Basic methods of organization theory. Object, subject and method of organization theory. Organizational relations as a subject of organization theory. Organization = Phenomenon

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

ECONOMIC PHENOMENON

ORGANIZATION AS A SOCIAL

1.1. THEORY OF ORGANIZATION AND ITS PLACE IN THE SYSTEM

Organization theory, like any other modern theory, is a system of scientific knowledge that generalizes practical experience and reflects the essence of the phenomena under study, their internal connections and the laws of functioning and development. The main function of any theory is explanatory. Accordingly, the function of organization theory is to demonstrate what an organization is, why they arise, how they arise, develop, transform and disappear, what laws they obey in their functioning and development.

Representatives of various schools and directions in the theory and practice of management took different approaches to the choice of object and subject in the theory of organization. So F. Taylor believed that the object is the organization of labor, and the subject is labor processes. G. Ford, the founder of a giant automobile manufacturing concern, saw the organization of production as an object, and technological flows and production processes as a subject. In the classical school of management, the object is the organization as a whole, and the subject is the structure and functions of the organization, content and methods of work. The theory of human relations and various behavioral schools consider human organizations as an object, and the motives of people’s behavior in an organization as a subject.

In modern organization theory, it is customary to consider as the object of organization theory regulated and self-organizing processes occurring in socio-economic systems that determine the interaction of people regarding the organization of joint activities, that is, processes such as organization and disorganization, subordination and coordination, ordering and coordination, etc. .P.

As the subject of organization theory is usually to consider organizational relations, that is, connections and interactions between various organizational entities and their structural components, as well as organizing and disorganizing actions and processes.

Thus, based on the definition of the object and subject of the theory of organization itself organization theory can be defined as a theory of organizational relations. In principle, as a subject of organization theory, one can consider methods, categories, concepts, etc. that reveal the essence of a given field of activity.

Since the definition of the object and subject of the theory of organization already shows its complex nature, the set of categories and concepts of the theory of organization is also complex. Quite roughly, it can be divided into three groups:

· categories common to most social and economic sciences: society, state, power, property, market, social activity and social relations, economic activity and economic relations, man, personality, resources, institutions, etc.;

· categories that primarily reflect phenomena and processes occurring in socio-economic systems: organization, organizational system and organizational structure, mission and purpose of the organization, leader of the organization, laws and types of organizations, organizational culture, etc.;

· categories that reveal the technologies of organizational activities: strategies, programs, projects, plans, rules and procedures, innovations and risks, communications and connections, conflicts and their resolution, direct and feedback connections, etc.

Under organization theory method is understood as a set of cognitive-theoretical and logical principles, as well as scientific tools used to study the system of organizational relations. Actually, the method of organization theory does not describe the object or subject of research itself (the system of organizational relations), but prescribes to the researcher what means and how to use to obtain reliable knowledge. The main methods include:

· inductive method, representing a mental movement from the individual to the general;

· statistical method, which consists in taking into account the repeatability of any factors or phenomena;

· abstract analytical method, which allows you to “abstract”, that is, mentally highlight the most essential properties and connections;

· comparative method or comparative analysis method, which allows you to compare different processes, trends, patterns, dynamics, opportunities, etc.;

· integrated approach method, which allows you to consider objects and phenomena at the intersection of various sciences in an interdisciplinary aspect;

· system-historical method, which allows you to study the processes of change in an object, as well as transitions of an object from one state to another, etc.

The term "organization" comes from the Latin. Organizo - “I give a harmonious appearance, arrange” and is defined in science as internal orderliness, structure, consistency of interaction between relatively independent parts in a system object.

The Russian language dictionary defines a number of meanings of the word “organization”, and in general characterizes it as an ordered state of the elements of the whole and the process of ordering them into a purposeful unity. Among them:

Action according to the meaning of the verb organize and organize (found, prepare, unite, arrange, etc.).

The same as organization (internal state, discipline, order, etc.).

An association of individuals, public groups or states that has a clear structure, specific tasks, and an institution.

The nature of the structure or arrangement of something, for example, the artisanal organization of production.

The physical or mental structure of an individual being, for example the weak, diseased organization of a living organism.

Organization as a phenomenon is universal in nature and is observed in all processes and phenomena of the world around us and in ourselves. “Without organization, organization, there is no real being - non-existence can only be thought, there is no real, living idea of ​​it, because an absolutely incoherent (disorganized) idea is not a representation, it is nothing at all. Without the concept of organization there is no concept of system.”

In cybernetics, general systems theory, the concept of organization is associated with unstable order, mobility, and variability of the system.

Organization, as interpreted by the founder of organizational science A. Bogdanov, is comprehensive. Its inherent manifestations find their real embodiment both in the creations of human hands and in the creations of nature.

In organization theory, mainly the following semantic meanings of the concept “organization” are used:

Firstly, as a set of actions, processes leading to the formation of an ordered state of elements of the whole - “organization as a process”;

Secondly, as a result of organizational processes carried out by nature and man - “organization as a system”;

Thirdly, as internal order, consistency, interconnectedness of parts of the whole - “organization as a state of the system.”

The theory of human relations and various behavioral schools consider people as the object of organization, and the motives of people's behavior in the organization as the subject of research. In organization theory, the object of study is the organizational experience of the reality around us. At the same time, the main tasks of cognition are to systematize this experience, to understand the ways of organizing nature and human activity, to explain and generalize these methods, to establish trends and patterns of their development.

An object is what the cognitive activity of a researcher is aimed at, and an object is the aspects, properties, and relationships of an object being studied for a specific purpose. In organization theory, the object of study is organizational experience the creation of various types of organizations, the processes of their functioning, as well as the study of organizational laws. At the same time, it is necessary to remember that the laws of organization are the same for any objects, and heterogeneous phenomena themselves are identified through the analogy of connections and patterns. Now let's move from the level of organization theory to the level of organization theory in order to specify the object of application of this science.

The object of application of the theory of organizations are predominantly socio-economic systems, primarily economic entities: industrial, trade, construction organizations and enterprises, research institutes, educational institutions of all types, government institutions, distinguishable depending on the tasks they perform, the means used and size . Any of the listed organizations represents a complex socio-economic and technical system. The most common organizational division of social systems in practice is the division into subsystems associated with the implementation of certain functions of the system. The main elements of social systems are people, objects and means of labor.

The object of organization theory is regulated and self-organizing processes occurring in public organizational systems, a set of organizational relations, both vertically and horizontally: organization and disorganization, subordination and coordination, ordering and coordination, i.e. interaction between people regarding the organization of joint activities, the production of material goods, and the reproduction of themselves as subjects of social change. The object of organization theory is multi-level in nature - from society as a whole, its main subsystems to primary business, state and public organizations.

Subject of organization theory- organizational relations, i.e. connections and interactions between various kinds of integral formations and their structural components, as well as processes and actions of an organizing and disorganizing nature. It is advisable to include in the subject of organization theory the basic methods, categories, concepts that reveal the essence of this science and the nature of organizational activity. All categories of organization theory can be divided into three relatively independent groups:

2. categories that primarily reflect organizational phenomena and processes occurring in social and socio-economic systems (organizational system, organization, structure of the organization, mission, purpose of the organization, leader of the organization, formal and informal organizations, laws of the organization, organizational culture, etc.) ;

3. categories that reveal the technology of organizational activity and management (rules, procedures, cycles, communications, resolution of contradictions, conflicts, composition, typification, classification, etc.).

At the level of the theory of organizations of social systems, their main feature is that their organizing principle is joint labor. It is he who connects people working together with each other and with the means and objects of labor and is a system-forming factor. As a connecting factor, it unites all intrasystem processes into a single integrated process aimed at achieving a specific organizational goal. Labor connects the three main elements of the social system - people, means and objects of labor. For an organization to exist, it is necessary to provide connections between people and these basic elements, that is, to properly connect them together in space and time.

These connections are the subject and result of organizational activity in social systems, that is, specific organizational relationships are the subject of organizational science. A person acts as an active element of the social system; the rational organization of the labor process presupposes rational connections in the elementary system, which are ensured by appropriate planning and equipment of the workplace, and the use of certain techniques and methods of work.

The elementary part (person, objects and means of labor) is part of a larger subsystem, therefore it is necessary to ensure the existence of stable connections between the elements of the subsystem. Then it is necessary to ensure stable connections between subsystems and establish rules that determine the order of their relationships, expressed through the organizational structure. And finally, the system must have stable connections with the external environment. It is the totality of these internal and external connections that is the subject of organizational science.

Method (from the Greek Methodos - literally “the path to something”) is understood as an ordered activity to achieve a specific goal. The scientific method is associated with the actions of the scientist and is a set of mental or physical operations carried out during the course of research. It contains knowledge of procedures for obtaining new knowledge (the method does not describe the object of study, but provides a tool for studying).

Organization theory method- a set of theoretical-cognitive and logical principles and categories, as well as scientific (formal-logical, mathematical, statistical, organizational) tools for studying the system of organizational relations. The main methods of organization theory include: inductive (the movement of thought from the individual to the universal), statistical (consists in the quantitative accounting of factors and the frequency of their repetition, helps to find stable connections and patterns between organizational relationships), abstract-analytical (allows you to determine the laws of phenomena that reflect connections and constant trends; mental identification of the essential properties and connections of the subject, abstraction from particulars), comparative (consists in the selection of similar organizations as objects of research to clarify the processes of change, development, dynamics of the phenomenon under study - your organization has developed as a foreign one), etc.

A social system is usually viewed from two perspectives:

Statics, which should be understood as the structure of connections between its elements and subsystems. This structure of connections is reflected by the organizational structure of the system or part of it;

Dynamics, which should be understood as activities aimed at establishing and ensuring appropriate connections between the elements and parts of the system that determine its normal functioning. These connections reflect the movement of material, energy and information flows. Both points of view complement and condition each other.

Thus, the physical embodiment of organizational activity is a set of purposeful actions of the organizer (or group of organizers), focused on:

Creation of a new organizational structure of the system;

Improving the existing organizational structure of the system - restructuring the system (redesign of parts, abolition of existing and creation of new technologies, etc.);

Technical re-equipment of the system (without changing the existing structure, etc.);

Expansion of the current system (on the territory of the existing organization);

Operation of existing systems;

Implementation of rational forms and methods of organizing various processes in space and time (information, production, financial, etc.).

In its simplest form, the cycle of organizing a socio-economic system includes three main phases:

1. organizational analysis;

2. organization design;

3. implementation of the organization.

In practice, this simplified cycle can be divided into a number of stages. This methodological approach to determining the essence of organizational processes allows:

Firstly, to clearly identify the areas of organizational activity in socio-economic systems - this is the establishment and provision of appropriate connections in the field of activity of the organization;

Secondly, it makes it possible to look at this activity as designing and providing a relatively complete structure of expedient connections that determine the effective functioning of the socio-economic system.

From the same elements, by combining their mutual arrangement and connections, essentially different systems can be obtained, with different levels of organization and different levels of efficiency.

The science of organizational theory should cover: the design and development of socio-economic systems and the processes occurring in them, and management has the goal of maintaining systems within given threshold values ​​of specific parameters. In this case, the organization directly correlates with the category of management. From a systemic point of view, they can be considered as properties of the system:

Organization as a state, a measure of the orderliness of a system;

Management as a change in the level of its organization.

People are at the center of the design and development of an organization.

The organizational model of a new (or improved) system should therefore include subsystems and structural elements that provide:

Implementation of the goal established for the system;

Uninterrupted operation of the system and its constituent parts;

Minimum level of operating costs;

Optimization of working conditions, etc.;

Maximum effect.

The tool for theoretical research on the subject of organization theory is the scientific method.

The method of organization theory is understood as orderly activity to achieve a certain goal, a way to achieve a goal. The task of organization theory is to analyze, systematize and comprehend organizational experience, consisting of many factors. Let's move on to specific methods for studying the theory of organization at the level of social systems.

Specific methods for studying organization theory are:

Empirical method - observation, perception and collection of information;

A systematic approach in an organization, which is a logical way of thinking, according to which the process of developing and justifying any decision is carried out on the basis of the overall goal of the system and the subordination of the activities of all subsystems, including development plans and other parameters of these activities, to achieve this goal. In this case, this system is considered as part of a larger system, and the overall purpose of the system is consistent with the goals of this larger system;

Synergetic method - identifying general patterns and unity of methods for describing and modeling the processes of evolution and self-organization: physical, biological, social, environmental and other natural and artificial systems;

Mathematical modeling methods - linear programming method, queuing theory, etc.

organizational order science

The subject of organization theory is the patterns of construction, functioning and development of organizations of various types and forms (commercial, state, political, public, etc.).

In relation to social objects, the term “organization”, as is known, is used in various senses.

An organization is, firstly, an artificial association of an institutional nature, occupying a certain place in society and intended to perform a certain function. In this sense, the organization acts as a social institution with a known status and is considered as a stationary object. In this meaning, the word “organization” refers, for example, to an enterprise, government agency, voluntary union, etc.

Secondly, an organization is a certain organizational activity, including the distribution of functions, the establishment of stable connections, coordination, etc. Here, organization is a process associated with conscious influence on an object and, therefore, with the presence of the organizer and those being organized. In this sense, the concept of “organization” coincides with the term “management”, although it does not exhaust it.

Considering organization as one of the management functions. M. Meskon defined organization as “the process of creating an enterprise structure that enables people to work effectively to achieve a goal,” highlighting two aspects:

• dividing the organization into units in accordance with goals (goals - hierarchy);
• relationship of powers (delegation, actual powers, responsibility).

In an increasingly changing business world, the traditional mechanisms of organization theory and scientific management are proving less and less useful and even completely unproductive. Today, scientists are creating methods by which complex systems can effectively cope with uncertainty and rapid change.

Thus, an important step in the development of the methodology of modern science was the formation of chaos theory). In particular, James Glick’s book “Chaos: The Rise of a New Science,” published in 1987 and widely known in the West, has a significant influence on the development of methodology in both the natural sciences and the humanities, including the development of organization theory.

The issues of studying and solving the problem of chaos are very relevant for economic development, especially with regard to the current state of the economy of Russia and the countries of the former USSR and Eastern Europe. The pace, depth and comprehensiveness of the changes taking place in the economy and social life have no analogues in the modern history of mankind.

According to Glick, the main catalyst for chaos theory was the research of meteorologist Edward Lawrence. In the early 1960s. Lawrence developed a computer program that replicated the weather system. By typing numbers that represented the initial state of wind and temperature countless times, Lawrence created a picture of the weather as a result. He, like most scientists, believed that a small change in the initial conditions that he put into the computer would lead to small changes in the evolution of the entire system. To his surprise, he discovered that even the smallest changes caused dramatic changes in the weather pattern. This is the first conclusion from chaos theory.

This phenomenon challenged both intuition and what meteorologists previously understood about their science. Intrigued by Lawrence's mystery, scientists from various fields began experimenting with replicating other physical systems, and eventually discovered identical phenomena. Infinitesimal changes in initial conditions could have profound effects on the evolution of the entire system.

What turned out to be true for weather turned out to be equally true for most physical systems, as well as economic systems at both the macro and micro levels.

The understanding that small changes can lead to radical consequences in the behavior of a system has significantly changed the way scientists view the world around them. The emphasis on predictability and control in the 19th century paved the way for understanding the power of randomness and chance in the late 20th century. In practice, the behavior of even relatively simple systems is generally difficult to predict (much less complex ones). This is how the situation developed with economic reforms in Russia in the 1990s.

But this does not mean that chaotic systems have no pattern. The second main conclusion of chaos theory is the following: despite the seemingly random behavior of the designated systems, certain behavioral “patterns” can be predicted. After all, these systems do not cease to exist; certain paths of their development arise quite often. Proponents of chaos theory call such paths strange and attractive. For example, if meteorologists cannot say with certainty what the weather will be like on a particular day in the future, they can calculate the likelihood of a particular type of weather likely to occur. Such paths allow scientists to determine, within broad statistical parameters, what the system is likely to do. But they cannot allow scientists to determine exactly when the system will do this. The causal precision of traditional physics has been replaced by the statistical estimation of probability.

In addition, the way scientists determine predicted patterns of behavior in a system has become completely different. Instead of breaking the system down into its component parts and analyzing the behavior of each of them separately, i.e. to act as they did in the time of F. Taylor, many scientists were forced to learn more holistic, i.e. holistic approach. They focus mainly on the dynamics of the entire system. Without trying to explain how order fits into the parts of this system, they emphasize the result of the interaction of these parts as a whole. Well-known management theorist Luther Gulik in the mid-1960s. wrote about this: firstly, people are not as simple as machines, and secondly, managers have to deal not only with specific employees, but also with groups in general, where there are so many social factors at work that it is difficult to simply identify them , let alone accurately measure their magnitude and significance. And finally, thirdly, countless environmental factors influence.

Therefore, both organization theory and the results of scientific research should not be considered as absolute truth, but as tools. They help a manager predict what is likely to happen, thereby helping him make better decisions.

Systems comprehension is the ability to understand the underlying relationships that influence the behavior of complex systems over time. They should enable managers to “see integrity.”

For example, after several years of amazing success, one company's products suddenly lost demand among customers. Desperate to hold on, senior managers hired even more salespeople and continually tried to sell more of their products. These measures did increase product sales as intended, but only for a while. A period came for the company when its products were either in demand or were being sold with great difficulty, and this ultimately led it to bankruptcy.

In studying this case, experts trace the source of the firm's failure to managers' inability to understand some basic feedback processes. In simple terms, the high demand for products led to the company not being able to cope with the production of goods. Inadequate production resulted in large volume orders not being filled and long delays in the delivery of goods. Customers lost confidence, and this led to a drop in sales.

Thus, there are a limited number of such feedback processes that operate in any organization and are called “prototype systems.” In a sense, these are the organizational equivalents of the strange, attractive ways of chaos theory, i.e. basic patterns of behavior that arise in all organizations all the time.

The history of the company we have discussed illustrates a number of prototype systems, i.e. behavior patterns. Experts define one of them as “limits to growth,” when the growth process creates conditions for the fall of one’s own company.

The company's managers were so preoccupied with expanding sales and sales volume that they could not focus on the real solution to their problem - expanding production capacity in order to control delivery times.

Implementation in practice of the main provisions of the theory of systems, the theory of chaos and complexity allows us to formulate the essence of the new approach in the form of the following practical recommendations.

The decisive concept in systems theory is the system of levers, i.e. the idea that small, well-thought-out actions can sometimes bring about significant, welcome improvements. Chaos theory also teaches that small changes can have large effects on physical systems.

The emergence of management and organization theory was based on the use of concepts and methods developed for other disciplines. Moreover, in the process of development, there is a kind of complementarity, mutual enrichment of concepts and methods of various disciplines. Therefore, it is natural and logical to borrow some fundamental provisions of other disciplines into the methodological foundations of management and organization theory. On the other hand, the theory and practice of organizations, as a result of development, has developed its own system of views on the principles of construction, forms and methods of scientific knowledge.

Fundamental work in systems theory, chaos theory, and complexity theory has influenced organization theory. Science of the 19th century from the very beginning she taught us to break the world into fragments, to divide the whole into parts, in order to better control them.

An alternative to this is to view the organization as a living organism. This requires a holistic, holistic approach that reflects the main provisions of systems theory and chaos theory - the need to consider the behavior of the system as a whole. The same is true in an organization: to understand the most important problems in managing an organization, one needs to look at the entire system that causes those problems.

The key points of the modern system of approaches to management and organization theory are the following fundamental provisions.

1. Application of a systematic approach. The fundamental discovery underlying all management science and organization theory is the idea of ​​an organization as a system of the highest order of complexity, a system of which people are parts. Every true system, mechanical, biological or human, is characterized by interdependence. The entire system does not necessarily improve if one function or part of it improves and becomes more efficient. The effect may be the opposite: the system may be seriously damaged and even destroyed. Moreover, in some cases, strengthening a system requires weakening part of it—making it less accurate or less efficient. In any system, what matters is the functioning of the whole—the result of growth and dynamic equilibrium, adaptation and integration, not mere technical efficiency.

Thus, the systems approach is not a set of guidelines or principles for managers, it is a way of thinking in relation to organization and management.

2. Application of a situational approach. The situational approach expanded the practical application of systems theory by identifying the major internal and external variables that influence organizations. The central point of the situational approach is the situation, i.e. a specific set of variables (circumstances) that greatly influence an organization at that particular time. In accordance with the situational approach, the entire management organization within an enterprise is nothing more than a response to the influences of variables that are different in nature, characterizing a specific situation. Organization and management methods are built in accordance with the situation in which the enterprise or institution is located at a given time. The situation changes—specific tasks change, organization and methods change. Thus, unlike all previous methods of managing collective action, constant updating with a focus on a specific situation is built into management.

3. Modern science emphasizes the chaos and complexity of the world around us. The world in which most of today's leaders live is often unpredictable, incomprehensible and uncontrollable. Formation of chaos theory (i.e. transition from chaos to “chaos theory”)

and its application in the management system of complex systems is a promising direction for increasing the efficiency of organizations.

Summing up the consideration of the issue of forming a new paradigm of management methodology and organization theory, we note that the most promising way to create such a paradigm is synthesis, the integral unity of all methodological approaches. It is necessary to take into account that the methodology of organization theory is a holistic, organic system, and not a random, arbitrary, eclectic set of any of its individual elements (methods, principles, etc.). In its application, this system is always modified depending on the specific conditions of its implementation, i.e. it must correspond to the subject of organization theory and this specific stage of its development. And this means, in particular, that the methodological tools of the natural sciences cannot be mechanically transferred to the theory of organization without taking into account the specifics of the subject and the uniqueness of the application. The researcher should always be free to choose the necessary methods. It is unacceptable to impose any of them as the only true ones - the so-called methodological coercion, i.e. absolutization of individual methodological approaches.

The subject of organization theory is the patterns of construction, functioning and development of organizations of various types and forms (commercial, state, political, public, etc.).

In relation to social objects, the term “organization”, as is known, is used in various senses.

An organization is, firstly, an artificial association of an institutional nature, occupying a certain place in society and intended to perform a certain function. In this sense, the organization acts as a social institution with a known status and is considered as a stationary object. In this meaning, the word “organization” refers, for example, to an enterprise, government agency, voluntary union, etc.

Secondly, an organization is a certain organizational activity, including the distribution of functions, the establishment of stable connections, coordination, etc. Here, organization is a process associated with conscious influence on an object and, therefore, with the presence of the organizer and those being organized. In this sense, the concept of “organization” coincides with the term “management”, although it does not exhaust it.

Considering organization as one of the management functions. M. Meskon defined organization as “the process of creating an enterprise structure that enables people to work effectively to achieve a goal,” highlighting two aspects:

• dividing the organization into units in accordance with goals (goals - hierarchy);
• relationship of powers (delegation, actual powers, responsibility).

In an increasingly changing business world, the traditional mechanisms of organization theory and scientific management are proving less and less useful and even completely unproductive. Today, scientists are creating methods by which complex systems can effectively cope with uncertainty and rapid change.

Thus, an important step in the development of the methodology of modern science was the formation of chaos theory). In particular, James Glick’s book “Chaos: The Rise of a New Science,” published in 1987 and widely known in the West, has a significant influence on the development of methodology in both the natural sciences and the humanities, including the development of organization theory.

The issues of studying and solving the problem of chaos are very relevant for economic development, especially with regard to the current state of the economy of Russia and the countries of the former USSR and Eastern Europe. The pace, depth and comprehensiveness of the changes taking place in the economy and social life have no analogues in the modern history of mankind.

According to Glick, the main catalyst for chaos theory was the research of meteorologist Edward Lawrence. In the early 1960s. Lawrence developed a computer program that replicated the weather system. By typing numbers that represented the initial state of wind and temperature countless times, Lawrence created a picture of the weather as a result. He, like most scientists, believed that a small change in the initial conditions that he put into the computer would lead to small changes in the evolution of the entire system. To his surprise, he discovered that even the smallest changes caused dramatic changes in the weather pattern. This is the first conclusion from chaos theory.

This phenomenon challenged both intuition and what meteorologists previously understood about their science. Intrigued by Lawrence's mystery, scientists from various fields began experimenting with replicating other physical systems, and eventually discovered identical phenomena. Infinitesimal changes in initial conditions could have profound effects on the evolution of the entire system.

What turned out to be true for weather turned out to be equally true for most physical systems, as well as economic systems at both the macro and micro levels.

The understanding that small changes can lead to radical consequences in the behavior of a system has significantly changed the way scientists view the world around them. The emphasis on predictability and control in the 19th century paved the way for understanding the power of randomness and chance in the late 20th century. In practice, the behavior of even relatively simple systems is generally difficult to predict (much less complex ones). This is how the situation developed with economic reforms in Russia in the 1990s.

But this does not mean that chaotic systems have no pattern. The second main conclusion of chaos theory is the following: despite the seemingly random behavior of the designated systems, certain behavioral “patterns” can be predicted. After all, these systems do not cease to exist; certain paths of their development arise quite often. Proponents of chaos theory call such paths strange and attractive. For example, if meteorologists cannot say with certainty what the weather will be like on a particular day in the future, they can calculate the likelihood of a particular type of weather likely to occur. Such paths allow scientists to determine, within broad statistical parameters, what the system is likely to do. But they cannot allow scientists to determine exactly when the system will do this. The causal precision of traditional physics has been replaced by the statistical estimation of probability.

In addition, the way scientists determine predicted patterns of behavior in a system has become completely different. Instead of breaking the system down into its component parts and analyzing the behavior of each of them separately, i.e. to act as they did in the time of F. Taylor, many scientists were forced to learn more holistic, i.e. holistic approach. They focus mainly on the dynamics of the entire system. Without trying to explain how order fits into the parts of this system, they emphasize the result of the interaction of these parts as a whole. Well-known management theorist Luther Gulik in the mid-1960s. wrote about this: firstly, people are not as simple as machines, and secondly, managers have to deal not only with specific employees, but also with groups in general, where there are so many social factors at work that it is difficult to simply identify them , let alone accurately measure their magnitude and significance. And finally, thirdly, countless environmental factors influence.

Therefore, both organization theory and the results of scientific research should not be considered as absolute truth, but as tools. They help a manager predict what is likely to happen, thereby helping him make better decisions.

Systems comprehension is the ability to understand the underlying relationships that influence the behavior of complex systems over time. They should enable managers to “see integrity.”

For example, after several years of amazing success, one company's products suddenly lost demand among customers. Desperate to hold on, senior managers hired even more salespeople and continually tried to sell more of their products. These measures did increase product sales as intended, but only for a while. A period came for the company when its products were either in demand or were being sold with great difficulty, and this ultimately led it to bankruptcy.

In studying this case, experts trace the source of the firm's failure to managers' inability to understand some basic feedback processes. In simple terms, the high demand for products led to the company not being able to cope with the production of goods. Inadequate production resulted in large volume orders not being filled and long delays in the delivery of goods. Customers lost confidence, and this led to a drop in sales.

Thus, there are a limited number of such feedback processes that operate in any organization and are called “prototype systems.” In a sense, these are the organizational equivalents of the strange, attractive ways of chaos theory, i.e. basic patterns of behavior that arise in all organizations all the time.

The history of the company we have discussed illustrates a number of prototype systems, i.e. behavior patterns. Experts define one of them as “limits to growth,” when the growth process creates conditions for the fall of one’s own company.

The company's managers were so preoccupied with expanding sales and sales volume that they could not focus on the real solution to their problem - expanding production capacity in order to control delivery times.

Implementation in practice of the main provisions of the theory of systems, the theory of chaos and complexity allows us to formulate the essence of the new approach in the form of the following practical recommendations.

The decisive concept in systems theory is the system of levers, i.e. the idea that small, well-thought-out actions can sometimes bring about significant, welcome improvements. Chaos theory also teaches that small changes can have large effects on physical systems.

The emergence of management and organization theory was based on the use of concepts and methods developed for other disciplines. Moreover, in the process of development, there is a kind of complementarity, mutual enrichment of concepts and methods of various disciplines. Therefore, it is natural and logical to borrow some fundamental provisions of other disciplines into the methodological foundations of management and organization theory. On the other hand, the theory and practice of organizations, as a result of development, has developed its own system of views on the principles of construction, forms and methods of scientific knowledge.

Fundamental work in systems theory, chaos theory, and complexity theory has influenced organization theory. Science of the 19th century from the very beginning she taught us to break the world into fragments, to divide the whole into parts, in order to better control them.

An alternative to this is to view the organization as a living organism. This requires a holistic, holistic approach that reflects the main provisions of systems theory and chaos theory - the need to consider the behavior of the system as a whole. The same is true in an organization: to understand the most important problems in managing an organization, one needs to look at the entire system that causes those problems.

The key points of the modern system of approaches to management and organization theory are the following fundamental provisions.

1. Application of a systematic approach. The fundamental discovery underlying all management science and organization theory is the idea of ​​an organization as a system of the highest order of complexity, a system of which people are parts. Every true system, mechanical, biological or human, is characterized by interdependence. The entire system does not necessarily improve if one function or part of it improves and becomes more efficient. The effect may be the opposite: the system may be seriously damaged and even destroyed. Moreover, in some cases, strengthening a system requires weakening part of it—making it less accurate or less efficient. In any system, what matters is the functioning of the whole—the result of growth and dynamic equilibrium, adaptation and integration, not mere technical efficiency.

Thus, the systems approach is not a set of guidelines or principles for managers, it is a way of thinking in relation to organization and management.

2. Application of a situational approach. The situational approach expanded the practical application of systems theory by identifying the major internal and external variables that influence organizations. The central point of the situational approach is the situation, i.e. a specific set of variables (circumstances) that greatly influence an organization at that particular time. In accordance with the situational approach, the entire management organization within an enterprise is nothing more than a response to the influences of variables that are different in nature, characterizing a specific situation. Organization and management methods are built in accordance with the situation in which the enterprise or institution is located at a given time. The situation changes—specific tasks change, organization and methods change. Thus, unlike all previous methods of managing collective action, constant updating with a focus on a specific situation is built into management.

3. Modern science emphasizes the chaos and complexity of the world around us. The world in which most of today's leaders live is often unpredictable, incomprehensible and uncontrollable. Formation of chaos theory (i.e. transition from chaos to “chaos theory”)

and its application in the management system of complex systems is a promising direction for increasing the efficiency of organizations.

Summing up the consideration of the issue of forming a new paradigm of management methodology and organization theory, we note that the most promising way to create such a paradigm is synthesis, the integral unity of all methodological approaches. It is necessary to take into account that the methodology of organization theory is a holistic, organic system, and not a random, arbitrary, eclectic set of any of its individual elements (methods, principles, etc.). In its application, this system is always modified depending on the specific conditions of its implementation, i.e. it must correspond to the subject of organization theory and this specific stage of its development. And this means, in particular, that the methodological tools of the natural sciences cannot be mechanically transferred to the theory of organization without taking into account the specifics of the subject and the uniqueness of the application. The researcher should always be free to choose the necessary methods. It is unacceptable to impose any of them as the only true ones - the so-called methodological coercion, i.e. absolutization of individual methodological approaches.

OBJECT, SUBJECT AND METHODS OF ORGANIZATION THEORY

Society consists of many organizations with which all aspects and manifestations of human life are associated. Organization theory is designed to answer the questions: Why are organizations needed? How are they created, function and change? Why do members of organizations act this way and not otherwise?

Any modern theory is a system of scientific knowledge that generalizes practical experience and reflects the essence of the phenomena under study, their internal necessary connections, the laws of functioning and development in nature and society. Theory performs an explanatory function. It shows what properties and connections the object of study has, what laws it obeys in the process of its life. The emergence of a new theory is justified only when its own object and subject of research are discovered. The object of cognition is usually considered to be that to which the cognitive activity of the researcher is directed, and the subject is the aspects, properties, and relationships of the object being studied for a specific purpose. From a theoretical-cognitive point of view, both the object and the subject of knowledge are phenomena of the same order. They relate to the reality around us and oppose the subject of knowledge.

Organization theory studies modern organizations (enterprises, institutions, public associations), the relationships that arise within these formations, their behavior and connection with the external environment. As a scientific discipline, organization theory examines the general properties, laws and patterns of the creation and development of an organization as a whole. The provisions of this theory are based both on general economic laws and on the laws of specialized sciences (for example, systems theory, cybernetics, control theory, etc.). At the same time, the theory of organization is also based on specific laws and patterns inherent in it. It formulates the principles on the basis of which the construction, functioning and development of organizations are carried out.

Organization theory as an independent field of knowledge has its own object (the phenomenon under study) and subject of research.

The object of organization theory is regulated and self-organizing processes occurring in public organizational systems, a set of organizational relations both vertically and horizontally.

In other words, the object of organization theory is social (human-created) organizations in the functioning of which humans play an active role.

The subject of science determines what this science does, what aspects of objective reality it studies. The objective basis of an organization is the relationships that arise in the process of joint activities of people.

The subject of organization theory is organizational relations, i.e. connections and interactions between various kinds of integral formations and their structural components, as well as processes and actions of an organizing and disorganizing nature.

Otherwise, the subject of organization theory is the organizational relationships that develop between people in the process of their joint work.

Organizational relations are the influence, interaction or reaction between elements of an organization inside and outside it during creation, operation, development and destruction.

These include relationships:

• ? expressing objective forms of unification of people and material factors of labor processes;
• ? arising between people regarding the joint work of workers;
• ? providing connections between the technical side of organizations’ activities and property relations.

Organization theory has its own conceptual apparatus, which includes its inherent categories, concepts, and terms.

• 1) general categories for most social sciences (society, state, property, market, social activity, person, personality, resources, social institutions, power, etc.);
• 2) categories that primarily reflect organizational phenomena and processes occurring in social and socio-economic systems (organizational system, organization, structure of the organization, mission, goal of the organization, leader of the organization, formal, informal organizations, laws of the organization, organizational culture, etc.) ;
• 3) categories that reveal the technology of organizational activity and management (rules, procedures, cycles, communications, resolution of contradictions, conflicts, composition, typification, classification, etc.).

The proposed division into categories is conditional. In the process of studying organizational problems and in the practice of organizational activities, they are used comprehensively, in interaction with each other.

The tool for theoretical research of a subject is the scientific method. The term "method" comes from the Greek methods, which literally means “the path to something.” A method is understood as an orderly activity to achieve a specific goal. Human cognitive activity can be theoretical and practical, therefore the concept of “method” applies equally to both theory and practice. The scientific method is associated with the actions of the scientist and is a set of mental or physical operations carried out during the course of research. It involves the use of certain procedures to obtain new knowledge.

The formation of the method is based on the properties, features, laws of the object under study, as well as the directed activity of a scientist with known needs, capabilities and abilities. Thus, the scientific method is both the result of human scientific activity and a means of his further work.

The method of organization theory is a set of cognitive-theoretical and logical principles and categories, as well as scientific (formal logical, mathematical, statistical, organizational) tools for studying the system of organizational relations.

The method of organizational science does not describe the object and subject of research itself (organizational experience and the system of organizational relations), but prescribes to the researcher which research tools to use and how exactly in order to obtain true knowledge about the subject.

The main methods of organization theory include: the method of deduction and induction, statistical, abstract-analytical, comparative, etc.

Deduction provides for research by moving from the general to the specific. First, a theory or methodology is created, and then individual and group events are explained or predicted. Induction involves research by moving from the particular to the general. First, extensive material is collected, on the basis of which a theory is created that can explain any events occurring from a given typology of data. For example, based on the results of a large amount of collected material on the dependence of the nature of relations between employees and the effectiveness of their work, a very effective theory of communications was created, including five levels of relations: full support, difference, polarization, clash and antagonism.

Statistical method consists in quantitative accounting of factors and the frequency of their repetition. Study of mass phenomena in the surrounding world using methods of probability theory, groupings, averages, indices, graphic images, etc. makes it possible to establish the nature and stability of organizational connections of structural elements in various complexes, to assess their level of organization and disorganization. This method helps to find stable connections and patterns between organizational relationships.

Abstract-analytical method allows you to establish laws of phenomena that reflect connections and constant trends. The means for this is “abstraction”, i.e. mental isolation of the essential properties and connections of an object, abstraction from particulars, which allows you to see in its pure form the basis of the phenomena being studied. In all cases, abstraction is carried out either by calculating the phenomenon under study from some integrity, or by drawing up a generalized picture of the phenomenon being studied, or by replacing a real empirical phenomenon with an idealized scheme.

The essence comparative method consists in selecting similar organizations as objects of study. This method becomes important for clarifying the processes of change, development, dynamics of the phenomenon under study, revealing trends and patterns of functioning of organizational systems in their development.

The effectiveness of using the comparative method in practical organizational activities and scientific research is determined by the rules developed by centuries of research experience:

• 1) only interrelated, homogeneous and comparable events (facts) can be compared;
• 2) it is necessary to identify not only signs of similarity in the compared events (facts), structures, but also signs of difference;
• 3) comparison should be carried out, first of all, on the basis of similarities and differences that are of significant importance. The unknown (explainable facts) should be compared with the known (previously established knowledge).

Each of these methods is based on a set of empirical hypotheses (assumptions). They must meet the following requirements:

• ? the meaningfulness of the introduced terms, categories and concepts;
• ? reliability of the conclusions, i.e. the ability to verify or repeat the results;
• ? the possibility of generalization with the transition to other classes of events;
• ? the presence of restrictions on the use of hypotheses (technical, environmental, social, etc.);
• ? the ability to explain current events and predict them.

Organizational processes and phenomena are all-natural and cannot be described by the methods of any one discipline. Therefore, methods of complex and functional analysis, systemic, historical and interdisciplinary approaches are of particular importance (Fig. 1.1). Thanks to their widespread use, it becomes possible to conduct a complete, deep and comprehensive study of the problems of organization theory.

Rice. 1.1.

Usage integrated approach allows you to reveal the integral qualities of an organization, gain new knowledge about it by studying this phenomenon in an interdisciplinary aspect at the intersection of various sciences.

Research of organizations from the perspective systematic approach makes it possible to reveal its properties such as integrity, consistency, organization, to describe the laws of the relationship between its elements, intra-organizational relations and the relationship of the object in question with others.

Application functional approach give a chance:

• ? study the manifestation of the purposefulness and activity of the organization;
• ? establish the place occupied by this or that organization in natural and social processes;
• ? identify the interaction of the organization in question with other systemic and non-systemic entities, the dependence between individual components within a given system.

Historical approach defines, integrates a given state and movement of an organization, takes into account the increasing pace of its development, allows one to establish patterns of transition from one state to another, organically connects the genetic and prognostic interpretation of objects and processes.

Interdisciplinary approach is based on the idea of ​​an organization as a sociotechnical system, and combines data from the natural sciences, cybernetics, and socio-psychological concepts. It is based on the following provisions:

• ? organization is an open system, subject to all laws and principles characteristic of other similar systems;
• ? organization is a developing social system to which all the laws of group dynamics apply;
• ? in an organization there are always two types of joint activities, one of which is aimed at solving a basic problem, and the other is aimed at communication;
• ? people in an organization unconsciously repeat patterns of behavior that have developed based on their family experiences.