploited, a member of the organization began to be considered from the point of view of a socio-psychological approach.

The motives of people's actions are mainly not economic factors, as the supporters of the scientific school of management believed, but various needs that can only be partially satisfied with the help of money.

According to W. White, which he expressed in the book "Money and Motivation", the classical concept is based on three false assumptions:

• man is a rational animal seeking to maximize his economic benefits;
• each individual responds to economic incentives as an isolated individual;
• people, like machines, can be treated in a standardized way.

Mayo and his followers were convinced that the conflict between the individual and the organization could be completely resolved if the social and psychological needs of workers were met, and entrepreneurs would only benefit from a sharp increase in labor productivity.

In general, the essence of the doctrine of "human relations" can be reduced to the following provisions:

• man is a "social animal" who can be free and happy only in a group;
• a person's work, if it is interesting and meaningful, can bring him no less pleasure than a game;
• the average person strives for responsibility, and this quality must be used in production;
• the role of economic forms of labor stimulation is limited, they are not the only and universal ones;
• the production organization is, among other things, the sphere of meeting the social needs of a person, solving the social problems of society;
• to improve the efficiency of the organization, it is necessary to abandon the principles of management based on the postulates of power relations, hierarchy, hard programming, specialization of labor.

M. Follet(1868-1933) was a prominent representative of this school. Her main merit is that she tried to combine the ideas of the three schools of management - scientific management, administrative and the school of human relations.

The essence of the concept of M. Follet is as follows:

• as the organization grows larger, the concept of “ultimate or central authority” is replaced by the theory of “functional or pluralistic authority”;
• it is impossible to solve the problems of organizational activity, management of subordinates from a position of strength;
• the psychological reaction of persons receiving orders should be taken into account;
• it is impossible to force workers to perform tasks satisfactorily if we confine ourselves to demands, orders and persuasion;
• it is necessary to depersonalize the issuance of orders, i.e. the work must be organized so that both the boss and the subordinate follow "what the situation requires."

Follet believed that conflict in labor collectives is not always destructive; in some cases it can be constructive. She identified three types of conflict resolution:

• "dominance" - the victory of one side over the other;
• "compromise" - an agreement reached through mutual concessions;
• “integration” is the most constructive reconciliation of contradictions, in which neither side sacrifices anything and both sides win.

The effectiveness of management, according to the supporters of the concept of "human relations", is determined by: an informal structure and, above all, a small group, the interaction of workers, common control, self-discipline, opportunities for creative growth, collective rewards, rejection of narrow specialization, rejection of one-man management, democratic style of leadership, conformity of the structure of the organization with employees, and not vice versa.

Supporters of the concept of "human relations" were unanimous in their opinion that a rigid hierarchy of subordination, the formalization of organizational processes are incompatible with human nature.

Thus, the human relations school focused on the human factor in achieving organizational effectiveness. But the problem has not been fully resolved.

School of Behavioral Sciences largely moved away from the school of human relations, focusing primarily on the methods of establishing human relations. The main goal of the school was to improve the efficiency of the organization by increasing its human resources.

R. Likert, D. MacGregor, A. Maslow, F. Herzberg are the most prominent representatives of the behavioral (behavioral) direction. They studied various aspects of social interaction, motivation, the nature of power and authority, leadership, organizational structure, communication in the organization, changes in the content of work and the quality of working life.

According to A. Maslow, a person has one system (hierarchy) of needs, and according to F. Herzberg, two are qualitatively different and independent:

• actualization factors, or motivators, are work and all the recognitions received due to it: achievement of success, recognition of merit, promotion, interest in work, responsibility, the possibility of growth. The use of these factors makes it possible to achieve a profound and sustainable change in time in the individual behavior of a person in the labor process. These are strong motivational stimuli, the result is a high-quality performance of work;
• atmospheric factors (or hygienic) - working conditions and the environment: wages, job security, company policy and activities, working conditions, status, technical supervision, relations with superiors, colleagues, subordinates, labor safety.

External factors can ease the internal tension in the organization, but their influence is short-term and cannot lead to profound changes in the behavior of employees.

Herzberg believed that the strongest incentives for labor efficiency were not “good wages”, but interest in work and involvement in the labor process. Without money, people feel dissatisfied, but if they have money, they will not necessarily feel happy and increase productivity.

Excessive division of work into fractional operations, according to Herzberg, deprives a person of the feeling of completeness and completeness of work, leads to a decrease in the level of responsibility, suppression of the actual abilities of the employee, a sense of the meaninglessness of work, and a drop in job satisfaction.

Not a person should be adapted to work, but work should correspond to the individual abilities of a person. This idea was subsequently embodied in adaptive, flexible organizations, network companies.

Main achievements schools of behavioral sciences are considered:

• using interpersonal relationship management techniques to increase job satisfaction and productivity;
• application of the science of human behavior to shape the organization so that the potential of each employee can be used to the fullest;
• It was concluded that in order to achieve effective management of a social organization, it is necessary to learn how to manage the behavior of people as members of this organization.

School of Quantitative Methods

This direction in control theory became possible due to the development of such sciences as mathematics, cybernetics, statistics.

Representatives of this school are: L.V. Kantorovich (Nobel Prize winner), V.V. Novozhilov, L. Bertalanffy, R. Ackoff, A. Goldberger and others.

The school of quantitative methods comes from the fact that mathematical methods and models make it possible to describe various business processes and the relationships between them. Therefore, it is advisable to solve the problems that arise in the business processes of the organization on the basis of operations research and mathematical models.

The thesis “science achieves perfection only when it succeeds in using mathematics” is the basis for assigning another name to this school: “the school of management science”. This school applied economics-mathematical methods, operations research theory, statistics, cybernetics and the like to solve management problems, which made a significant contribution to the development of management science.

Operations research— application of scientific research methods to the operational problems of the organization. With this approach, the problem is clarified at the beginning of the study. Then a situation model is developed. After its creation, the variables are given quantitative values ​​and the optimal solution is found.

At present, quantitative management methods are being developed in connection with the widespread use of computers. The computer has allowed operations researchers to construct mathematical models of increasing complexity that are closer to reality and therefore more accurate.

A key characteristic of the school is the replacement of verbal reasoning with models, symbols, and quantitative meanings.

Further development of mathematical modeling methods was reflected in the emergence of decision theory. Initially, this theoretical direction was based on the use of algorithms for developing optimal solutions. Later, quantitative (applied and abstract) models of economic phenomena began to be used, such as the cost and output model, the model of scientific, technological and economic development, etc.

The contribution of the management science school to management theory.

• Deepening understanding of complex management problems through the development and application of models, including economic and mathematical ones.
• Development of quantitative methods to help managers make decisions in complex situations.
• The use of information technology in management.
• Development of a general theory of control.

The influence of the management science school is growing as it is seen as complementary to the existing and widely applied conceptual framework of the process, systems and situational approaches.

The classical school of scientific management emerges in the late 1890s. and is one of the leading management approaches until the middle of the 20th century. At the nervous stage of development (until the end of the 1920s), representatives of the classical school developed three key areas - scientific management, the theory of administration and the theory of bureaucracy, at the second stage (1930-1950s) these theories converged and united into within the framework of the so-called synthetic theories, which substantiate a number of universal principles for the formation and functioning of an effective organization.

recognized father scientific management is F. Taylor. He was convinced that management would turn industrial relations into relations of mutual benefit and mutual assistance and, thanks to the growth of labor productivity, would ensure the prosperity of not only the enterprise, but the whole society. The principles of organization of production proposed by Taylor can be divided into general (or resulting) and specific principles of labor organization.

The most important of general principles are the following:

• a combination of economic expediency with the "achieving worker" program, thanks to which the process is possible: the maximum productivity of the worker - his high welfare and the prosperity of the enterprise - the prosperity of the national economy;
• organizational harmony: cooperation between managers and workers based on an even and fair distribution of duties and responsibilities;
• separation of managerial (top management, heads of departments, functional supervisors, foremen (foremen)) and performing work (hard and light work).

Following the general principles involves the implementation specific principles:

• division of labor operations into labor movements, their timing, rationalization and regulation;
• labor planning: setting production standards and tariffs, material support standards for jobs and coordinating all work;
• implementation of a system of instructive cards with daily work tasks - difficult, but doable;
• motivation of workers in accordance with the principle of reasonable egoism: individual responsibility (encouragements and penalties) for the implementation of production standards with a guaranteed stable level of prices (tariffs);
• taking into account individual abilities: selection of managers and workers and their training in accordance with advanced scientific achievements;
• taking into account individual opinions and proposals of workers to improve the organization of the labor process.

A great contribution to the theory and practice of scientific management was made by the main associate of F. Taylor G. Gantt, who developed the methods of bonus wages, diagrams or charts (gantt-schemes) for production planning, laid the foundations of the theory of production leadership. The theory of leadership, as well as the theory of production conflicts, was also developed by M. Follet. In general, it can be argued that at the first stage, scientific management develops "in breadth" and "in depth". Development "in depth" in this case refers to the experimental substantiation of the psychophysiological foundations of labor organization and the psychological foundations of management (F. and L. Gilbreth), development "in breadth" - the creation of a management philosophy (S. Sheldon), as well as the development of a managerial view of human history, identification of historical types of organization - "military destructive" and "economically creative" (functional) (G. Emerson).

In Soviet Russia, under the influence of Taylor's ideas, a trend of scientific organization of labor arose, or in short - NOT (the concept was introduced by the theorist of scientific management O. Yermansky). The most prominent representative of the NOT was the director of the Central Institute of Labor (CIT) A. Gastev. Unlike Taylor, whose production was based on the rationalization of individual operations, Gastev, in accordance with his concept of "narrow base", believed that the basis for designing an enterprise is the organization of the workplace as a whole, or rather, jobs from an ordinary worker to a director. Gastev paid great attention to the motivation of workers, which should be based on their understanding of the labor process, material incentives and career growth, self-discipline and the enthusiasm of "liberated labor".

In general, a production organization in accordance with the principles of scientific management is an organization created as a result of scientific (technical, technological and psychophysiological) analysis and maximum rationalization of labor processes. This rationalization determines "from below" the configuration of all organizational (administrative and executive) structures, and also ensures the objective determinism and interdependence of all organizational relations.

Theory of administration A. Fayol distributes managerial knowledge beyond the industrial enterprise - to state and other non-profit organizations. In the enterprise management system, administration is one of the types of operations (types of management activities) along with technical (production), commercial (purchase, sale), financial (raising funds and managing them), insurance (insurance and protection of property) and accounting (accounting and statistics) operations. But the higher the level of management, the more in demand administrative science becomes, and the role of special knowledge decreases.

The structural-functional approach to administration, applied by Fayol, gives the manager answers to the questions "What to do?" and "How to do?". The answer to the first question lies in the allocation of the functions of foresight, organization, command, coordination and control, which are invariant to any management process. The answer to the second question lies in the identification of principles, the specific implementation of which is variable in different situations and includes an element of art. Here are 14 famous management principles of A. Fayol.

• 1. Division of labor (specialization).
• 2. Power and responsibility (the latter is a consequence of the former).
• 3. Discipline (respect for agreements and personal example of the leader).
• 4. Unity of command (unity of point of view, action and command).
• 5. Unity of direction (achievement of each goal according to a single plan under the supervision of one leader).
• 6. Subordination of private interests to the general.
• 7. Remuneration of personnel (objectively and subjectively fair).
• 8. Centralization (the optimal ratio of concentration and dispersal of power).
• 9. Scalar chain (hierarchy).
• 10. Order (to each his place and each in his place).
• 11. Fairness (loyalty and dedication of the staff - respectful and fair attitude of the administration to subordinates).
• 12. Stability of the workplace for staff.
• 13. Initiative (of subordinates).
• 14. Corporate spirit ("in unity - strength").

According to Fayol, an administrator is first and foremost a functionary. But, despite this, following the management principles involves a combination of official and personal power. In general, an administrator needs intelligence and organizational skills, a good general education and special competence, mastery of the art of dealing with people, as well as independence, energy, perseverance and a sense of duty.

A. Fayol, unlike F. Taylor, proposed to build an organization not "from the bottom up", but "from the top down" by detailing the main goal of the organization. Since this is the only way to justify the number of management levels, the composition of management and horizontal structures and create an organization as a single integral system. At the same time, Fayol repeatedly emphasized that there are no contradictions between Taylorism and his theory, they simply consider different levels of organization of production: in the first case, the shop floor, and in the second, the higher administrative level. Thus, in addition to expanding the "horizon" of organizational management, A. Fayol's great contribution to science and practice is the development of the foundations of systemic organization theories.

In the 1920s our compatriot N. Witke, being in general a follower of A. Fayol, in his theory tried to separate NOT and administration in the management of the organization. According to N. Vitka, NOT includes:

• a) management of things - the connection of a person with tools, carried out by psychophysiological methods;
• b) management of people - the coordination of their labor activities by socio-psychological methods.

Administration is associated with the adoption of managerial decisions and includes: general management based on intuition and foresight; planned management based on evidence-based recommendations; and management - the solution of actual emerging problems, which requires art based on knowledge of psychology. In addition, N. Witke formulated the functions of administration, which are still recognized today as the main functions of management - calculation (planning), installation (organization), processing (coordination) and control.

The main provisions of the theory of administration were later used in many managerial and organizational approaches. For example, in the middle of the last century, G. Simon, the author of the theory of bounded rationality, exploring the phenomena of an administrative worker and administrative behavior, established a connection between the content of the organization's goals and the rationality of the decisions made in it and the actions taken.

M. Weber in his theories of power identifies three ideal types of legitimate (recognized by people) domination. The charismatic type of domination is based on the exceptional and situationally necessary personal qualities of the leader, which allow him to lead people along with him. The traditional type of domination is based on the custom, according to which the ruler is "God's anointed", clothed with sacred power. Finally, the legal type of domination is based on a law that is rational, i.e. created to solve specific problems, affects everyone equally, is impersonal and is implemented by multi-level authorities on a professional basis.

In modern society, the purest form of organization of legal power is bureaucracy. The main features of bureaucracy are that the officials who make it up:

• personally free and are subjects of power, performing formal official duties;
• organized in a hierarchy;
• have an officially fixed area of ​​competence, determined by their hierarchical position;
• freely selected;
• appointed according to qualification criteria;
• have the opportunity for promotion;
• have a fixed salary
• are engaged in management as their main activity;
• separated from managed property;
• subject to strict discipline and control.

According to Weber, these characteristics allow the bureaucracy to exercise control, the procedural bases of which are:

• maximum division of activity (labor) into elementary operations;
• performance of each operation by a certain group of specialists who are responsible for it;
• unity of command ("scalar" principle);
• accountability of each employee to a higher official and responsibility to him for the decisions made and actions of subordinates;
• management using abstract rules that apply in all cases equally;
• formally impersonal (unemotional) behavior;
• loyalty to the organization and corporate spirit.

Thus, the theory of bureaucratic organization, in many respects consistent with the theories of scientific management and administration, is the broadest in terms of the scope of the problems considered, since, in Weber's understanding, the historically formed bureaucracy is a modern and most perfect mechanism for rationalizing any collective activity. The bureaucratic organization is based on a system of formal and fairly rigid rules and obligations, which guarantees the specified predictability of the behavior of each leader and executor, and also ensures the necessary speed, accuracy and continuity of organizational activities.

Subsequently, the theory of bureaucracy was developed in functional and situational approaches (the essence of which will be discussed below). So, in the early 1970s. a group of scientists from the Astana University in Birmingham (England) created a situational model in which three types of bureaucracy were distinguished.

Since the model deals primarily with large organizations, the formation of various types of bureaucracy is determined by medium and high levels of centralization and standardization of organizational activities (Fig. 1.1).

Rice. 1.1.

In accordance with the Aston model, for large independent organizations, primarily industrial and commercial (industrial-commercial), the most acceptable production bureaucracy, for subsidiaries, branches and departments dependent on their headquarters - absolute, for political and public organizations - personal .

In addition, the theory of bureaucracy was supplemented by a description of organizational dysfunctions. For example, R. Merton drew attention to the fact that strict adherence to organizational requirements leads to the routinization of organizational activities, as a result of which organizational development becomes more difficult and the connection between the organization and the environment is weakened. A. Gouldner came to the conclusion that the system of formal prescriptions reduces the tension of relations in the organization, but at the same time reduces the efforts of the staff to the minimum level established by these prescriptions. The manager evaluates the latter negatively, and therefore entails increased control. The same thing happens when the organizational balance is disturbed: special rules begin to operate in the organization aimed at restoring the balance, but at the same time, organizational control increases significantly. Rigid control leads to an increase in tension, which again upsets the balance of the system.

Attempts to unite the various directions of the classical school were made as early as the 1920s. For example, G. Holf proposed to do this within the framework of "optimology" - spiders about the optimal ratio between various business factors (its size, production cost, human abilities, etc.). In the middle of the last century, synthesizing theories were developed, among which we should highlight formal organization theory J. Mooney and A. Reilly, in which management is carried out in accordance with the triad principle - process - result, as well as synthetic control theory L. Gyulik and L. Urvik, who formulated seven functions and twenty-nine (!) principles of management, which, however, did not add almost anything fundamentally new to the achievements of the classical school of management.

In general, within the framework of the classical school, an instrumental-rationalistic version of the organization as a closed system was developed, and the methodology of the school can be considered in the logic of magnitudes, time and hierarchy (D. Bell). Its main principles are: division of managerial and executive labor, operational standardization of labor processes, departmentalization (building an organization) from the bottom up or from the top down, rationalism (job responsibilities are objective and reflect the characteristics of the labor process or tasks to be solved), formalism (people are considered as functions), unity of command (prevailing hierarchical authoritarianism), performing individualism (the principle of personal responsibility), cooperation between managers and performers. It is important to note that the classical school complements the classical hierarchy (linear structure), in which each boss has specific subordinates, with functional administration. At Taylor, it is implemented by supervisors, each of whom is responsible for the quality of a certain group of labor operations. G. Emerson specifically substantiated the functional or headquarters principle of managing an organization (by analogy with the activities of the headquarters of a military unit).

In the philosophy of the classical school of management, the organization as a system is more important than a specific person. Moreover, in the organization as a designed tool created for a specific purpose, people are a programmable social resource. External prescription and external control over the implementation of rights and obligations and individual responsibility for the results of labor make the organization a system of interconnected official statuses with a minimum number of degrees of freedom for the employees occupying them. At the same time, the wider (abstract) the concept, the less space remains for a person in it. Yes, cl). Taylor writes about the harmonization of relations between managers and workers, A. Gastev - about the upbringing of the work culture of the worker and labor enthusiasm. G. Gantt directly emphasizes the leading role of the human factor in the organization in connection with the problem of employee satisfaction, as well as the need to humanize management processes through the development of industrial democracy. In Weber's concept of the organization, in which the rules and procedures determine all types of organizational activities and specific management decisions, a specific person is practically absent. Indeed, in essence, in a formally rational organization, the "notorious human factor" should be eliminated as much as possible, since only it can be the cause of dysfunctions of a deeply thought-out and scientifically substantiated organizational activity.

-Theory of scientific management F.U. Taylor (1856–1915), which laid the foundations for the scientific organization of labor.

A. Fayol (1841–1925), whose goal was to create universal principles of management.

The starting point for the development of modern management is considered to be 1886, when businessman G. Towne (1844–1924) made a presentation “The Engineer as an Economist” at a meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, in which he spoke about the need for management as a professional specialization and scientific discipline. It was he who first proclaimed that "factory management is no less important than technology." The meeting was attended by mechanical engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor, an employee of the company "Midveilsteel" in the US city of Philadelphia. It was he who in the late 80s of the XIX century. began the scientific development of management problems. Taylor's theory took on a more or less clear shape in 1903, when he published a report entitled "Control of the Cycle". It was further developed in the book "Principles and Methods of Scientific Management", which was published in 1911. This work laid the foundations of the classical theory of organization.

The ideas and concepts covered by classical organization theory are the result of the work of many people who, on the basis of their practical activities, working as engineers and administrators in industrial enterprises, empirically tested their principles and approached the creation of a theory.

Theories stating that there is "the only best way" to build an organization are called universal, and theories according to which the optimal structure can differ from situation to situation depending on differences in environmental conditions (external environment) and technology are called situational.

Essence: - each element of the work must be based on scientific justification and not on a volitional decision;

With the help of certain criteria, select, and then train, educate the workforce, and develop;

Collaborate closely with staff while ensuring that work is carried out in accordance with the developed principles of science;

Ensure the division of labor and responsibility between managers and employees.

Taylor Principles of Scientific Management:

The principle of separation, planning and execution of work;

The principle of functional leadership of the group;

The principle of researching the content of the work

Bonus principle

The principle of selection and training

bureaucratic theory

Bureaucratic theory M. Weber (1864-1920), which deals with the problems of leadership and power structure in the organization.

Basic principles:

All tasks necessary to achieve the goal should be divided into specialized types of work.

In order to guarantee the coordination of work, each task must be carried out with a well-defined, permanent system of rules.

Each employee and department of the organization must be responsible for their actions to their leader, managers for the actions of subordinates

Each official of the organization must maintain social distance between himself and his subordinates.

Employment should be based on the employee's merit and technical qualifications and provide protection against arbitrary dismissal

Promotion should be based on seniority and personal achievements of the employee

Glassier theory

The Glacier theory is a universal theory of organization formation, included in the scientific literature under the name of the place of its creation - GlacierMetal, Great Britain.

4 subsystems, partially intersecting and interacting with each other:

Executive (structure formed as a result of labor and forming a chain of commands)

Appeal (subsystem for responding to staff complaints)

Representative (structure formed by electing representatives to the work council together with leaders)

Legislative (a structure that solves the tasks of developing the policy of the organization with the participation of elected representatives of the work council.)

The undoubted advantages of applying the Glacier theory are:

• improving performance through the introduction of accountability principles (a clear understanding by each employee of their goals, areas of accountability, subordination and authority), accelerating the decision-making process;
• increasing the efficiency of the company's functioning by optimizing the organizational structure and aligning the ability levels of employees and the tasks they solve;
• creating a comfortable working atmosphere - increasing the level of trust between employees of the organization by clarifying and harmonizing working relationships and authorities.

Glacier's theory was adopted by the Soviet Union. In particular, the idea of ​​a representative subsystem was used in the organization of trade unions.

The history of the development of management as a science indicates that a large number of theories have been developed that reflect different views and points of view on management problems. Authors dealing with management issues sought to reflect in their works the vision of individual problems in order to create a more complete understanding of management as a science. Therefore, each of the authors, working on the systematization of approaches and schools, focuses on certain properties of the object of study. Many believe that it is impossible to create a universal classification also because the organization is influenced by a large number of internal and external factors.

There are four major approaches that have made it possible to identify four schools of management, each of which is based on its own positions and views:

• scientific management approach - school of scientific management;
• administrative approach - classical (administrative )school in management;
• human relations and behavioral science approach – School of Psychology and Human Relations;
• approach in terms of quantitative methods - school of management science (quantitative ).

These schools of management were developed in the first half of the 20th century. Each school sought to find the most effective tools and methods to achieve the goals of the organization. But the development of science and management practice provided new information about factors that were not taken into account by previous schools. All of the above schools have made a significant contribution to the development of management science. Let us consider successively the concepts of these schools, starting with the school of scientific management.

Supporters of this school sought to prove that it is possible to manage "scientifically", relying on economic, technical and social experiment, as well as on the scientific analysis of the phenomena and facts of the management process and their generalization. This method was first applied to a single enterprise by an American engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor(1856–1915), who is considered the founder of scientific production management. Taylor developed the principles of scientific management (Figure 1.4).

Taylor's goal was to create a system of scientific organization of labor (SOT), based on experimental data and analysis of the processes of physical labor and organization.

Rice. 1.4.

Taylor's research method consists in dividing the process of physical labor and organization into its component parts and then analyzing these parts. In particular, Taylor divided the organization process into the following elements: setting the goal of the enterprise as a whole and for each employee individually; the choice of means of activity and their application on the basis of a predetermined plan; control over the results of activities.

The purpose of the scientific organization of labor at the enterprise is production with the least expenditure of resources (labor, material and monetary) while achieving maximum results. The way to achieve this goal is the rationalization of all elements of production: the living labor of workers, the means of labor (equipment, machines, units, production areas) and objects of labor (raw materials, materials, fuel, energy).

Taylor focused on improving productivity. The main provision of Taylor's concept is the need to establish a scientifically based daily task for the worker and methods for its implementation. He believed that managers do not know the potential of the worker and set production standards "by eye". Taylor, on the basis of experiments conducted to study the methods and movements of workers, measuring the time of performing individual elements and operations, established scientifically based standards. The value of the norm was determined for the best workers achieving the highest labor productivity. Workers who did not want to work hard were subject to dismissal. Thus, Taylor focused on the individual qualities of workers. He believed that workers should be supervised at every phase of production.

The main goal of the developed methods was to achieve an increase in the productivity of workers by any means. To motivate workers to meet and exceed established standards, Taylor improved the wage system. It has assumed a strictly individual, differentiated character, depending on the fulfillment of established norms. Taylor considered self-interest to be the driving force behind the growth of labor productivity and its remuneration.

Much attention in the Taylor system was paid to the normal maintenance of workplaces (tools, fixtures, etc.). The foremen were charged with the duty of timely providing workers with everything necessary for efficient work, training workers, issuing tasks for the day ahead, etc.

Creating his own system, Taylor was not limited only to the issues of rationalizing the work of workers. Taylor paid considerable attention to the best use of the production assets of the enterprise: the right choice of equipment for a certain job, caring for equipment, preparing tools for work and providing them with jobs in a timely manner.

The requirement for rationalization also extended to the layout of the enterprise and workshops. This concerned the rational placement of equipment and jobs, the choice of the most optimal ways of moving materials within the enterprise, i.e. on the shortest routes and with the least expenditure of time and money.

Taylor's system provided not only ways to rationalize each element of production separately, but also determined their most appropriate interaction.

The functions of implementing the interaction of elements of production were assigned to the planning and distribution bureau of the enterprise, which was given a central place in the Taylor system. Much attention was also paid to the organization of accounting and reporting at the enterprise.

According to the Taylor system, a staff of craftsmen was provided to manage the entire enterprise. Part of this headquarters was assigned to the distribution bureau and carried out communications with the workers, set prices, and supervised the general order. Another part of the staff of masters oversaw the exact implementation of the instructions of the distribution bureau: the inspector; serviceman; master setting the pace of work; foreman.

Taylor's concept was based on the division of labor into two components: performing labor and managerial labor. Taylor's important contribution was the recognition that management work is a specialty.

Thus, we can single out the main provisions of Taylor's concept:

• recognition of management as an independent activity, the main function of which is the rationalization of production;
• the division of the production process and labor operations into separate elements and the identification of the range of time spent on their implementation, which allows them to be normalized;
• planning based on work order norms; performance of planning functions by special units that determine the sequence, time, deadlines for the performance of work;
• increasing labor productivity through higher wages;
• selection of workers in accordance with physiological and psychological requirements and their training.

Taylor formulated two main tasks of management.

• 1. Ensuring the greatest prosperity of the entrepreneur, which included not only the receipt of high dividends on invested capital, but also the further development of the business;
• 2. Increasing the well-being of each employee, which provides not only for high wages in accordance with the efforts expended, but also for the development in each employee of the potential that is inherent in him by nature itself.

The philosophical basis of Taylor's system was the concept of the so-called "economic man", which was widely used at that time. This concept was based on the assertion that the only driving stimulus of people is their needs. Taylor believed that with the help of an appropriate payment system, the maximum productivity of the pile could be achieved.

A significant contribution to the development of the Taylor system was made by Harrington Emerson(1853–1931). He studied the principles of labor activity in relation to any production, regardless of the type of its activity.

The analysis carried out allowed him to formulate twelve principles of labor productivity, which boil down to the following.

• 1. The presence of clearly defined goals or ideals as the main prerequisite for effective work.
• 2. The presence of common sense in any work.
• 3. The possibility of obtaining qualified advice, competent advice. Every organization needs to create a department of rationalization, which would develop recommendations for improving management in all departments.
• 4. Compliance with strict discipline based on standard written instructions, complete and accurate accounting, use of the reward system.
• 5. Fair treatment of staff (through "fair" wages). This principle implies staff development, improvement of working and living conditions.
• 6. Availability of timely complete, reliable, permanent and accurate accounting.
• 7. Regulation of production (scheduling) as an integral part of the organization's activities.
• 8. Work planning.
• 9. Rationing of operations on the basis of rational methods of their implementation. Rationing allows you to set time standards and prices, taking into account the identification of unused reserves for increasing labor productivity.
• 10. Normalization of working conditions as a necessary prerequisite for the growth of labor productivity.
• 11. Availability of developed instructions and standards in writing.
• 12. The presence of a rational system of remuneration for increasing its productivity. Emerson noted that the growth of labor productivity of workers is largely determined by their "ideals". Therefore, you should not reduce remuneration only to an increase in wages.

The purpose of the formulated principles of productivity, according to Emerson, is the elimination of losses. In which case to eliminate losses - this is of fundamental importance does not matter.

Henry Ford(1863–1947) continued Taylor's ideas in the field of industrial organization. He ensured the creation of mass assembly line production and the development of the automotive industry. In setting up the automobile industry, Ford wrote that his goal was "to produce with a minimum expenditure of material and manpower, and to sell at a minimum profit." However, he made huge profits by increasing sales. The following principles were put in the basis of the production organized by him:

• one should not be afraid of possible failures, since "failures only give a reason to start again and smarter";
• you should not be afraid of competition, and at the same time you should not seek to harm the cause and life of another person who is your competitor;
• Profit should not be prioritized over customer service. "In essence, there is nothing wrong with profit. A well-established enterprise, bringing great benefits, should bring a lot of income";
• "To produce is not to buy cheap and sell dear." Raw materials should be purchased "at fair prices", adding minor additional costs in the production process, but at the same time achieving the production of high-quality products.

Ford took the Taylor system a step further by replacing manual labor with machines. He formulated the basic principles of the organization of production (Fig. 1.5).

Based on these principles, it became possible to create mass production, which allows increasing the productivity of workers without the intervention of a foreman who does not need to adjust the workers himself. On the production line, this is done automatically, the worker is forced to adapt himself to the speed of the conveyor and other mechanisms.

Rice. 1.5.

The assembly line of production contributed to a sharp increase in the intensity and intensity of work of workers, while at the same time the exhausting monotony of their work. The conveyor method of organization put the workers in extremely harsh conditions.

Henry Ford was a pioneer of modern mass production. The combination of continuity and speed provided the necessary production efficiency. The production methods developed by Ford were of great importance not only for the automotive industry, but also for many other industries.