Labor behavior: concept, structure
The leading categories of the sociology of labor include social behavior and its modifications - labor, economic, organizational, functional, communication, production, demographic, normative and deviant. They reflect the properties of the main subjects of social life: individuals, groups, and collectives. Social behavior – derivative of the component social environment, which is refracted in subjective characteristics and acts characters, and also the result of the subjective determination of human activity. In this sense, it can be understood as a process of purposeful activity in accordance with the significant interests and needs of a person. It is, on the one hand, a complex system of adaptation and adaptation of the individual to various conditions, a way of functioning in the system of a particular society. On the other hand, it is an active form of transformation and change in the social environment in accordance with the objective possibilities that a person independently designs and discovers for himself, in accordance with his own ideas, values and ideals. Variety social behavior are work activity and work behavior.
Labor activity – This is a strictly fixed in time and space expedient series of operations and functions performed by people united in a production organization. The following goals are set here:
· creation of material wealth, means of life support;
· provision of services for various purposes;
· development of scientific ideas, values and their applied analogues;
· accumulation, conservation, transmission of information and its media, etc.
Labor activity - regardless of the method, means and results - is characterized by a number of general properties: a functional and technological set of labor operations, a functional program prescribed for workplaces; a set of relevant qualities of labor subjects, recorded in professional, qualification and job characteristics; material and technical conditions and space-time framework for implementation; a certain way of organizational, technological and economic connection of labor subjects with the means and conditions for their implementation; a normative and algorithmic method of organization, with the help of which a behavioral matrix of individuals included in the production process is formed (by the organizational and managerial structure).
Labor behavior – These are individual and group actions that show the direction and intensity of the implementation of the human factor in a production organization. This a consciously regulated set of actions and behavior of an employee associated with the coincidence of professional capabilities And interests with the activities of the production organization, the production process. This is a process of self-tuning, self-regulation, providing a certain level of personal identification.
Structure labor behavior can be represented as follows:
· cyclically repeating actions, of the same type in result, reproducing standard status-role situations or states;
marginal (from lat. marginalis located on the edge) actions and deeds that are formed in phases of transition from one status to another;
· behavioral patterns and stereotypes, frequently occurring patterns of behavior;
· actions based on rationalized semantic schemes translated into stable beliefs;
· actions taken under the dictates of certain circumstances;
· spontaneous actions and actions provoked by an emotional state;
· conscious or unconscious repetition of stereotypes of mass and group behavior;
· actions and deeds as a transformation of the influence of other subjects using various forms of coercion and persuasion.
Labor behavior can be differentiated on the following grounds: subject-target orientation; the depth of the spatio-temporal perspective of achieving a certain goal; context of work behavior, i.e. according to a complex of relatively stable factors of the production environment, subjects and communication systems, in interaction with which the whole variety of actions and actions unfolds; methods and means of achieving specific results depending on the subject-target orientation of labor behavior and its socio-cultural patterns; by depth and type of rationalization, justification for specific tactics and strategies of labor behavior, etc.
Types of labor behavior, regulation mechanism
The literature provides different classifications of types of labor behavior, depending on what is included in its basis. Taking this into account, the following types of labor behavior can be proposed:
|
Basis of classification: |
Types of labor behavior: |
|
1. Subjects of behavior |
Individual, collective |
|
2. Presence (absence) of interactions with other subjects |
Assuming interaction, not involving interaction |
|
3. Production function |
Performing, management |
|
4. Degree of determinism |
Strictly determined, proactive |
|
5. Degree of compliance with accepted standards |
Normative, deviating from norms |
|
6. Degree of formalization |
Established in official documents, unidentified |
|
7. Nature of motivation |
Value-based, situational |
|
8. Operational results and consequences |
Positive, negative |
|
9. Scope of behavior |
The actual labor process, building relationships in production, creating a working atmosphere |
|
10. Degree of traditional behavior |
Established types of behavior, emerging types, including in the form of a reaction to various socio-economic actions |
|
11. Results and consequences from the point of view of human destinies |
Corresponding to the desired patterns of working life, not conforming |
|
12. Degree of realization of labor potential |
Not requiring a change in the achieved degree of realization of labor potential, causing the need to mobilize various components of labor potential (as a set of employee qualities) |
|
13. The nature of the reproduction of labor potential |
Assuming simple reproduction of labor potential, requiring expanded reproduction of potential |
It is difficult to limit the types of labor behavior to this list. To identify the degree of implementation of traditional positive types of behavior, sociological surveys, as a rule, include a block of questions reflecting production requirements for an employee and corresponding to the prevailing idea of a “good” or “bad” employee. Thus, during a sociological survey of workers, the task is usually to detect the desire and the very fact of manifestation of socially approved behavior on the following grounds: fulfillment and exceeding production standards; improving the quality of our work and products; rationalization and inventive activities; exact compliance with the requirements of production technology, etc. All these are types of performing behavior. The managerial behavior of workers traditionally includes participation in the management and self-management of production, in the exchange of experience, etc. Of course, the characteristics of work behavior must be approached flexibly. You can record types of behavior that are characterized as master's, but you can do the opposite.
Labor behavior is formed under the influence various factors: social and professional characteristics of workers, working conditions in a broad sense (including working and living conditions in production, wages, etc.), systems of norms and values, work motivations. It is directed by the personal and group interests of people and serves to satisfy their needs.
In Fig. Figure 22 shows the various components of work behavior: needs – the need for something necessary to maintain the life of an organism, a human person, a social group, or society as a whole; interests – real reasons for actions that form among social groups and individuals due to their differences in position and role in public life; motives – conscious attitude (subjective) to one’s actions (internal motivation); value orientations – social values shared by the individual, which are the goal of life and the main means of achieving it and, because of this, acquire the function of the most important regulators of the labor behavior of individuals; installation - a person’s general orientation toward a certain social object, which precedes action and expresses a predisposition to act in a certain way regarding this object; work situation – a set of conditions in which the labor process takes place; incentives – influences external to a person that should motivate him to a certain work behavior.
Fig. 22 Mechanism for regulating labor behavior
Features and characteristics of various types of behavior
Behavior can be considered depending on the goals that the researcher sets for himself.
Functional behavior. This is a specific form of professional activity, determined by workplace technology. Functional behavior is inherent in any work process, regardless of the degree of complexity and specialization. Differences are observed only in the predominance of physical or mental stress. In one case, physical stress dominates, and in the other, mental stress.
Economic behavior. Any behavior should be focused on results, on the quantity and quality of human resources expended. Applying his professional abilities in the production process, the individual constantly focuses on the optimal balance between costs and their compensation. Otherwise, if there is no compensation (commodity-monetary, natural, economic, social), then interest in this type of activity will begin to decline. The following types of economic behavior can be formulated: “maximum income at the cost of maximum labor”, “guaranteed income at the price of minimum labor”, “minimum income with minimum labor” and “maximum income with minimum labor”. There are various forms of economic behavior in the sphere of distribution and consumption.
Economic behavior is characterized by the concept of efficiency. In relation to production and labor activities, efficiency is often defined as the relationship between costs and results. This characteristic can be attributed to both production and the employee. The economic efficiency of labor in the workplace usually refers to labor productivity, costs of working time, materials, fuel, electricity, etc. The social effect obtained as a result of labor activity is expressed in the nature of the employee’s reproduction, in the conservation and development of his physical and spiritual strength, in the accumulation of knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Economic behavior is influenced by a number of factors: technical (the use of new equipment and technology), organizational (how the organization of production and labor is improved), socio-economic (the influence of conditions, content of work, its rationing and payment), socio-psychological (job satisfaction, moral and psychological climate in the team), personal (educational and cultural level of the employee), socio-political (this is the solidarity of employees, the activities of the trade union, etc.). An important factor determining the economic behavior of a worker is his attitude to the form of ownership (when the worker is a full or partial owner of the means of production).
Organizational and administrative behavior. Its essence lies in the formation of positive motivation of members of the labor organization. For these purposes, various types of incentives are actively used: moral, material, social. Subjects of organizational behavior are individual workers, social groups that operate within the framework of functional, normative and sociocultural restrictions that allow them to regulate and correlate the processes of achieving their specific goals with the goals and objectives of those production organizations in the structure of which they are included.
Stratification behavior. This is behavior associated with a professional, work career, when an employee consciously chooses and implements in a relatively long period of time the path of his professional or job advancement.
Adaptive behavior. It manifests itself in the process of employee adaptation to new professional statuses, roles, requirements of the technological environment, etc. This behavior reveals itself in the phase of the employee’s initial entry into the production process, team, and professional environment. There is a gradual integration of a person into the professional and social environment, the formation of a clearly defined line of labor behavior. This behavior can be seen everywhere. This also includes behavior such as conformist – adaptation to the attitudes of other persons, especially those higher in the hierarchical level of management, and conventional – a form of adaptation of an individual or a worker to an established or constantly changing behavioral structure, a constantly renewed system of compromises.
Ceremonial and subordinate forms of behavior. They appear at various levels of the organizational hierarchy, performing a number of functions. In particular, they ensure the preservation, reproduction and transmission of significant values, professional traditions, customs and patterns of behavior, support the sustainability and integration of employees with the organization as a whole. These types of behavior are associated with the implementation of official, professional and official etiquette. They are based on an objectively given subordination structure of professional and official subordination, a form of recognition, preservation and maintenance of the authority of power and authority. But in this behavior one can observe various kinds of deformations when, for example, power is transformed into official and unofficial privileges that have neither economic nor social justification.
Characterological forms of behavior. These are emotions and moods that are realized in behavior. A person can suppress others with his strong-willed or official temperament, demonstrating qualities to which he needs to adapt. People with this form of behavior are often called moral vampires.
The incompatibility of characterological forms of behavior in two or more persons is the cause of conflicts and conflict situations in a labor organization. One of the varieties of this form of behavior is spontaneous, unmotivated behavior that occurs under the influence strong emotions in extreme, non-standard situations. The consequences of spontaneous behavior have a negative impact on the work process, increase the negative motivation of workers, and contribute to refusal (overt or hidden) from completing tasks and orders.
Destructive forms of behavior. This is the employee’s going beyond the status-role requirements, norms and disciplinary framework of the labor process. The following forms of such behavior can be distinguished:
· illegal; administrative and managerial, associated with excess of rights and powers, with direct failure to fulfill obligations; dysfunctional(professional incompetence);
· individually targeted, having an extremely selfish nature, aimed at realizing purely personal interests;
· imitation behavior, pseudoactivity; types of group and individual behavior associated with the preservation of conservative habits and traditions that, to one degree or another, hinder initiative, creativity, and innovation;
· deviant, associated with the implementation of associative habits and inclinations.
Labor behavior in market economic conditions
Business conditions at the macro and micro levels have a certain impact on the labor behavior of various categories of workers. In turn, the formation and spread of new types of labor behavior is a decisive factor in the transition to new forms of economic management, which are currently not homogeneous. Along with elements of the economic mechanism, they include elements reflecting the collapse of the command and administrative system of leadership and management. This inevitably gives rise to some contradictory features in the labor behavior of various groups of workers and delays the spread of new types of labor behavior, which are often rejected by public opinion.
Denationalization and privatization, based on a variety of forms of ownership, firstly, encourage intensive work and corresponding work behavior, which is not ensured by social guarantees; secondly, they create the potential for competition, which means that with consistent development they lead to a qualitative change in the labor behavior of both business managers and specialists, and workers.
The social mechanism of staff labor activity is influenced by a variety of incentive factors and inhibitory factors, among which two incentive factors operating at the enterprise level can be distinguished.
The first factor is that all personnel understand the economic and legal principles of the functioning of joint stock ownership to a sufficient extent to feel the clear dependence of their well-being both on the achievements of the enterprise as a whole and on their personal labor contribution.
The second factor is the ability of workers to participate in the management of their enterprise. In the practice of other countries, so-called “participatory management methods” have become widespread, when an employee at all levels is delegated additional powers in production management, participation in property, profit distribution, etc. He is given the opportunity to dispose (vote) of his shares at acceptance management decisions and even independently resolve issues related to organization and working conditions. Undoubtedly, the process of introducing workers to real power is extremely painful and causes resistance from the administration. At the same time, it is clear that a new philosophy of relationships within enterprises and firms must be formed in the Russian economic environment.
Today, in many enterprises, regardless of their form of ownership, the interaction of social groups is characterized by the fact that managers continue to exercise an authoritarian management style. They do not yet bear the necessary responsibility to the collective for the economic decisions made. Engineers and technical workers are just beginning to have incentives to innovate.
Labor behavior is implemented at an industrial enterprise. New business conditions require new forms of enterprise management (see Fig. 4.2), which place new demands on employees.
New economic conditions at the enterprise level should reflect the state of social policy and most social problems should be solved at its level.
Scientific and technological progress must be considered as an important condition for economic management. Only this will allow us to constantly increase the efficiency and quality of labor and reduce the cost of products.
Transformations in the country are taking place approximately according to this scenario. And if we take into account that all these transformations are taking place for the sake of enhancing the activity of the employee (person), then the question of studying the employee’s attitude towards work and satisfaction with it becomes relevant.
Fig. 23 New business conditions (at the enterprise level)
INNOVATIONS AND DEVIATIONS IN LABOR BEHAVIOR
Introduction
2. The essence and factors of deviating labor behavior.
3. What does social control in the world of work include and how does it work?
Conclusion
Basic Concepts
Literature
Introduction
Innovations are arbitrary or purposeful changes that occur in the organizational and labor sphere or indirectly affect it. The most typical and important objects of innovation are relations of ownership of the means of production and methods of management, principles of income distribution, motivation and incentive systems, organization and division of labor, its nature and conditions, traditions and norms of the team, management style, etc.
Individuals and groups perceive the innovation process and the innovation situation in a certain way, react to them with consciousness, experiences, and actions, which determines the very problem of innovative behavior.
It is common for the whole world, social existence and each person to deviate from the axis of their existence and development. The reason for this deviation lies in the peculiarities of the relationship and interaction of a person with the outside world, the social environment and himself. The diversity that arises on the basis of this property in the psychophysical, sociocultural, spiritual and moral state of people and their behavior is a condition for the flourishing of society, its improvement and the implementation of social development.
Deviation in behavior - deviant behavior - is thus a natural condition for human development and the life of the entire society. In other words, deviant behavior was, is and will be, and this is the relevance of its study.
Innovative behavior is associated with the introduction of non-standard solutions that change, to one degree or another, the system of social relations at various levels of the organization, and is characterized by the quality, scale and depth of changes that affect the existing system of interests and behavioral stereotypes.
Innovative behavior involves a number of stages and phases, the first of which involves breaking down ingrained stereotypes, habits and traditions, and overcoming standard, conservative opinions. Specific actions of the subject begin with a statement of the need for reconstructive changes in production structures, detection deadlock situations and contradictions that objectively require overcoming. The classical form of innovative behavior includes a number of independent processes that have their own logic, tactics, strategy and method of organization in time and space.
1. Recruitment by subjects of innovative behavior of supporters from among those who, in principle, agree with the need for change. Moreover, the more pressing the problem, the more obvious the contradiction, the greater the number of individuals who agree in principle with its solution (passive majority).
2. Recruitment of active supporters from among those whose interests are in accordance with the prospect of reconstructive changes. These are, as a rule, professionals who know how, can and want to change the state of affairs (an active minority).
3. Neutralization of the opposition, consisting primarily of those whose interests, to one degree or another, do not correspond to innovative changes in the organization.
4. Searches for the formation of organizational methods for achieving intermediate and final goals of reconstructive changes.
5. Mobilizing the human factor, finding the necessary resources and putting the implementation process into motion.
Innovative behavior is always accompanied by overcoming various obstacles, oppositional sentiments and opinions. Psychologically, this is a very uncomfortable form of behavior associated with the functioning of an individual in constantly occurring extreme situations. In innovative behavior the level of risk, responsibility, uncertainty, and unpredictability is extremely high. It can be assessed by the conservative opposition in a very wide range: simply as non-standard, disturbing the usual balance at one pole, and as illegal at the other.
In real practice, an innovator faces many obstacles and problems that he cannot always solve in a positive way. This happens especially often if he occupies an ordinary status within a particular organization, so the presence of innovation in a single workplace is not always a positive thing. Especially when their producer is a person whose motives and interests do not generally coincide with the interests of the production organization and those who own and manage it. It should also be noted that the logic of innovative changes presupposes the presence of an autonomous status, which an individual employee, as a rule, does not possess, because it must necessarily obey the organizational and technological discipline of the production process.
In this regard, one can state a contradiction in assessing the actions of innovators, especially if they are hired workers. On the one hand, in a separate, often very narrow area, they contribute to technological progress, on the other hand, they force a violation of the strict functional order within certain links or production cycles. Contradictions also arise when assessing the effect of innovation and distributing rewards between the producer of know-how and the owners of the enterprise. The latter seek to appropriate most of the effect of innovation, using, for example, paternalistic calculation schemes based on guaranteed employment and symbolic privileges (Japanese experience). This contradiction, associated with the inequivalence of social exchange, can be overcome in two ways: either the subject of innovative behavior must win the right of his own autonomous actions within the production organization, proving their effectiveness to managers and owners, as well as agreeing with them on the amount of remuneration, or he must change his status and become an independent entrepreneur. In the latter case, he bears full responsibility and risk for the implementation of innovative ideas.
2. The essence and factors of deviating labor behavior
In sociological science, the concept of “deviant behavior” has been used for quite a long time. It denotes individual and group actions that contradict established and recognized social norms.
In the world of work, such norms are widespread and diverse. They serve the purposes of functional stability and efficiency of the organization, as well as social order and well-being in it, i.e. have both industrial and humanitarian significance.
Social norms differ primarily in such important characteristics as categoricalness, level of specificity, and object of distribution. If some social norms regulate primarily labor and activity, others regulate relationships. An essential criterion for their difference is the source and nature of the establishment: they can be developed and accepted either by the team itself, or by the administration, or by authorities external to the organization.
According to some external signs, deviant behavior coincides with innovative behavior. In both cases, the actions do not meet expectations, contradict the usual, accepted. External resemblance deviant and innovative behavior creates problems in practice: innovations are intentionally and unintentionally perceived and explained as violations, and violations as innovations. Deviant behavior in the world of work is often referred to as a simpler and more specific concept of organizational and labor violations.
In order to properly understand and prevent organizational and labor violations, it is necessary to analyze the general and specific factors of deviant behavior.
Let us first highlight a number of reasons - motives for organizational and labor violations.
1. Forced by circumstances. Certain actions within the organization may actually or supposedly be the only possible ones in the current production or labor situation. At the same time, it is precisely such actions that are considered to be a violation. When qualifying such actions as violations on the part of the team or administration, the factor of being forced by circumstances can be more or less taken into account, understood, and justified.
An organizational and labor violation in the case under consideration is the best way to avoid any consequences or problems for an individual employee or the work group as a whole.
2. Limited abilities for normal behavior (discipline). In order to ensure organizational and labor order, such high discipline requirements are established that they turn out to be feasible either only by certain individuals, or by all, but for a short time. Compliance with all standards in in this case unrealistic, unnatural.
The general complexity of organizational and labor discipline for a person is explained by the fact that any normal behavior presupposes certain abilities on his part, for example:
a) memory (it is necessary to remember a fairly large number of different norms);
b) attention (you need to constantly monitor yourself in terms of compliance with the norms in the relevant situation);
c) will (it is necessary to make efforts more often or less frequently to “limit” one’s own desires in accordance with the norms).
3. Lack of awareness. The state of discipline in a labor organization especially depends on such a “simple” factor as a person’s or group’s knowledge of established norms and awareness of them.
In people's attitude to labor discipline, not only awareness, but also understanding is important. Organizational and labor violations occur due to weak interiorization (internal awareness and acceptance) of established norms, which in turn is associated with a lack of their propaganda and explanation, visual demonstration, personal experience, convincing of their practical significance.
Many workers are focused on diligence, working exclusively on command as a simpler behavior that frees them from the need to know all the norms of labor discipline.
4. Social-comparative motive. We are talking about a situation where the choice of deviant or normal behavior is determined by social comparison.
Firstly, an organizational and labor violation occurs because a given subject perceives a certain norm as having nothing to do with him, extending only to others. The problem indeed often lies in the fact that the targeting of requirements and responsibilities is not sufficiently specific. Secondly, non-compliance with norms by some encourages non-compliance by others. A single factor can cause a chain reaction of organizational and labor relations. All kinds of personal privileges in labor discipline make motives for violations such as “everyone does this”, “others do this”, etc. widespread in the team.
5. Innovation. Any significant changes in the system of relations and activities of people are accompanied by some destruction of their value-normative consciousness, including the devaluation of the most elementary discipline. Its norms are perceived as a “relic of the past” that does not correspond to the new system and therefore loses its meaning, categoricalness, and binding nature.
Thus, organizational and labor violations, even temporary ones, are inevitable in the context of reforms.
6. Demonstrative behavior. Another important reason for organizational and labor violations is the demonstration by an individual or group of their social position. An individual worker does not comply with any norm of discipline, because in this way he asserts himself in some of his personal qualities - creative thinking, independence, courage. An entire work group does not comply with any norm of discipline, since in this way it expresses protest to the administration, readiness and ability to conflict with it, and reluctance to work under these conditions.
7. Non-participation in management. People tend to treat their own and others' decisions differently. Often, norms of discipline that have existed for a long time or were given and prescribed from above are not sufficiently respected precisely because they lack the element of “personal participation.” Conversely, the norms of discipline adopted and developed by the team itself are sufficiently respected, since they have the meaning of voluntary compliance, moral obligation, self-expression and self-affirmation.
Reasons-motives are based on the needs of an individual or group for organizational and labor violations. There are also provoking situations associated with the possibility of committing a violation. A provoking situation is, first of all, a certain state of social control.
Organizational and labor violations are provoked in three cases:
a) if control is generally or temporarily absent;
b) if the benefit of the violation turns out to be more significant than the sanctions of punishment and conviction, and normal behavior is not encouraged;
c) if the forms of control are so unacceptable for an individual or group that an organizational and labor violation is committed as if on the principle of contradiction.
Organizational and labor violations in theory and practice are often associated with the individual characteristics of the subject of labor behavior. Normal or deviant behavior determined by these features is even taken as a criterion for typologizing the employee’s personality. For example, the following types are distinguished:
Supernormative (complies always, under any circumstances);
Normative (does not comply only in special cases, under special circumstances);
Subnormative (does not comply more than complies);
Non-normative (does not comply very often or under all circumstances).
In real conditions, both the administration and the team, without any scientific observations and research, are able to somehow identify themselves and others according to these types, name the “best” and “worst”, the most and least likely violators. The supernormative and nonnormative types are especially visual and noticeable, although they are less common than the others.
The criterion for typologizing the personality of an employee, the character of any subject of economic activity, is the inertia of deviant behavior. We are talking about the ability of an individual or group to respond to social control, to assess its condition in a timely or delayed manner. For example, an employee can be quite “flexible” and “sensitive” to take into account changes in the disciplinary regime at the enterprise, its tightening or liberalization. He may also be something of an underdog, doing today what is possible only tomorrow, and vice versa.
Finally, in the organizational and labor sphere it is necessary to distinguish between the characteristics of egoism. Selfishness is both reasonable and unreasonable behavior. It often happens that a subject, pursuing exclusively his own goal and ignoring the goals of other subjects, acts against his own interests: by not respecting the social order, he thereby undermines the system in which he himself is included, thanks to which he himself exists. Such unreasonable egoism creates a specific type of “violator” in the organizational and labor sphere.
3. What does social control in the world of work include and how does it work?
Awareness and establishment of certain norms in itself does not ensure organizational and labor order if there is no mechanism of social control.
Such activity is of a superstructural nature, but is objectively inevitable for organization and production (it does not directly create a product, but without it this product would ultimately be impossible).
Specific functions of social control in the world of work are:
Stabilization and development of production (employee behavior is controlled in terms of labor results, interaction with others, productivity, etc.);
Economic rationality and responsibility (control over the use of resources, conservation of property and property, optimization of labor costs);
Moral and legal regulation (the essence of organizational and labor discipline is seen primarily in the observance of morality and law in the relationships of subjects of labor activity);
Physical protection of a person (the objects of control are compliance with safety regulations, standard working hours, etc.).
Thus, in the sphere of labor, social control pursues both production-economic and social-humanitarian goals.
Social control has a complex structure, which consists of three interrelated processes:
Observation of behavior;
Reaction to behavior in the form of sanctions.
These processes indicate the presence of social control functions in organizations.
Depending on the subject of implementation, various types of social control in the world of work can be distinguished - external, mutual control and self-control.
With external control, its subject is not included in the directly controlled system of relations and activities, but is outside this system. In an organization, a similar phenomenon is possible due to managerial relations, therefore, here external control is control exercised by the administration.
Administrative control has a number of advantages. First of all, it represents a special and independent activity. This, on the one hand, frees personnel directly involved in the main production tasks from control functions, and on the other hand, it facilitates the implementation of control functions at a professional level.
An important feature of administrative control is its official nature. Control by the administration is perceived as an action on behalf and in the interests of the entire organization, while there are no or minimal doubts about who, why and on what basis controls (control is perceived as the professional responsibility of certain people).
Administrative control also has disadvantages, which are clearly manifested in appropriate situations.
It may not always be comprehensive and responsive; It is also quite possible that he is biased. In addition, management is relatively separate from the “direct workplace,” which sometimes results in incomplete or distorted awareness of the behavior of ordinary members of the organization as workers. It is the administrative assessment of organizational and labor behavior that can be professionally incompetent: in particular cases, an ordinary employee, based on knowledge of a specific job, is able to talk more accurately about the normality and abnormality of his actions than an administrator.
In administrative control, among all the normative qualities of organizational and labor behavior, diligence stands out. The importance of diligence in maintaining organizational and labor order is sometimes exaggerated; often this order is completely reduced to diligence, which is associated with the natural psychology of management.
Mutual control arises in a situation where the bearers of social control functions are the subjects of organizational and labor relations themselves, who have the same status. This either complements or replaces administrative control.
In mutual control, the supervision mechanism is as simple as possible, since normal or deviant behavior is observed directly. This important circumstance not only ensures the relatively constant nature of control functions, but also reduces the likelihood of errors in regulatory assessment associated with distortion of facts in the information process.
Mutual control also has disadvantages. First of all, this is subjectivity: if relations between people are characterized by competition, then they are naturally predisposed to unfairly attribute to each other some violations of discipline, and to prejudicially evaluate each other’s organizational and labor behavior.
One of the important manifestations of mutual control in organizations is the so-called evaluative relationship. Their essence lies in the fact that individuals and microgroups give each other certain assessments from the point of view of normative qualities that are important in the organizational and labor sphere. As a result, a structure of personal statuses is formed, favorable, unfavorable and neutral status categories arise, each employee or team “acquires” its own image in the perception of others. Thus, various aspects of organizational and labor discipline become criteria for a personal attitude towards a person or a group of people.
The main advantage of self-control is the limitation of the need for special control activities on the part of the administration. In addition, it gives the employee a sense of freedom, independence, and personal significance. In some cases, self-control is more competent.
The disadvantages of self-control are mainly two circumstances: each subject, in assessing his own behavior, tends to underestimate social and normative requirements, and is more liberal towards himself than others; self-control to a large extent is a random phenomenon, i.e. it is poorly predictable and controllable, dependent on the state of the subject as a person, and manifests itself only with such qualities as consciousness and morality.
Within the framework of the classification of social control, we can distinguish not only its types, but also its types. The latter distinguish social control from the point of view not of subjects, but of the nature of its implementation.
1. Continuous and selective. Social control may vary in such important characteristics as the intensity, object, and content of the behavior being supervised.
Continuous social control is of an ongoing nature; the entire process of organizational-labor relations and activities is subject to supervision and evaluation without excluding any of its elements; all individuals and microgroups that make up the organization are equally the object of attention.
With selective control, its functions are relatively limited; they extend only to something most important and significant. For example, only the final results, the most critical tasks and functions or periods of their implementation, the most “sore points” in the discipline according to enterprise statistics, only a certain (questionable) part of the personnel, etc. are observed and evaluated.
In the case of formal control, what is observed and assessed is not the substantive quality of organizational-labor relations and activities, their meaning, but external signs that can create the effect of credibility and normality.
The most obvious signs of formal control in the organizational and labor sphere are observation and evaluation of attendance at work, and not actual employment, stay at the workplace, and not actual work, external activity, and not actual results, diligence, and not the quality of performance.
discipline, creativity and formalism is a global practical problem.
3. Open and hidden. Despite their apparent simplicity and specificity, these types reflect rather complex phenomena in the organizational and labor sphere. In general terms, the openness or closedness of social control is determined by the state of awareness, awareness of the social control functions of those who are the object of these functions. Let us highlight several more specific aspects of the openness or closedness of social control in labor organizations.
First of all, such a key element of social control as behavioral supervision can be open or closed. The secrecy of supervision in social communities such as labor organizations is ensured mainly by such methods as surveillance using technical means, the unexpected appearance of formal or informal controllers, and the collection of information through intermediaries.
Another indicator of the open or closed nature of social control is the focus on preventing organizational and labor violations or punishing them.
In a labor organization, downward and upward flows of social control constantly coexist, i.e. The administration controls the staff, and the staff controls the administration. Sometimes both parties even “compete” in a peculiar way, competing to control each other, trying to achieve advantages or at least equality in the relationship. Managers naturally strive to limit control over themselves, resist it, disorganize the work of services and team activists, or mislead them. The governed, with appropriate experience and solidarity, can also successfully control the administration.
Any labor collective would like to have an administration that would take care of its well-being, and any administration would like to form or educate a labor collective that would require less control in management. In a word, both managers and managed always strive for understanding and trust (not control) in relationships.
Social control in the world of work has a complex economic psychology, which is especially evident in the following.
An organization is made up of different subjects with their specific interests, so it may have different ideas about what labor discipline is and what it should be. As a result of social struggle, a certain labor discipline may turn out to be a mechanism that creates economic privileges or infringes on the economic rights of some individuals and groups in the organization.
On the one hand, economic interests can be organized and regulated in such a way that there is no objective need for control; on the other hand, economic interests can sometimes be realized only under the condition of thorough control.
In different cases, control is a reliable way to prevent economic problems or a factor that gives rise to them.
IN real life employees, managers, and various business entities often have to compare the economic price of control itself and the losses that are possible due to its absence. According to research and observations, many workers themselves do not care about personal safety at work; many voluntarily work extra hours or in harmful conditions for the sake of “big money.” In such cases, people’s economic behavior more or less clearly contradicts their health, and therefore administrative and public control can and should compensate for “failures” of self-control, insure a person and even be responsible for his well-being.
Conclusion
In most societies, control of behavior is asymmetrical: deviations in the bad direction are condemned, and deviations in the good direction are approved. Depending on whether the deviation is positive or negative, all forms of deviation can be placed on a certain continuum. At one pole there will be a group of people who exhibit the most disapproved behavior: revolutionaries, terrorists, non-patriots, political emigrants, traitors, atheists, criminals, vandals, cynics, beggars. At the other pole there will be a group with the most approved deviations: national heroes, outstanding artists, athletes, scientists, writers, artists and political leaders, missionaries, labor leaders. If we carry out a statistical calculation, it turns out that in normally developing societies and under normal conditions, each of these groups will account for approximately 10-15% of the total population. On the contrary, 70% of the country's population are “solid average” - and people with insignificant deviations.
Although most people predominantly live in accordance with the laws, they cannot be considered absolutely law-abiding, that is, social conformists. Thus, in a survey of New York residents, 99% of respondents admitted that they had committed one or more illegal acts, for example, secretly stealing from a store, deceiving a tax inspector or a guard, not to mention the more innocent ones - being late for work, jaywalking or smoking in inappropriate places.
Basic Concepts
Innovations are arbitrary or purposeful changes that occur in the organizational and labor sphere or indirectly affect it.
Innovative behavior is an initiative type of individual or collective behavior associated with the systematic development by social actors of new ways of activity in various spheres of public life or the creation of new objects of material and spiritual culture.
Violations are deliberate wrong actions, deliberate violations of established rules.
Social norms are generally accepted rules, patterns of behavior, standards of activity that ensure orderliness, sustainability and stability of the social interaction of individuals and groups.
Deviant behavior is the actions and actions of people and social groups that contradict social norms or recognized standards of behavior. It is expressed in non-compliance with the requirements of the social norm, the choice of a different behavior option and leads to a violation of the measure of interaction between the individual and society, the group and society, the individual and the group. The most dangerous form of O. p. is expressed in crime.
Self-control is a specific way of behavior of the subject of organizational-labor relations, in which he independently (outside the factor of external coercion) supervises his own actions and behaves in accordance with accepted norms.
Social control is a specific activity aimed at maintaining normal behavior in a given group or community (compliance of behavior with accepted norms) by various means of social influence.
Literature
1. Babosov E.M. Economic sociology. Questions and answers - Mn.: TetraSystems, 2004.
2. Dorin A.V. Economic sociology: Textbook. allowance. - Mn.: IP “Ecoperspective”, 1997.
3. Sokolova G.N. Economic sociology: Textbook. for universities. Mn.: Higher. school, 1998.
4. Economic sociology: Tutorial for universities / Ed. IN AND. Verkhovyna. - M.: Academic project; Peace Foundation, 2006.
Labor behavior: concept, structure.
The leading categories of the sociology of labor include social behavior and its modifications - labor, economic, organizational, functional, communication, production, demographic, normative.
They reflect the properties of the main subjects of social life: individuals, groups, and collectives. Social behavior is a derived component of the social environment, which is refracted in the subjective characteristics and acts of actors, as well as the result of the subjective determination of human activity.
In this sense, social behavior can be understood as a process of purposeful activity in accordance with the significant interests and needs of a person. On the one hand, it is a complex system of adaptation of the individual to various conditions, a way of functioning in the system of a particular society. On the other hand, it is an active form of transformation and change in the social environment in accordance with the objective possibilities that a person independently designs and discovers for himself, in accordance with his own ideas, values, and ideals. A type of social behavior is work activity and work behavior. It is necessary to distinguish between these concepts.
Labor activity- this is a strictly fixed in time and space expedient series of operations and functions performed by people united in a production organization. Labor activity provides solutions to the following tasks:
creation of material goods as means of life support;
provision of services for various purposes;
development of scientific ideas, values and their applied analogues;
accumulation, conservation, transmission of information and its media, etc.
Labor activity - regardless of the method, means and results - is characterized by a number of general properties:
A functional and technological set of labor operations, a functional program prescribed for workplaces.
A set of relevant qualities of labor subjects, recorded in professional, qualification and job characteristics.
Material and technical conditions and space-time framework for implementation.
A certain way of organizational, technological and economic connection of labor subjects with the means and conditions for their implementation.
A normative-algorithmic method of organization, through which a behavioral matrix of individuals included in the production process (by the organizational and managerial structure) is formed.
Labor behavior- these are individual and group actions that show the direction and intensity of the implementation of the human factor in a production organization.
This is a consciously regulated set of actions and behavior of an employee associated with the coincidence of professional capabilities and interests with the activities of the production organization and the production process. This is a process of self-tuning, self-regulation, providing a certain level of personal identification.
The structure of labor behavior can be represented as follows:
cyclically repeating actions, of the same type in result, reproducing standard status-role situations or states;
marginal actions and behaviors that are formed in phases of transition from one status to another;
behavioral patterns and stereotypes, frequently occurring patterns of behavior;
actions based on rationalized semantic schemes translated into stable beliefs;
actions carried out under the dictates of certain circumstances; spontaneous actions and actions provoked by an emotional state;
conscious or unconscious repetition of stereotypes of mass and group behavior;
actions and deeds as a transformation of the influence of other subjects using various forms of coercion and persuasion.
Labor behavior can be differentiated according to the following criteria:
according to the subject-target orientation, i.e. according to what it is aimed at;
in depth of the spatio-temporal perspective of achieving a certain goal;
according to the context of labor behavior, i.e. according to a complex of relatively stable factors of the production environment, subjects and communication systems, in interaction with which the whole variety of actions and actions unfolds;
on methods and means of achieving specific results, depending on the subject-target orientation of labor behavior and its socio-cultural patterns;
by depth and type of rationalization, justification for specific tactics and strategies of labor behavior, etc.
So, work behavior:
reflects the functional algorithm of the production process and is a behavioral analogue of labor activity;
is a form of employee adaptation to the requirements and conditions of the technological process and social environment;
acts as a dynamic manifestation of social standards, stereotypes and professional attitudes that are internalized by the individual in the process of socialization and specific life experience;
reflects the characterological traits of the employee’s personality;
There is a certain way and means of human influence on the surrounding industrial and social environment.
Types of labor behavior, regulation mechanism
In the specialized literature one can find various classifications of types of labor behavior. It depends on what is taken as its basis. Accordingly, different types of labor behavior can be proposed:
Basis of classification Types of labor behavior
Subjects of behavior Individual, collective
Presence (absence) of interaction Presuming interaction, not presuming interaction
Production function Executive, management
Degree of determinism Strictly determined, proactive
Degree of compliance with accepted standards Regulatory, deviating from standards
Degree of formalization Established in official documents, unspecified
Nature of motivation Value-based, situational
Operational results and consequences Positive, negative
Sphere of implementation of behavior The labor process itself, building relationships in production, creating a working atmosphere
Degree of traditional behavior Established types of behavior, emerging types, including in the form of a reaction to various socio-economic actions
Results and consequences from the point of view of human destinies Corresponding to the desired patterns of working life, not corresponding.
Degree of realization of labor potential Not requiring changes in the achieved degree of realization of labor potential, causing the need for significant mobilization of various components of labor potential (as a set of employee qualities).
The nature of the reproduction of labor potential Assuming simple reproduction of labor potential, requiring expanded reproduction of labor potential.
It is practically difficult to limit the types of labor behavior to this list. To identify the degree of implementation of traditional positive types of behavior, a sociological survey, as a rule, includes a block of questions reflecting production requirements for an employee and corresponding to the prevailing idea of a “good” or “bad” employee.
Labor behavior is formed under the influence of various factors: primarily the social and professional characteristics of workers, working conditions in the broad sense of the word (including working and living conditions in production, wages, etc.), a system of norms and values, and labor motivations. It is directed by the personal and group interests of people and serves to satisfy their needs.
Needs- the need for something necessary to maintain the life of an organism, a human person, a social group, or society as a whole.
Interests- real reasons for actions that arise among social groups and individuals in connection with their differences in position and role in public life.
Labor situation- a set of conditions in which the labor process takes place.
Motives- conscious attitude (subjective) to one’s actions (internal motivation).
Value orientations- social values shared by the individual, acting as the goals of life and the main means of achieving these goals and, because of this, acquiring the function of the most important regulators of the labor behavior of individuals.
5
Installation- a person’s general orientation towards a certain social object, preceding action and expressing a predisposition to act in a certain way regarding this object.
Incentives- influences external to a person that should motivate him to a certain work behavior.
1.3Relevance. According to a number of authors, one of the main factors determining the effective operation of an enterprise is its workforce. In many ways, the success of many companies depends on how people work. But this work must not only be paid, but also noted by management in order to form an opinion among the staff about the importance and significance of its achievements. Creation effective system Motivating and stimulating labor is, without a doubt, one of the most basic tasks of personnel management in any organization.
However, it is important not only to stimulate each employee, but also to encourage in every possible way the high merits of the staff in the work of the company or production. The natural psychological need of every person to satisfy their needs (in this case, recognition of the significance, importance of a person for working in a company or production) should underlie the work of every company, the goal of which is effective and high-quality work. All employees want to feel like they are an important and valuable part of their organization. In other words, they want their leaders to value and recognize their contributions.
To work effectively in this direction, many companies and industries are developing programs to record the merits of personnel. However, many programs require improvement, and this can be facilitated by a detailed study of methods for recording the merits of personnel and existing programs to solve this problem.
Thus, the relevance of the work is determined by the need to improve programs for taking into account the merits of personnel to increase the efficiency of their work and the insufficient development of this problem.
Within the framework of this goal, the following are solved: tasks:
1. Consider the features of labor stimulation and its importance in the development of modern organizations.
2. Conduct an analysis of modern programs for recognizing personnel incentives for the purpose of managing production quality.
Research methods:
1. Conducting a survey in the organization.
2. Study of special documentation of the enterprise.
This work allows us to study the features of material incentives for employee labor and determine the significance of this procedure for efficient production. The study of practical materials of the enterprise, reflecting the work of the system of material incentives for employee labor, makes it possible to identify both shortcomings and positive aspects in the work of this system with a view to its application in other conditions.
The essence of the labor incentive process
Labor stimulation is, first of all, an external motivation, an element of the work situation that influences human behavior in the world of work, the material shell of personnel motivation. At the same time, it carries an intangible load that allows the employee to realize himself as a person and as an employee at the same time. Stimulation performs economic, social and moral functions.
The economic function is expressed in the fact that labor stimulation helps to increase production efficiency, which is expressed in increased labor productivity and product quality.
The moral function is determined by the fact that incentives to work form an active life position and a highly moral climate in society.
At the same time, it is important to ensure a correct and justified system of incentives, taking into account tradition and historical experience.
The social function is ensured by the formation of the social structure of society through different levels of income, which largely depends on the impact of incentives on different people. In addition, the formation of needs, and ultimately the development of personality, is predetermined by the formation and stimulation of labor in society.
When incentives pass through the psyche and consciousness of people and are transformed by them, they become internal incentives or motives for employee behavior. Motives are conscious incentives. Stimulus and motive do not always agree with each other, but there is no “Chinese wall” between them. These are two sides, two systems of influencing an employee, encouraging him to take certain actions. Therefore, the stimulating effect on personnel is aimed primarily at enhancing the functioning of the enterprise’s employees, and the motivating effect is aimed at enhancing the professional and personal development of employees. In practice, it is necessary to use mechanisms for combining motives and incentives for work. But it is important to distinguish between the stimulation and motivational mechanisms of behavior between workers and enterprise management, and to realize the importance of their interaction and mutual enrichment.
In the real labor market, the issue is much more complicated. Wages are determined by supply and demand, collective bargaining, legislation and much more.
Some firms claim that they pay wages that meet the standard of living and even adjust wages to the consumer price index. Other firms state that when determining wage levels, they are guided by the level that employees in similar firms have. Finally, there are companies that claim that the salaries in their companies meet the standards of payment accepted in society. There are companies whose representatives state that the main thing in remuneration is the effective differentiation of wages by professional and qualification groups.
Firms also address issues such as differences in wages across regions and between urban and rural areas.
Wages are cash payments regularly made by an employer to an employee for time worked, products produced, or other specific activities of the employee.
In the documents of the International Labor Organization (ILO), wages are defined, regardless of the name and method of calculation, as any remuneration or earnings, calculated in money and established by agreement or national legislation, which, by virtue of a written or oral contract of employment, an employer pays to a worker for work , which is either performed or to be performed, or for services that are either rendered or are to be rendered.
Thus, the term "wages" refers to the monetary remuneration paid by an organization to an employee for work performed or for a unit of time worked. But at the same time, it is necessary to remember that, firstly, the essence of wages is to be the main part of the workers’ means of subsistence fund; secondly, the salary of each employee depends not only on the quantity and quality of the labor expended by him, but also on the real labor contribution, the final results of the work of the work collective; thirdly, being the main part of the workers' means of subsistence, it is not only the main form of distribution according to labor, but also the most important material incentive, since in order to satisfy their material and spiritual needs, workers are objectively interested in receiving and increasing their wages, and therefore in improving the performance of your work and the team as a whole.
The principles of wage organization are objective, scientifically based provisions that reflect the action economic laws and aimed at a more complete implementation of wage functions.
The most characteristic principles of wage organization:
Steady growth in nominal and real wages.
Correspondence of the measure of labor to the measure of its payment.
Material interest of workers in achieving high final results of labor.
Ensuring faster rates of growth in labor productivity compared to the rate of increase in wages.
Each principle reflects the operation of several economic laws. For example, the principle of correspondence of the measure of labor to the measure of its payment simultaneously reflects the operation of the laws of distribution according to labor and value.
Currently, such an example is the establishment of a specific level of minimum wage.
The mechanism for organizing wages is a complex of social, economic, technical, organizational and psychological measures designed to link the measure of labor with the measure of its payment.
All work on organizing wages can be divided into two stages: development and regulation.
At the development stage, an assessment of the quality of labor is carried out, the size of the tariff rate of the first category or the initial salary is established, the number of categories (job categories) is determined, inter-category coefficients are established, and the range of the gap between the extreme points of the tariff schedule or the salary scheme is outlined. The regulation stage pursues the goal of maintaining the planned proportions in wages, adjusting rates and salaries depending on changes in a number of economic, social and production conditions.
Each of these stages has its own “technology,” which includes both a legal framework and traditions, as well as a whole arsenal of technical means.
Structure of the system of material incentives for labor
The development of an incentive system is an integrated approach to improving the efficiency and quality of labor.
When using it in the management of social facilities, it becomes clear how well developed and effective the system is.
A system is a unity of interconnected and mutually influencing elements, capable of actively interacting with the environment, changing its structure, while maintaining integrity, and choosing one of the possible lines of behavior to achieve a common goal.
Labor stimulation is a way to control the behavior of social systems at various hierarchical levels, and is one of the methods of motivating the labor behavior of management objects.
For effective stimulation, three of its functions are considered: economic, social and psychological. Which most fully embrace progressive social relations, being an impact on the object of management. It involves the creation of an external situation that encourages an individual or a team to take actions that correspond to the goals at hand. At the same time, individuals themselves choose these actions, since they create all the necessary and sufficient conditions. An improvement in labor indicators entails an increase in the degree of satisfaction of any needs of the object, and a deterioration in indicators threatens a decrease in the completeness of their satisfaction.
There is no direct arbitrariness on the part of the subject of management here, since the object of management can independently choose a line of behavior. Any choice presupposes the presence of alternatives and their evaluation based on one’s own preferences. A clearly developed incentive process allows work teams to function effectively for a long period of time without the intervention of a management subject.
Stimulation as a method of management presupposes the need to take into account the interests of the individual, the workforce, and the degree of their satisfaction, since it is the needs that are the most important factor behavior of social systems. It should be noted that the set of needs of different individuals that make up any social system is not the same. This individual range of needs is determined by the process of personality formation and the influence of the environment.
Incentives can be tangible or intangible.
The first group includes monetary (wages, bonuses, etc.) and non-monetary (vouchers, free treatment, transportation costs, etc.). The second group of incentives includes: social (prestige of work, opportunity for professional and career growth), moral (respect from others, rewards) and creative (opportunity for self-improvement and self-realization).
There are certain requirements for organizing labor incentives. These are complexity, differentiation, flexibility and efficiency.
Complexity implies the unity of moral and material, collective and individual incentives, the meaning of which depends on the system of approaches to personnel management, the experience and traditions of the enterprise.
Differentiation means an individual approach to stimulating different layers and groups of workers. It is known that approaches to wealthy and low-income workers should be significantly different. Approaches to qualified and young workers should also be different.
Flexibility and efficiency are manifested in the constant revision of incentives depending on changes occurring in society and the team.
It is very important to maintain balance in material motivation, and it is quite difficult for a manager to do this, especially at the initial stage of business development. If an employee works and works, creates considerable profit for the enterprise, and he is paid symbolically or like everyone else, then, of course, he will be dissatisfied. On the other hand, pay a lot, and a person may become detached from reality, begin to look down on others, believing that in fact he deserves even more.
The material incentive system includes wages, cash bonuses, and sometimes a system of employee participation in the profits of the enterprise is used as a material incentive tool.
Wages are the remuneration of workers for work and its final results. The enterprise is obliged to pay employees wages not lower than the minimum level established by the state.
Forms and systems of wages are ways of establishing the dependence of the amount of wages on the quantity and quality of labor expended using a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators that reflect the results of labor. Their main purpose is to ensure the correct relationship between the measure of labor and the measure of its payment, as well as increasing the interest of workers in effective work.
Bibliography:
1. Dvoretskaya G.V., Makhvarylov V.P. Labor Economics. - K., Higher School, 1990.
2. Dikareva A.N., Mirskaya M.I. Sociology of labor. - M., Higher School, 1989.
3. Dryakhlov N.I. Sociology of labor. - M., Moscow University Publishing House, 1995.
4. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology of labor in the 20th century. Historical and critical essay. - M., Nauka, 1987.
5. Rofe A.I. Economics and sociology of labor. -M., Mik, 1996.
6. Rofe A.I., Erokhina R.I., Pshenichny V.P., Stretenko V.T. Labor Economics. - M., Higher School, 1995.
7. Shcherbina V.V. Sociology of labor. - M., Moscow University Publishing House, 1993.
8. Arutyunov V.V., Volkovysky I.V., Kadaria F.D. etc. Personnel management. - M.: Phoenix, 2006. - 444 p.
9. Bukhalkov M.I. Personnel management / M.I. Bukhalkov. - M.: INFRA-M, 2007.- 368 p.
10. Vikhansky O.S., Naumov A.I. Reflections on management // Russian Journal of Management, 2005, No. 3, pp. 105 - 126.
11. Gurinov V. Tasks of innovative social management at an enterprise // Power, 2007, No. 7.
12. Zhulina E. G. Activity-based approach to managing the quality of working life // Personnel Management, 2009, No. 14. in the context of globalization / Materials of the international scientific and practical conference April 23-24, 2007. - Orel: Orel State Technical University, 2007
1. Labor behavior
1.1 Determinants of work behavior
1. 2 Typology of labor behavior
1.3 Theoretical and methodological foundations of the system of material incentives for labor
1.4 The essence of the labor incentive process
1.5Structure of the system of material incentives for labor
Having characterized the main approaches to the analysis of an economic organization, we move on to a more detailed analysis of its most important element - labor relations. It is advisable to separate the problems
labor relations into at least two large blocks: problems
labor control and employment problems.
The concept of labor control. Actions to establish labor control
connected with conditions for the distribution of work between work groups
botniks and the reproduction of a specific labor order. To his
We consider the following to be the main elements:
■ goal setting;
■ distribution of job responsibilities and job functions
between employees;
■ regulation of the rhythm and intensity of work;
■ assessment of the volume and quality of work performed;
■ disciplinary sanctions;
■ labor remuneration systems.
Let's start with characterizing the actions of managers as the dominant party in labor relations, and later consider
actions of workers.
When considering the activities of a company, traditional economics
ical theory often proceeded, firstly, from the premise that the goals of managers are identical to the goals of the company, and secondly, it associated these goals exclusively with increasing economic efficiency, be it maximizing profits or increasing the sustainability of the market.
night positions of the enterprise 1. As a means of increasing the efficiency
activity is proposed to reduce production costs or increase output volumes; technological upgrade of production or
improving product quality; saving labor costs or intensive investments in human capital. But, firstly, management groups often pursue special personal or group goals related to personal well-being, career advancement and status preferences. Secondly, the operating principles
different management groups may also disagree with each other.
Thirdly (and in this case this is most important), within the company there is
fundamental differences in the interests of managers and groups of executing workers are revealed, zones of incessant struggle for regulations
new control over certain elements of the labor process. And an important part of the manager’s behavior is determined by the need to assert his internal authority, the choice of the country
behavior in relations with subordinates, which would provide economic effect (highest efficiency) and political
cue effect (loyalty of employees to management and the company).
In the previous section we showed that some managers take
a strategic course towards a stricter hierarchy, emphasized distancing from subordinates and close ongoing control over their actions
actions. Others prefer to be democratic, smooth out subordination relationships and rely on executive independence.
tel. Some insist on formal regulation of labor functions, while others focus on more or less flexible interchangeability of workers. You can focus on measures of material sti-
simulation, but it can be considered a more effective means of mobilizing the internal involvement of people in the work performed, in the affairs
company, to their professional duty. Some leaders
they respect a clear distinction between official and non-official matters, others do not
are reluctant to maintain friendly relations with their subordinates, consider it their duty to provide assistance in their personal affairs and
etc. Managers have at their disposal a wide range of tools to influence performers, which cannot be reduced to changing wages:
administrative order, legal and technological coercion,
ideological manipulation.
A direct connection between the choice of methods of labor control and the economic situation of the enterprise and the current market conditions is not always found. Not everything can be explained psychologically.
our managers' preferences. To a large extent, the principles of action they develop are rooted in culture, traditions, dominant
basic concepts of labor control, which determine which methods
leadership and mobilization of workers are "the most effective
tive" and "most progressive" Preferences are thus formed against the backdrop of a complex set of technological and environmental
nomic, structural and institutional, as well as cultural
restrictions, which also vary across types of societies and change with historical development. Next, we will trace how views on the nature and functions of management have evolved.
trolling over labor.
Scientific theory of management. It is generally accepted that the merit of the creation at the beginning of the 20th century. The first scientific theory of management belongs to the American
Kan engineer and consultant Frederick Taylor standing by
the origins of the systematic study of the labor process in order to improve managers' control over this process. Traditional system management suffered, according to F. Taylor, from a number of inadequacies
statkov. Firstly, workers are not interested in demonstrating their accumulated labor skills; secondly, the administration, not knowing these skills, is not able to use them sufficiently
exact measure; and thirdly, the system of material incentives is not effective and does not stimulate proper labor productivity.
F. Taylor believed that the enterprise administration should take a much more active and “scientific” position (following fashion, he
carefully emphasizes the scientific nature of his system). To do this, you need to thoroughly study the production process and break it down into separate highly specialized operations. For each workplace most
suitable candidates are selected by the administration (before this, workers often chose their workplace themselves, now this is considered
latel). All major operations are timed. After
the necessary training in labor techniques for the worker is specified
fixed production rate. Labor supervision becomes more functional. At the same time, a payment system is being introduced to encourage
fulfillment and exceeding standards 2. In terms of principles of action, Taylorism thus rests on three “pillars”:
■ detailed specialization of labor;
■ piecework wages.
Under this system, all decisive functions for organizing the labor process are transferred to the administration. Labor planning
operations are completely separated from their execution, workers turn into a simple object of management. They are free, perhaps, only to increase
costs of physical labor in excess of the average norm, if they want to receive an increase in wages. It is no coincidence that Marxists saw in
Taylorism is a conscious policy of weakening the positions of the working class through its deskilling. But this system was not generated by class
politics, but rather a certain understanding of progress achieved through the division of labor. This understanding has been explained in detail
A. Smith at the end of the 18th century and formulated in the 1830s. in the "principle of C. Babbage" - one of the "early scientific managers"
F. Taylor and his associates tried to implement the proposed
system at specific enterprises and in some cases achieved the desired increase in productivity. But it cannot be said that F. Taylor’s “scientific system” was met with great enthusiasm. Not without "help"
cabbage soup" of unfriendly trade unions, he more than once appeared with explanations before official commissions. A compromise with the trade unions
Lorists managed to achieve this after the death of the founder of the system.
As for the managers, they remained cold towards her (which is not surprising, since F. Taylor proceeded from the premise of their fundamental incompetence; workers, according to his scheme, act more efficiently
tionally than managers). However, this in no way means that Taylorism remained the ideology of some unbalanced upstart technocrat. He expressed a number of principles that deeply
entered into the fabric of the entire industrial organization and for a long time
have become one of the dominant concepts of control, although not always
preached openly.
The best practical implementation of the principles of Taylorism was found in the activities of the creator of the first automobile empire. Henry
Ford.
On the eve of the First World War, G. Ford begins to combine the ideology of authoritarian scientific management with the technology of mass production.
fan production. The latter is based on the following principles:
■ detailed specialization of labor operations;
■ maximum mechanization of these operations;
■ delivery of work to the worker;
■ technologically forced rhythm of work.
All these components make it possible to dramatically increase labor productivity and improve product quality through standardization.
At the same time, new technology and organization become tools for deskilling performers, ousting individual talents.
skills of handicraft work. At least nine-tenths of workers in line production may have neither special qualifications nor special education 3 . Foreigners are also suitable for this work, not
speaking the indigenous language. Moreover, it requires less and less special physical data (strength, dexterity) - to perform several primitive standard movements during the working day
in principle, everyone is capable, including physically disabled workers 4 .
G. Ford believed that the increased monotony of work does not harm health.
a lot of people. The main thing is to ensure proper production safety, and workers will gradually become accustomed to repetitive operations.
After all, the need to think is essential for most of them.
punishment. Problems of dissatisfaction with work are removed by
higher pay. According to G. Ford, “resolving the issue of wages eliminates nine-tenths of mental issues, and construction technology resolves the rest” 5 . He was convinced of the need for strict authoritarian governance and the undesirability of interference
government of workers' professional organizations (a compromise with the trade unions was reached shortly before the death of the "head of the empire"). G. Ford
did not encourage personal communication between workers, arguing that “a factory is not a salon”; did not see any particular need for workers’ schools and in general
special education, believing that the best knowledge is acquired
directly at workplaces.
G. Ford was a principled opponent of any good
creativity, considering the latter not only useless, but also useless
moral. He believed that his factories, without any charity, were capable of involving everyone in the labor process, training them even if not
complex, but profession, and with it not only ensure full
a piece of bread in the spring (the famous five and then six dollars a day), but also to restore true self-respect, to give the opportunity to become a full-fledged, without any exaggeration, member of society. Distinguished G. Ford and
concern for creating a wide consumer market for the masses
production, which gave rise to a new view of the worker: not only as a draft force, but also as a potential consumer of his own products 6 .
Human relations and new management philosophy. IN period
the heyday of Fordism in the late 1920s and early 1930s. dissatisfaction with the “engineering-economic” understanding of human nature
and the nature of the labor process leads to the emergence in the USA
radical alternative direction - concept "humanwhat kind of relationship." It grew out of experiments at the Western Electric Company 7 . The experiments went through several stages. First we researched
biopsychological influence was produced (without much success)
natural environment (primarily lighting) on the level of production.
Attention then turned to communication structures in work
groups and adjusting management influence on them 8.
Within this direction, the organization acts as a “sociotechnical system”, where, along with the technical one, a special co-
cial organization, which, more importantly, consists of formal and informal organizations. In contrast to the formal organization, where the logic of costs and the logic of efficiency dominate, non-
formal organization turns out to be a sphere of illogical action, where the “logic of feelings” reigns. Thus, the industrial organization from a bureaucratic machine turns into a semblance of a living organization
ma with built-in adaptation mechanisms 9.
The concept of human relations assumes that performers are generally passive and are psychologically dependent on
administration and should be inclined to cooperate. The task of me-
nejera - to organize the intragroup structure in such a way as to satisfy
satisfy the social needs of performers in communication, develop their loyalty and use personal preferences, directing them to
productive channel. If F. Taylor promised managers a raise
labor productivity, then E. Mayo promises them increased prestige and loyalty of subordinates 10.
It is interesting that the Taylorist-Fordist system of labor organization was based on an understanding of “human nature” very close to
radical economism: man is lazy, selfish and asocial.
The performers here are aimed primarily at extracting material benefits, do not care about improvements, and do not strive to take on
responsibility and prone to opportunistic behavior. Under these conditions, the manager remains the only somewhat active subject of the labor organization, called upon to optimize the ratio of output achieved and remuneration received.
The concept of human relations also, of course, leaves behind
management plays an active role, but is an example of clear anti-economism in at least two respects: in neglect of material motives in favor of social motives and denial
values of individualism in favor of group interaction.
In the late 1940s, when the “Harvard tradition” became the object of comprehensive criticism, and American industrial sociology
formed in the sociology of organizations, in London, initially as
continuation of the "Harvard tradition", arises Tavistock instithere are human relationships here. In his developments, the company acts as a “from-
covered socio-technical system", where the psychological characteristics of workers are considered as built-in elements of labor systems.
The psychological consequences of the use of various technologies are also explored, the connection between technology and social consequences is emphasized.
wearing. At the same time, however, the technological and economic levels of the organization are taken mainly as a given, and the social organization
they try to build nization into this given structure.”
The research of the Tavistock group is complemented by the work of J. Woodward, explaining the diversity organizational structures factors of a technological nature, as well as the work of R. Blauner, revealing the technological foundations of the alienation of labor. In both
case, options for more or less explicit technological
determinism and preaches the rejection of universal controls
Lentic schemes 12.
The real innovation of the Tavistock direction is the selection of semi-autonomous small groups as an object of control,
capable of "responsible independence"("answered
autonomy").
Group technology involves expanding the zone of labor self-control, obtaining satisfaction from performers from completing integral work tasks and seeing its finished result. In addition to the completion of the labor process, the following principles of action are put forward:
■ stimulating in performers a sense of achievement and responsibility for the quality of work;
■ variety of tasks performed;
■ granting the rights to self-regulate labor rhythm;
■ expanding opportunities for intragroup communication 13.
This practice of de-specialization and group work as an alternative to Fordism was later introduced into Volvo factories in Sweden.
The policy of flexible specialization is gradually formalized as "new management philosophy *. At its core, in our opinion, three main elements are distinguishable, introduced by adherents of the theory of human
ical relations, sociotechnical approach and corporatist concepts:
■ concept of group cooperation;
■ the concept of humanization of labor;
■ concept of democratization of management.
Concept group collaboration aims to improve labor interaction, create a favorable psychological atmosphere in the team, promote cooperation between performers -
mi and their cooperation with the administration.
Concept humanization of labor associated with the implementation of ergonomic
technical requirements, adaptation of equipment to the employee, as well as
overcoming alienation in the labor process, enriching its co-
holding, developing creative elements in it, encouraging iden-
identification of workers with their work and profession.
Finally, the concept democratization of governance calls for the destruction of rigid hierarchical structures and the delegation of part of management powers to employees, and on the basis of this - for the cultivation of independence and responsibility of performers for the work performed
work. This democratization is consolidated by the use of more flexible and
various remuneration systems, as well as forms of profit sharing
enterprises.
In the process of developing a new management philosophy,
a qualitative shift in the orientations of modern managers - from administrative, technological and economic coercion to
managerial manipulation (at first simple and completely open, then more intricate). Carried out in ter-
minah D. McGregor, transition from management theoriesXto theoryY:
from the use of the threat of punishment and sanctions to the activation of trust, consultations with personnel, and the involvement of employees in the process of
making decisions.
Social factors of the management process. IN In general, the Tavistock Institute research mentioned above did not go far beyond
human relations concepts. We are faced with the same thing here
non-recognition of conflicts, underestimation of the role of trade unions, excessive
with the psychologism of the basic premises. With the crisis of functionalism in the 1960-1970s. the era of methodological pluralism is coming,
alternative sociological approaches are being strengthened.
Since the mid-1970s. the Marxist tradition is being renewed, and a broad discussion is unfolding about theories of the labor process.
X. Braverman provoked this discussion with his book “Labor and Mo-
nopoly capital" He declares Taylorism an integral element of the very logic of capitalist accumulation, which, in his opinion, produces an increasing deskilling of the fundamental
new mass of workers. Marxism has traditionally linked strategies
capitalist managers with the aim of exploiting workers
through the appropriation of the fruits of unpaid labor. X. Braverman shifts the emphasis from property relations to the area of division of labor, control over the labor process, and tries to prove that the fundamental provisions of Taylorism still underlie all organizational
labor reduction in both capitalist and socialist countries
(the latter simply inherited it from the former) 14.
In contrast to both functionalism and the neo-Marxist tradition
develops theory of action(actionism), which begins to consider the individual performer as a real subject of labor
relationships.
A special place since the 1970s. given to the method cross-cultural researchvaniya. Previously, for example, in the work of the Tavistock Institute, the factor of cultural differences was actually ignored, despite the choice
While research sites such as the Durham coal mines in the north of England and textile mills in India are so useful for comparison, comparisons of management culture are now growing in popularity.
tours of American and European managers. In particular, it turns out that the French tend to maintain distance, authoritarianism and paternalism, while the Americans are more democratic (at least
externally), they pay more attention to active actions than to their
long-term planning, etc.
But comparisons of Western and Japanese management schemes 16 have become even more popular. In Japanese practice, a company appears as a kind of large family, as a micro-community opposing the elements of a competitive market and class struggle. Thanks to Japanese experience
Europeans “discovered” a system of lifelong employment with a guarantee of promotion based on seniority, and began to reconsider their attitude towards paternalism as a form of subordination in which
great care for his subordinates is combined with a fairly close
control over their actions. They saw how strict coexisted
formal hierarchy and decentralization of decision making, labor
collectivism and lack of expressed democracy. For example, the boss in a Japanese corporation is not addressed by name; the distance between him and his subordinates is maintained very strictly. However, serving
Employees of a large corporation associate with it something more than daily time spent at the workplace. And the bosses, in their opinion,
In fact, they care not only about the needs of production, but also about the physical
health, moral character of their subordinates, they try to keep abreast of all their production and personal problems. Overall it looks like
an organic combination of almost feudal foundations, which long survived the Meiji Revolution of 1868, and the latest modern technologies.
The “Japanese miracle” forced us to reconsider our attitude towards what until recently were considered remnants of traditionalism and “Asianism.” In the United States and European countries, a special phenomenon emerged, nicknamed the “Japanization (or Toyotaization) of Western management.” And it’s difficult
find a developed Western country where they would not try to introduce Japanese “quality circles” 17. But the point, of course, is not in the Japanese experience as such, but in attempts to master new forms of labor control associated with the broader foundations of the social structure - the desire to develop an internal corporate spirit, based not only on penny allowances. Moreover, if the establishment of “human relations” cultivated personal loyalty to the leadership
driver, now we are talking about loyalty to the company as a whole 18.
The fashion for the Japanese management style lasted for a long time. But a period of some sobering came, because the limitations of the mechanical transfer of forms of production organization to foreign soil were clearly revealed. In addition, attention was drawn
intended to the economic organization of other countries - Latin America, the newly industrialized countries of Southeast Asia (or the "South Asian Tigers", including South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Sin-
Gapur) and it turned out that all these systems have serious differences.
And to explain these differences only by the specifics of “late modernity”
zation", as well as the preservation of traditional values, is unlikely to succeed. The structural features of the economy, the
the nature of the workforce, the role of the state in the formation of large corporations
radios, the specificity of cultural norms - again we are talking about a complex constellation of various factors.
Post-Fordism and human resource management. IN end
XX century, a direction in the analysis of labor relations was formed, called Post-Fordism. It expands the field of discussion itself, which is beginning to more and more actively cover the spheres of
politics, ideology, culture. Issue debaters fast-
Fordism trying to link economic growth models and regimes
accumulations, technological paradigms and ways of organizing work
commercial process, systems of regulatory institutions and the specifics of international economic relations 19.
Post-Fordist debates have been represented by several
strongly independent directions. The term itself was introduced
French neo-Marxists who proposed a special regulation theory(regulation theory), in which post-Fordism was associated with the emergence of a new regime of capitalist accumulation and a method of social regulation caused by the crisis of rigid Fordist schemes 20 . Topic pre-
overcoming the rigidity of Fordism continues in the concept flexible special
implementation(flexible specialization) M. Piore and C. Seibel. They associate it with the crisis of mass production technologies and the corresponding transition within the so-called “second industrial divide” to less specialized and more flexible forms of labor organization, reviving the foundations of craft (non-standardized) labor 21 . Finally, we can mention neo-Schumpeterian concepts
tions, focusing on changes in technical and economic paradigms caused primarily by technological innovations 22 .
The most relevant to the problems of labor relations is, apparently, the concept flexible specialization. The transition she recorded to more
flexible methods of labor organization were caused by the increased level of complexity of production and product quality, constant innovation, which placed increased demands on professional qualifications
cation and independence of performers. In turn, with the increase in the level of education and qualifications of workers, their aspirations have increased.
knowledge regarding not only payment, but also the labor process itself. Low
the motivation of the performers resulted in increasingly large losses and high staff turnover, and their dissatisfaction with the content of work laid the basis for both open confrontation and hidden evasion in the form of absenteeism (absenteeism).
However, the opinion is often expressed that the modern role of flexible post-Fordist methods is clearly exaggerated. Approves-
It is clear that while significant progress has been made in terms of functional flexibility and improved working conditions, progress in
enrichment, and especially in the combination of planning (conceptual) and purely performing functions, is much more modest. Moreover,
automation and computerization of production, mobile communications and
e-mail gave rise to new possibilities for close and detailed management control, which formed the basis of the so-called neo-Fordism, associated with a partial revival of Fordist concepts of control. And the majority modern forms organizations
labor are most likely located in the space between neo-Fordism and post-Fordism, between deskilling and flexibility, i.e. have
hybrid character 23 And it is important to emphasize that post-Fordism does not simply deny the attitudes and postulates of Fordism, but absorbs them along with the tendencies that overcome it.
An expression of the contradictory forms of labor control can be
count direction ‘human resource management’"(Human Resource Management), which spread in a powerful wave in 1980-1990 from
USA to other continents. Identify a single conceptual core
This concept is very difficult. Rather, we are not talking about some holistic concept, but about a current of a synthetic nature, including elements of a new philosophy of management and social engineering. Here
the active role of managers is emphasized, and employees are viewed as a resource or “human factor” - and one
of the many "resources" - "factors" necessary for successful and
holistic business strategy. Within the framework of this direction, the effectiveness of professional associations of workers is denied and
an attempt to replace the system of institutional representation with a system of their regulated participation in management. This approach is unlikely
should be considered the development of some truly new management techniques - this is a rather eclectic combination of all sorts of principles.
tsipov. But behind all the eclecticism in the concept of human resource management, the presence of a broader ideological
who is a movement aimed at enhancing the role of management in labor relations 24 .
So, by the end of the 20th century. industrial sociologists and sociologists of labor was passed long haul with many stages, differing in the theoretical and conceptual content characteristic of each of them.
niem, namely:
■ scientific management;
■ industrial psychology of human factors;
■ industrial psychology and sociology of human relations;
■ technological applications of industrial sociology;
■ neo-Marxist theory of the labor process;
■ actionist industrial sociology 25 .
In the extreme variants of the Taylorists, the worker appears as a lazy egoist, prone to shirking (soldiering, shirking) and opportunism, compensated only by his desire for material opportunity.
awards; among theorists of human relations it is the subject,
thirsty for communication; The Tavistock group sees in him a man with an inte-
determined by the very content of labor; Marxists - a person oppressed by the inherent coercion of capitalism; phenomenologists -
a person who shapes the meanings and images of his own work. The positions of economic theory, we note, in this series are closest to Taylorism.
Conclusion. It is possible to imagine the evolution of management paradigms in a broader historical context - in this case, from an economic-sociological point of view, it looks like a wave-like movement.
1. In the first years of the 20th century, a technocratic, or rather, engineering-economic approach to management emerged during the period of widespread industrialization and the construction of large corporate bureaucracies.
ical organizations. This approach was strengthened in the 1920s when workers
organizations were forced to take predominantly defensive positions.
2. In the early 1930s. not without the influence of the Great Depression and the revitalization of the labor movement with the help of developing applied social
psychological methods, a search is underway to integrate functional
national mechanisms for achieving consensus in an industrial organization, which can be considered a kind of conservative response to depression and its consequences.
3. The era of technocratic optimism of the 1950-1960s. highlights a sociotechnical approach. During a period of sustainable economic
With the economic rise and formation of the welfare state, social problems fade into the shadows for a while.
4. In the late 1960s - early 1970s. in the face of a structural crisis and with the emergence of new rather militant social movements, there is a return to social problems (actionalism, neo-Marxism). Interest in cross-cultural research
is born of structural changes in the world economic system,
the emergence of new centers of global rivalry. In all these
boards, technological factors are given a subordinate role.
5. 1980s bring a new technocratic shift. The former active role of management is stimulated with a focus on national competitiveness, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Ut-
a comprehensive financial-technocratic approach to managing
peer control, there are attempts to integrate social issues as part of business strategies.
6. Finally, in the 1990s. There is a period of intensification of globalization processes, undoubtedly affecting the sphere of labor relations.
sheny.
How deep will the impact of globalization be on the character
managerial strategies - the future will tell. We move on to analyzing the problems of labor control from the other side - from the side of workers.
Labor relations from the point of view of managers often look as if ordinary workers are nothing more than mere objects of manipulation.
pools that must be urged and stimulated, that must be monitored and cared for. Meanwhile
employees develop their own, sometimes very successful,
strategies for establishing control over the labor process and their own principles of action, which often do not correspond to the interests of managers.
These strategies can be implemented alone or collectively, quietly or completely openly, spontaneously or in an organized manner. But in love
In any case, even the most powerless performers have the opportunity to influence production volumes, use the specifics of their qualifications in bargaining for better working conditions, and finally resort to
means of political organization 1. Their loyalty to the company and their superiors is not at all guaranteed. And if working conditions deteriorate, the reaction is
botniks takes different forms - from critical discussion
situation and open resistance to management (the “voice” strategy in the terminology of A. Hirschman) to various attempts to silently avoid control (the “exit” strategy).
Institutionalization of labor conflict. Orthodox Marxism, which dominated during the Soviet period, tended to some extremes in its interpretation of the industrial conflict. In relation to the country
For us, “real socialism” avoided the problem in every possible way; the existing contradictions were not recognized. In relation to Western countries, the following ideologies were cultivated.
1. Labor relations are fundamentally conflicting in nature.
2. The deep reason for their conflict lies in the objective irreconcilability of class interests and relations of exploitation.
3. Collective and organized forms of resistance to the ruling classes have primacy over individual and unorganized forms.
4. A significant part of labor conflicts are open and massive in nature with the predominance of strike forms over the negotiation process.
5. The political goals of the struggle of the working class and other exploited classes are placed above economic demands. Economic struggle is seen primarily as a way to develop class solidarity.
6. The ultimate goal of class struggle is fundamental change economic situation exploited classes through the reorganization of the entire social system, without which the transformation of labor
new relationships were considered impossible.
The Marxist claim that conflict is built into the very fabric of capitalist industrial organization is largely
the penalty corresponded to the spirit of the era when Taylorism and Fordism were spreading. F. Taylor himself, we recall, proceeded from
fundamental opposition between the interests of managers and executives
workers, establishing a confrontational style of labor relations.
Although in fairness, we note that he in no way called for open confrontation between the administration and the workers (on the contrary, he constantly spoke about the need for cooperation and friendly relations between them).
However, the situation did not develop according to orthodox Marxist scenarios. Contrary to expectations, the growth of the organization of the working class
sa did not lead to a continuous intensification of the class struggle. On the contrary, as the legalization and public recognition of the
professional unions occur institutionalization of labor lawconflict. It is achieved to a large extent through the development of the contractual process, the transition of managers and employees to the conclusion of a collective agreement.
tive agreements - at the enterprise, industry, and national level 2. A system emerges corporatism with the participation of large volumes
between entrepreneurs and workers through government bodies. In the post-war period, orientation towards full employment, development of the welfare state, participation of trade unions in
formation of labor policy have become characteristic of many
countries, having received special development within the Scandinavian model. In re-
As a result, workers were able to achieve serious changes without resorting to destructive methods of struggle.
Orthodox Marxists explained the current situation by the successful bribery of the “labor aristocracy” and the “bureaucratic trade union bosses", improving the lives of skilled workers parts
the working class through discrimination against socially vulnerable groups and exploitation of workers in developing countries, through the ideological indoctrination of mass consciousness. But there were fewer and fewer reasons to deny the fruitful elements of the so-called social partnership.
Talk about the disappearance of all traces of labor conflict,
Of course, it’s not necessary. But as a rule, we are talking about putting forward political demands and claims to change the social order
no longer works. Moreover, there are often no attacks on the rules of control and the authority of management 3 . In most cases, the con-
conflict on the part of workers is limited to their economic
requirements, which mainly come down to three positions:
■ guaranteed work;
■ regular payment;
■ limiting the growth of production standards.
Active resistance to management. The institutionalization of labor conflict does not deny the presence of a range of strategies and practices of resistance to managers on the part of workers and in many ways serves
manifestation of the effectiveness of this resistance. We begin with ways of actively resisting management that involve mobilizing collective action and demonstrating power. These include:
■ strikes;
■ picketing;
■ sabotage.
An extreme form of expression of labor conflict, evidence of the aggravated nature of labor relations is strike -
collective open stoppage of production through complete or partial
permanent cessation of work. A strike may be accompanied by divetesting, which also has an open collective character and
due to the fact that striking workers do not allow other workers to enter their workplaces. Finally, sabotage is expressed in a slowdown in work, up to its complete cessation without open announcement
about it. Such action also has a collective nature, But
the resistance here is hidden, not demonstrative. Sabotage of work is also not necessarily associated with a violation of the formal
mal rules and labor regime. On the contrary, it can be carried out in the form of a so-called “Italian strike”, when sabotage is carried out
is achieved through the literal execution of all formal rules. The mentioned collective actions can have different meanings -
different content and pursue different goals. In some cases, stops
productions express political protest, in others they reinforce the economic demands put forward. They can be a warning signal that encourages managers to negotiate, as well as a tool for self-organization and demonstration of employee power.
kov, a way of mobilizing public opinion or attracting
attention of state regulatory authorities.
According to Soviet propaganda, strikes were the main form of class struggle in capitalist countries; they
whether broad and massive in nature, were planned and organiza-
organized actions and served as a tool for promoting certain program demands. However, in reality the labor movement in Western societies looked different. According to experts, the majority of collective production stoppages are local
character (most often the case does not go beyond the gates of the workshop or enterprise).
Moreover, most strikes are carried out unofficially, and
a significant number of them are not recorded at all 4 . Such strikes are organized
are called by elected representatives or informal leaders at the shop level, often without agreement with trade union organizations, and sometimes contrary to the instructions of trade union leaders.
Finally, some strikes are not associated with preliminary preparation; they arise spontaneously, often for seemingly insignificant reasons.
water - like a splash of accumulated irritation, emotional and
social relaxation. History is replete with examples of spontaneous destruction
stunning collective performances: peasants burning lordly
estates; Luddites who broke new machines, etc. But even in our time
Most minor conflicts arise as a spontaneous reaction to individual, not fully thought-out decisions of management. The strikers may not have any systematized demands.
either at all or formulated after the start of the speech itself.
Strike activity is usually measured by the following parameters:
■ number of production stops over a period of time;
■ the number of man-days lost during these strikes;
■ the number of workers involved.
Intensification of the strike movement in European countries in
end of XX century occurred in waves and was due to two groups of factors. First, by undermining full employment guarantees and
massive layoffs, generated in no small part by the process of deindustrialization (it was this factor, for example, that was ultimately responsible for the largest wave of miners' protests in Great Britain in the mid-1980s); secondly, changes in political conditions. The collapse of a number of authoritarian regimes in the middle
not 1970s. (for example, in Greece, Spain, Portugal) and the collapse
socialist system in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. caused, among other things, the intensification of strike forms
protest (until then simply prohibited), in which economic demands often turned out to be inseparable from political ones or were clothed in a political form.
In general, however, the period of the 1980-1990s. was marked by a clear decrease in strike activity in all major indicators. Although the differences across countries were quite large: relatively “restless” countries (Greece, Spain, Italy, Finland) were adjacent to pockets of calm (Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland
ria). Activity, as a rule, was concentrated in a small group of industries (coal, metallurgy, textile industries).
Here, not only difficult working conditions matter, but also its homogeneity and low level of qualifications. The compact settlement of the workforce in factory villages significantly facilitates the work of mechanics.
isms of solidarity. But most importantly, it was these industries that took over
The main blow of deindustrialization, and the most acute struggle was waged precisely against massive job cuts. Finally, strike activity concerned mainly the private sector, since the state
gift employees were provided with a more relaxed existence on average, and their rights to strike, at least until the 1980s, were
limited (with the formal removal of legal restrictions from
hidden conflicts still arise in the public sector
relatively less often) 5.
Passive resistance to management. Strike, picketing, sabotage are not the only and, in general, not the main forms of struggle
workers for their interests. There are dozens of ways of invisible, but no less effective pressure on the administration “from below” -
not formally organized, but, if necessary, fairly united.
Almost any group of workers always has in their arsenal a set of methods for controlling the situation and the opportunity, at least in some respects, to act in their own way (that is, contrary to the requirements of management). These passive resistance methods have been used in
over the course of centuries and have been “tested” in all communities 6 . Among the races
extensive individual actions of this kind include:
■ shirking from work;
■ misuse of resources;
■ careless attitude towards official duties;
■ inhibition of initiatives 7 .
Avoidance from work in turn, is practiced in three ways -
new types:
■ absenteeism, or absence from work for various reasons;
■ periodic absences from the workplace;
■ imitation of activities in the workplace.
Absenteeism, associated with absenteeism from work, especially due to illness, has long become a
a serious problem leading to very significant losses of work
Most of the time 8. And although absenteeism practices are in plain sight
leadership, it is quite difficult to contain their scale, because most actions, as a rule, are carried out within the framework of existing work
new legislation. Therefore, practiced by a number of companies
paying bonuses and allowances to employees for “good health” today does not at all look like something exotic.
But even if the performer has gone to work, this is not a guarantee that he will remain tied to his workplace. Periodic from-
bows about their business and numerous drawn-out smoke breaks quietly eat up a significant portion of the working day. Some companies try to strictly regulate lunch and smoking breaks, but it takes a lot of effort to ensure compliance with these regulations.
Finally, if an employee does not get up from his workplace, this also does not give one hundred percent confidence that he is busy with the assigned work. Many are simply engaged imitation activities. Especially
It is difficult to control non-manual workers who, in principle, do not have standard production standards. Of course, you can make a strict suggestion by catching the performer playing a computer game of preference. But the whole day behind each individual work -
you won't stand idle.
Another disaster for companies is misuse
resources. It includes:
■ outside work;
■ petty theft.
A worker can work by the sweat of his brow throughout the entire working day, but at the same time use part of the working day to perform third party orders. In this case, of course, not only time is wasted,
but also materials belonging to this company, its equipment is operated. And such practices can often only be tracked by chance.
No less common is petty theft(pilfering) from enterprise resources and finished products. In some cases it is innocent
national character (borrowing stationery from the office), in others it is a systemic element of economic life
(for example, maintaining subsidiary farms by stealing from large farms). These practitioners were regularly scourged
during the Soviet shortage, when workers managed to take both manufactured goods and food products from enterprises (they were then called “nesuns”). The era of scarcity has sunk into oblivion, but theft remains. But
they steal, of course, not only in Russia, but in all advanced and
backward countries, although on different scales. Security at the exit periodically detains someone, but the phenomenon as a whole cannot be overcome.
It is difficult to eliminate the deliberate negligence- negligent attitude towards official duties. It can also occur in the presence of
our fulfillment of all formal rules. So, damage is allowed up to
equipment, leading to losses and downtime. Minor deception of management or failure to communicate important information “due to forgetfulness” is carried out. The performer can masterfully “act out”
fool" and do everything in your own way, without entering into discussions and wrangling with your superiors. Moreover, all this is done while demonstrating imaginary obedience and diligence. If a "mistake" is discovered,
side,” they immediately confess, and a scene of sincere repentance ensues. And although a formal reason arises to punish the negligent performer, not every manager wants to spoil the relationship “because of trifles” or “unintentional” actions.
It remains to add that workers can quite successfully brakeinnovate, if they fear negative consequences from their
implementation. There are also many ways to slow down the training of new hires. This is due to the fact that the development of new technologies may well lead to a reduction in the need for labor,
complicating tasks or increasing production standards. And the transfer of mastery requires additional effort, which, in addition, in the case of successful
infantry are raising a competitor.
Passive resistance can be not only individual, but also collective. A textbook example in this regard
serves the so-called restrictionism. Unlike strikes and sabotage, restrictionism is the least obvious form of resistance. This is a collective limitation of production standards with formal compliance with all established rules. The goal is achieved by reducing labor intensity to the level of the least productive workers, and
also by avoiding work by prolonging breaks and creating “forced downtime.” We are faced with enough
precisely complex schemes of collective action, sometimes requiring very high levels of organization and going beyond simple shirking or mutual responsibility. Here the foundations of group solidarity are developed, the “normal” (i.e. acceptable for the sick) is calculated.
majority) level of production, forms of group pressure are tested on those who get ahead or easily give in to the admonitions of the administration. Newcomers are brought up to speed, those who are stubborn are subject to
result in collective processing or obstruction 9 .
The phenomenon of group pressure, analyzed by E. Mayo, acts in defense of less productive workers and averts the threat
increasing production standards or reducing prices forces managers to come to terms with informal norms 10 . The same applies to knowledge workers. They, of course, have their own methods
slowing down" work, which are usually classified as manifestations of bureaucracy: formalism, red tape, shifting responsibility.
Traditional practices of ordinary workers related to labor
coercion, deception, and suppression of productivity do not necessarily mean their fundamental confrontation with the leadership
leadership Most often, these actions are generated by the established work habits of people, their reluctance to overwork, and finally, a reaction to decisions of managers that they consider unfair or affecting their vital interests: revision of work norms.
work, freezing wages during periods of inflation or
excessive tightening of the work rhythm. And in most cases this is a reaction of a defensive rather than offensive nature. It remains to be noted that workers do not necessarily “vote with their feet”, but
abandoning the enterprise, as a normal homo should do
economicus. They often resist by resorting to opportunistic means within the enterprise.
Achieving a labor compromise. Institutional economists seek explanations for opportunistic behavior
workers in information asymmetry, which does not allow managers to effectively control their behavior. However, we do not think that
The degree of awareness plays a decisive role in this case.
From an economic and sociological point of view, labor relations develop as a reproduction of a complex labor compromise, in which
both parties are aware of the general rules of conduct and rules
control, and they try to keep themselves and the other party within these rules. Thus, practice shows that most “innocent tricks”, if desired, can be easily revealed by management (a good leader knows everything he wants to know). But eradicate them
much more difficult than to detect. Shout, threaten, tighten administrative control measures, introduce fines, catch people at the checkpoint
ultimately useless. A lot of nerves go away, but the effect is achieved for a very short time, and everything returns to its previous state." That is why a reasonable leader only flexes his "muscles" from time to time, reminding who is the true owner, and more
in part I am simply forced to turn a blind eye to many things 12 .
This behavior becomes one of the forms of mitigating many potential and real conflicts. Ordinary workers are allowed
They want to “let off steam” and at the same time solve their small problems at the cost of some reduction in overall economic efficiency.
This is the “payment for harmony” in production. Allowing certain liberties also helps keep workers in place at all times.
at a moderate level of remuneration. This can be called a special form of "implicit contract" in economic terms or
“indulgence” (indulgency pattern) in the terms of sociologist A. Gouldner.
In labor relations, therefore, there is a complex nethe intertwining of conflict and subjugation. Moreover, in addition to administrative orders, an important role belongs to various types of informal institutional compromises. Demands for "fair pay"
can be clothed, for example, in such formulas as: “We will do a little
more than they could; and you will pay a little more than you should"
It is no coincidence that the development of the Marxist theory of the labor process led it to more subtle and realistic conclusions. There has been recognition of the complex nature of labor control, which is implemented in a unique way.
nomic continuum between conflict and consensus. It was found that
performers themselves develop the rules of consent and the conditions of their
submission. For example, from the position of P. Thompson, who defended the much criticized theory of the labor process of H. Braverman, it looks like this: “Conflict and cooperation should not be considered
be considered as completely separate phenomena, one of which is inherent in capitalist production, and the other is imposed from the outside
in the form of false consciousness. They are partly generated by the same
process" 13.
Social Basics actions of workers. What are the mechanisms for mobilizing workers in collective action to resist
nejmentu? From the point of view of traditional economic theory,
nerds must make independent rational decisions. But
to ensure under such conditions, say, a planned strike
very difficult. Efficient and autonomous ra-
the worker should rather avoid participating in such speeches and generally from participating in the activities of trade unions, since
the public goods they provide (if successful) can be obtained this way - without risking your own job. True, if the number of such “free riders” reaches a critical mass, there will be no benefits
will not be produced at all, but for the individual in an egoistic mood
For a given individual, this argument is not sufficient. And therefore, network connections and mechanisms of mutual social coercion of workers are involved, without which collective action is often
turn out to be impossible 14.
Marxists call this social coercion collective worker solidarity. But the concept of labor solidarity (like
the concept of individualistic rationality) should be recognized
too general. With a specific economic and sociological analysis, it becomes clear heterogeneity of groups workers from the point of view of strategies and the principles of action that generate these strategies. All these groups demonstrate their rationality and their solidarity in their own way, have different ideas about success and the possibility of control over
own labor. One of the key differentiating features is the level and nature of education and qualifications (i.e.
eternal capital), specificity of mastered skills’ 5. Worker,
who rose to the level of engineer after graduating from evening school, and the engineer who came to his place from the university bench, has
There are different views and different preferences. And a worker with special professional qualifications seeks to distance himself from the mass of unskilled workers. Even more obvious are the differences
differences between blue and white collar workers, separated
educational level and nature of work. They have their own network connections.
It is not uncommon for even trade unions to organize their own 16 groups.
Another important differentiating feature is integration into the local social environment. It’s one thing if we have professional industrial workers in front of us. It’s another matter if these are employees, not
who have lost ties to the land and agricultural pursuits,
who view their employment at the enterprise as an additional
earnings. Third, when we have immigrants, “guest workers,” for whom their current work is most likely temporary work.
scrap and serves as a source of accumulation of funds sent to the family back home. They have fundamentally different chances for professional growth and intra-company careers. The second and third groups are partly based
hide isolated from regular and local workers. Latest
often do not support their demands, do not participate in their collections
performances, perceiving this group not only as a competitive
rents applying for jobs, but also in general as “outsiders” 17
Thus, labor conflict does not necessarily arise from the relationship between managers and workers, but can arise within the ranks of workers themselves.
When in a business organization the behavior of employees is dis-
are viewed as an almost automatic reaction to objective
technological factors and the incentive system set by management, then ordinary performers are deprived of any active role in the labor process. This active role is emphasized in the mention
previously found theories of action. The classic British study of "prosperous workers" demonstrated how
formation of the attitude towards work (labor orientation), which determines
largely the behavior of workers in labor relations. Attached to labor
the meaning and nature of involvement in an economic organization, the meaning of work for a person and the degree of separation of work from non-work life - all these elements are formed not only under the influence of production conditions, but perhaps even to a greater extent
under the influence of the external social environment - family, local community, dominant status orientations, established channels of communication
cial mobility. Under these conditions, there may be a waiver of the rights to control one’s own labor and their delegation to management -
simply due to the instrumental approach to this work and desire
minimize effort 19 .
The issue is resolved more radically in phenomenological version theory of action, which places emphasis on the “internal logic of the situation” Workers in the process of fulfilling work roles interpret their own and others’ actions in a specific way, attributing to them
meanings rooted in the norms and values of a given community or
groups. They not only react to external stimuli, but also constantly define and redefine the work situation 20.
The theory of action, among other things, means refusing to attribute universal needs and work attitudes to workers,
no matter over- or under-socialized, economized or
sociologized. The actions of performers are determined by a complex constellation of factors, including their economic interests, social orientations, and coercive elements.
Depending on your understanding of the relationships that have developed in
in the process of performing professional roles, employees master
different ways self-representation in work. Feeling their dignity
military force can act as a “fighter for justice.” Those interested in a career tend to imagine themselves as “initiative workers”
caretakers" and "responsible executors", while uncaring
interested and lacking the means of control can play "indifferent"
personality" As a result, from a means of earning income, labor turns into
a means of self-expression and self-affirmation.
Historical dynamics of labor relations. Labor compromise in the last decades of the 20th century. took shape against the background of a certain dynamic
mics of labor relations in leading Western countries. In the 1980s There was a noticeable weakening of the labor positions of the main groups of workers and a strengthening of the power positions of managers. It expressed itself as
in at least four trends.
1. There has been a structural restructuring associated with the process
deindustrialization, accompanied by a sharp decline in employment in the traditional industries of mechanical engineering, coal and metallurgical
metallurgical industry - places of concentration of the organized and most militant proletariat, occupied with heavy and non-
physical work that is safe for life and health. Accordingly, the service sector grew, scattering part of the former proletarian masses and co-
radically changing their working conditions. At the same time, employment in the public sector, which traditionally provides greater stability in employment conditions, grew.
2. There was a decentralization of the negotiation process with a shift in emphasis to lower economic levels (primarily to
firm level) 21 . Moreover, the policy of microcorporatism is mainly
was initiated by management seeking to use more
flexible forms of employment, eliminating the influence of large trade unions
union organizations, encouraging individualism through the remuneration system.
3. There has been a decline in union membership almost everywhere (the Scandinavian countries resisted this for some time). The latter does not always indicate a weakening of their influence.
tions, sometimes the institutional positions of trade unions allow them (as was the case in Germany) to remain relatively independent from
membership level. But still, a decline in solidarity has become a noticeable trend, and the role of trade unions has weakened. In particular, more reserved towards
Representatives of younger generations began to join professional associations. Direct participation in trade unions is increasingly favored
changed by their support “in principle”, yesterday’s active members
turned into simple consumers of trade union services 22 . This is
Trade unions were forced to adapt and modify their policies.
4. There was a change in the political climate, which caused a relative deterioration in the market positions of mass hiring groups.
ny workers. This was due to the crisis of social democratic ideology, including the crisis of the “Swedish model”, the offensive
conservatives for social support programs, with frequent sa-
by removing the state from the negotiation process, weakening the tripartism system - coordinating the interests of the state, work -
tels and workers 23.
In the early 1980s. there has been a conservative shift in politics
The USA and many leading Western European countries - with characteristic attempts at relative state deregulation of labor
relations in order to encourage market initiative. However,
These trends do not lead to the convergence of labor models
wearing. For example, significant differences remain between the so-called “liberal market economies” (USA, UK, etc.), where the process of deregulation is more intensive.
affected character, and “coordinated market economies”
(Germany, Italy, Sweden, etc.), where it takes on more smoothed forms 24.
Conclusion. So, at the moment we have the opportunity to choose from a number of methodological perspectives, which in their own way determine the initial framework within which the strategies of the performers are formed.
Marxists proceed from the fact that workers, objectively and subjectively
alienated from ownership and management, gravitate towards group
conflict. From the point of view of functionalists, this conflict is overcome in the interests of integration of the economic organization. From the position
institutionalists, the actions of employees are carried out within the framework of existing restrictions - adopted laws, administrative regulations and informal rules. And in the theory of action they will appear
work as agents who actively structure their own labor relations. But in any case, an explanation of the nature of labor
relations from a purely economic or technological point of view
is called obviously insufficient. An additional key to this
The explanation is based on social factors.
SEMINAR
LABOR RELATIONS AND LABOR CONTROL
Managers' control over the labor process. Scientific theory of management (F. Taylor). Social philosophy of Fordism. The concept of "human relations"
niy" Tavistock school and "humanization of labor". Democratization of management. Cross-cultural borrowings in management. The concept of human resource management.
Control of workers over the labor process. From class struggle to the institutionalization of industrial conflict. Active resistance to management. Restrictionism, absenteeism and other strategies of passive resistance and tacit control from below Social foundations of collective action
workers. Basics of labor compromise. Historical dynamics of modern labor relations. Changes in the labor code and labor relations in accordance with
temporary Russia.
Main literature
Radaev V.V. Economic sociology. M.: State University Higher School of Economics, 2005. Ch. 13-14.
Brown R. Understanding Industrial Organizations: Theoretical Perspectives in Industrial
Sociology. L.: Routledge, 1992. P. 1-38.
Thelen K. Varieties of Labor Politics in the Developed Democracies // Varieties of
Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage / P. A. Hall, D.W. Soskice
(eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
additional literature
BoyerP. Regulation theory. Critical analysis. M.: RSUH, 1997.
Gordon L.A., Klopov E.V. Losses and gains in Russia in the nineties. T. 1. M.:
Editorial URSS, 2000. Essays 6-7. pp. 179-283.
Kozina I.M. Trade unions in collective labor conflicts // Sociolo-
gical research. 2001. No. 5. P. 49-55.
Organizational choice / Trist E. et al.//Lapin N.I. Empirical socio-
ology in Western Europe. M.: State University Higher School of Economics, 2004. pp. 302-322.
Radaev V.V. Four ways to assert authority within a company // Socio-
logical log. 1994. No. 2. P. 149-157.
Scott J. Weapons of the weak: everyday resistance and its meaning //
The Great Stranger: Peasants and Zermers in modern world/ Rep. ed. T. Sha-
nin. M.: Progress Academy, 1992.
Taylor F.W. Principles of scientific management. M.: Controlling, 1991. pp. 24-35.
Ford G. My life. My achievements. M.: Finance and Statistics. 1989. P. 70-
73, 90-98, 164-167.
Shevchuk A.V. Post-Fordist concepts as a research program//
Economic sociology. 2002. T. 3. No. 2. P. 44-61 ( http://www.ecsoc.msses.ru).
Employer Strategy and the Labor Market /J. Rubery, F. Wilkinson (eds.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1994.
LincolnJ.R., Kalleberg A.L. Culture, Control and Commitment: A Study of Work
Organization and Work Attitudes in the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1992, pp. 7-29.
Post-Fordism: A Reader/ A. Amin (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. P. 1-39.
Rose M. Industrial Behavior Theoretical Development Since Taylor. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books, 1978.
Sabel C.F. Work and Politics: The Division of Labor in Industry. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982. pp. 1-31.
Watson T.J. Sociology, Work and Industry. L.: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987.
P. 28-42, 169-187, 223-252.
Control questions
■ What are the historical limitations of Fordist technology?
■ What new did the “human relations” school and the Tavistock school contribute to management theory?
■ On what principles are they built? modern philosophy management and human resource management concept?
■ What are the main forms of active resistance from workers to management?
■ What are the main forms of passive resistance to management at the individual and collective levels?
■ What is the nature of the labor compromise?
■ How did you influence Labor Code 2002 on changing employment relations in modern Russia?
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Similar documents
Theory of human behavior in organizations. Stages of employee adaptation to a new work environment. Interaction between the individual and the organization, taking into account the psychological characteristics of the employee. Motivation and organizational performance. Theories of leadership behavior.
abstract, added 01/25/2010
Description of economic, personal, organizational, technical and socio-cultural criterion indicators of work productivity. Consideration of factors influencing the efficiency of personnel on the part of the employee and the organization.
abstract, added 12/20/2010
Organizational human resource management. Studying the stages and methods of labor adaptation. The process of familiarizing an employee with a new enterprise and changing his behavior in accordance with the requirements and rules of the corporate culture of the new company.
test, added 06/15/2017
Fundamentals of organizational and official behavior. Theories of human behavior in organizations. Interaction between the individual and the organization. The essence of motivation for the labor behavior of personnel. Basic theories of leadership. Conflict management in the organization.
training manual, added 08/10/2009
The main factors influencing the change of life cycles in an organization. Stages of organization development. Features of personnel development depending on the stages of the life cycle. The influence of organization size on the characteristics of human resource management.
abstract, added 12/19/2014
Determining factors of labor behavior. Value orientations as a stable socially determined attitude towards a set of ideals. Typology and characteristics of labor behavior. Classification of human needs. Role functions of the employee.
test, added 05/08/2009
Social and psychological climate in the organization and factors of its formation. Features of studying employee behavior. Problems arising between organizations and individuals. Manifestations of “toxicity” in the behavior of employees of the enterprise under study.
thesis, added 07/09/2015
The position of the leader in management. Roles and basic norms that determine behavior. Features of management activities that influence the behavior model. Model of managerial behavior of the leadership of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia for the Republic of Buryatia.
test, added 02/27/2015