Descriptions of American Japanese and Russian management systems. The focus is not on production, but on adaptation to the external environment. Modern American management, as it currently exists, is based on three historical principles:

The most pronounced cultural and institutional differences in management styles are manifested in Japan, the USA and Russia.

MANAGEMENT IN JAPAN

The main features of Japanese management include:

1. Management decisions are made collectively based on the principle of unanimity. Management values the most important qualities of employees such as mutual trust, cooperation, harmony and full support in solving the problems facing the group. Subordinates formulate their proposals and convey them to interested parties. After group discussion has set general tasks, each employee determines his own and begins to implement them. If it is noticed that a subordinate is not able to control the situation, the middle manager will intervene and will personally provide leadership. This attitude inspires confidence that personal failures and mistakes are, in general, no big deal, and a senior will always help you get out of a difficult situation. Thus, the emphasis is not on avoiding failures, but on achieving a positive result.

2. Form of collective responsibility. The goals are to improve group performance and increase group solidarity. Japanese management always thinks from the group's perspective. The group is responsible for the success of the business as well as for the failures. Therefore, individual workers are rarely blamed for failures, especially if they are creative failures or related to a risky enterprise.

3.Management, quality oriented. Presidents of companies and managers of companies at Japanese enterprises most often talk about the need for quality control. The manager's personal pride lies in consolidating quality control efforts and, ultimately, in operating the production area entrusted to him with the highest quality.

4. Control is poorly formalized, collective control methods are used. Control is carried out not by adopting certain directives, as is customary in traditional management, but by providing assistance and identifying weak links in the production process, i.e. control is associated not with the “detection-punishment” model, but with the “verification-help” model.

5. Job evaluation and career growth are carried out slowly, career growth is tied to age and length of service, and a system of lifetime employment is widely practiced. Many employees rarely take rest days and often do not take full advantage of their paid time off because they believe it is their duty to work when the company needs it, thereby showing their loyalty to the company. Theoretically, the longer a person works in an organization, the stronger his self-identification with it should be. Lifetime employment in Japan is not a legal right, but a tribute to tradition. The company has a moral obligation to take care of its employees until retirement. Japanese managers believe that people are their greatest asset.

6. The main quality of a leader is the ability to control and coordinate subordinates. To maintain discipline and improve the quality of work, the manager relies more on rewards than on punishment. Rewards are given for useful suggestions, for saving lives in accidents, for outstanding performance in training courses, for excellent performance of duties and for dedication to work as a model for colleagues. These rewards come in different types: certificates, gifts or money, and additional leave.

Punishments include reprimands, fines and dismissals. Dismissal is permitted in cases of theft, acceptance of bribes, sabotage, cruelty, and deliberate disobedience to the instructions of superiors. Japanese managers resort to punitive measures extremely reluctantly. In contrast to the tactics of intimidation with punishment, Japanese management pays special attention to the self-awareness of workers and therefore uses the tactics of slogans encouraging increased discipline.

To quickly deal with difficulties and to help solve problems as they arise, the Japanese often place management personnel directly on the production premises. As each problem is solved, small innovations are introduced, leading to the accumulation of additional innovations.

7. Work is paid according to group performance and length of service. An employee who moves to another company loses his seniority and starts all over again.

8. Weak specialization of managers.

9. Publicity and corporate values. All levels of management and workers share a common base of information about the policies and activities of the firm. The Japanese management system also tries to create a common basis for all employees of the company to understand corporate values, such as the priority of quality service, services for the consumer, cooperation between workers and administration, cooperation and interaction of departments. Management strives to continually instill and support corporate values at all levels.

Japanese management is characterized by an emphasis on improving human relations: coherence, group orientation, employee morale, job security, and harmonization of relations between workers and managers.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AMERICAN MANAGEMENT MODEL

This is typical for the American management model.

1. Individual nature of decision making. The decision made by the manager is under no circumstances subject to discussion and is binding.

2. Individual form of responsibility.

3. Strictly formalized management system.

4. Individual and clearly formalized control.

5. Quick assessment of results and rapid promotion. A business career depends on personal results. Short-term hiring. Employees lack commitment to their company, which contributes to high turnover rates. Some of them manage to change up to ten companies during their work. Hiring is carried out for a relatively short time and everyone knows about this when applying for a job. The American management model is an ideal model for careerists. It ensures rapid development and advancement of employees within the company. At the same time, an employee can develop in a specialized manner, i.e. build a horizontal career. For this purpose, various advanced training courses are held at universities and colleges.

6. The main qualities of a leader are professionalism and initiative.

7. Work is paid based on individual achievements.

8. Very narrow specialization of managers.

MANAGEMENT IN RUSSIA

Russian management acts as a dynamic developing system, and its movement, role and place in the global management system can be understood based on the analysis and development of the existing national mentality. The Russian mentality has always been characterized by the presence of polarity, the desire for the grotesque, and taking any situation to the extreme.

Russia has always stood between Europe and Asia. Its geographic and racial-ethnic diversity reflected this geopolitical reality. The population living on the territory of Russia created a synthesized culture. From Asia, Russia absorbed a form of groupthink - groupism, and from Europe - individualism with its inherent worldview. Groupism and individualism are two fundamental qualities that form the basis of the Russian mentality, and they constantly come into conflict with each other due to the polarity of their foundations.

Currently, the dualism of the Russian mentality and its inconsistency have moved to a qualitatively different level. There is a new wave of growth of individualism, on the one hand, and the erasure of communal traditions, on the other. However, dualism has been and remains the main feature of the Russian mentality. This makes it possible to determine its place in relation to the Japanese and American mentality.

If we consider American individualism and management based on it as one extreme point, and Japanese, based on the psychology of groupism, as the other, then Russia with its duality should occupy an intermediate position between these two points.

Moreover, it should be taken into account that the Russian mentality is dynamic, with a tendency towards individualization, making its way in the conditions of the emerging market. Based on this, the main tendency in the formation of the Russian mentality is probably a gradual movement towards individualism, i.e. towards an Americanized mentality.

The formation of modern Russian management must take into account the main trend in the development of mentality towards developing individualism, increasingly focusing on the individual, the implementation of individual control, taking into account individual contribution and payment. This means that promotions based not on acquaintances and family connections, but solely on the personal abilities of each individual, should become increasingly important in enterprises. When forming a management system, it is necessary to take more into account the individual’s business qualities, his ability to perceive new things, and perseverance.

Thus, the features of the Russian management style include:

§ in most companies the decision-making process is individual;

§ decisions are made by managers at each level of management, and senior managers, as a rule, do not duplicate the decisions of their subordinates, although this does occur, it creates many problems;

§ strategic planning is carried out exclusively by senior management;

§ The Russian top manager combines in his management style the qualities of both Japanese and American management, i.e. Professionalism, initiative, ability to coordinate actions and control are encouraged;

§ The management structure at Russian enterprises, as well as the control procedure, are strictly formalized. Inspections are scheduled, personnel are warned about them in advance, therefore, this method of control indirectly stimulates the work of employees and contributes to their career growth;

§ In general, at Russian enterprises, career growth is possible and is determined in most cases by personal results, the contribution of a particular person to the common cause based on his individual achievements, and less often based on the results of the group’s work. A special place is occupied by state organizations, where seniority is of utmost importance, bonuses are common to all;

§ relations with subordinates are formal in nature, but informal relations are not completely excluded.

Comparing Russian management with Japanese and American, we can say that it combines the features of both one and the other, which meets the characteristics of the Russian market and allows Russian business to function effectively in complex, constantly changing conditions.

Thus, from the above characteristics of the management models being studied, the following conclusions can be drawn (Table 1).

Table 1 – Comparative analysis of management models

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.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT

The most pronounced cultural and institutional differences in management styles are manifested in Japan, the USA and Russia.

MANAGEMENT IN JAPAN

Management in Japan, as in any other country, reflects its historical characteristics, culture and social psychology. It is directly related to the socio-economic structure of the country. Japanese management methods differ significantly from American and Russian ones because:

* Japanese management is based on collectivism, the use of all moral and psychological levers of influence on the individual. First of all, this is a sense of duty to the team, which in the Japanese mentality is almost identical to a feeling of shame;

* the main subject of management in Japan is labor resources. The goal that the Japanese manager sets for himself is to increase the efficiency of the enterprise mainly by increasing the productivity of workers.

According to the Japanese management specialist H. Yoshihara, the following basic principles of Japanese management can be distinguished:

1) job security and creation of an environment of trust;

2) publicity and values of the corporation;

3) information-based management;

4) quality-oriented management;

5) maintaining cleanliness and order.

In general, Japanese management is characterized by an emphasis on improving human relations: coherence, group orientation, employee morale, job stability, and harmonization of relations between workers and managers.

Control system. Management control in Japanese enterprises is carried out not by adopting certain directives, as is customary in traditional management, but by providing assistance and identifying weak links in the production process, i.e. control is associated not with the “detection-punishment” model, but with the “check-help” model.

To maintain discipline and improve performance, Japanese management relies more on rewards than punishment. Rewards are given for useful suggestions, for saving lives in accidents, for outstanding performance in training courses, for excellent performance of duties and for dedication to work as a model for colleagues. These rewards come in different types: certificates, gifts or money, and additional leave.

This position is quite understandable: on the one hand, each subordinate is an individual and has the right to make a mistake, on the other hand, the correct personnel policy when hiring will not allow an unscrupulous employee into the company, since the one who hired him is fully responsible for him .

Human resources management. Japanese corporations manage their employees in such a way that they work as efficiently as possible. To achieve this goal, Japanese corporations use American personnel management techniques, including effective wage systems, labor and workplace analysis, employee certification, etc.

However, there are also big differences between American and Japanese labor management:

1. Japanese corporations take greater advantage of their employees' dedication to the company.

Both senior officials and ordinary executives consider themselves representatives of the corporation. In Japan, every worker is convinced that he is an important and necessary person for his company - this is one of the manifestations of identifying himself with the company. Another manifestation is that a Japanese worker, when asked about his occupation, names the company where he works. Many employees rarely take rest days and often do not take full advantage of their paid time off because they believe it is their duty to work when the company needs it, thereby showing their loyalty to the company. Theoretically, the longer a person works in an organization, the stronger his self-identification with it should be.

2. Japanese corporations provide job security to their employees and use a reward system based on seniority to prevent employees from leaving for another company. An employee who moves to another company loses his seniority and starts all over again.

Employment in Japan is of particular importance. This is not just a matter of contract between employer and employee. It has emotional and moral implications. Japanese workers work methodically and devotedly, they are punctual, with only a slight relaxation possible in the last half hour of work. Japanese workers have a natural love of cleanliness and elegance, they have a strong sense of duty, they take pride in their workmanship, take great satisfaction in a job well done, and feel unhappy if they fail.

Lifetime employment in Japan is not a legal right. His statement is a tribute to a tradition that may have originated in the primitive community and received a complete form in Japanese feudal society. The company has a moral obligation to take care of its employees until retirement. Japanese managers believe that people are their greatest asset.

3. Management values most of all the qualities of employees such as mutual trust, cooperation, harmony and full support in solving the problems facing the group.

Individual responsibility and individual performance of work are deliberately obscured. The goals are to improve group performance and increase group solidarity. Thus, Japanese management always thinks from the group's perspective. The group is responsible for the success of the business as well as for the failures. Therefore, individual workers are rarely blamed for failures, especially if they are creative failures or related to a risky enterprise.

4. Ringi group decision-making system. Subordinates formulate their proposals and convey them

interested parties. After group discussion has set general tasks, each employee determines his own and begins to implement them. If it is noticed that a subordinate is not able to control the situation, the middle manager will intervene and will personally provide leadership. This attitude inspires confidence that personal failures and mistakes are, in general, no big deal, and a senior will always help you get out of a difficult situation. Thus, the emphasis is not on avoiding failure, but on achieving a positive result.

5. Managers in Japan constantly explain the company's goals and policies to their workers, who are free to express their opinions on the matter.

Workers have free access to management, since the success of the company is their success.

Quality management system. The historical prerequisites for quality management were the national movement “For the absence of deficiencies”, which grew into a comprehensive method of quality management. This movement had a significant impact not only on the quality of goods, but also on the awareness of each worker's responsibility for the quality of the work performed, developing in them a sense of self-control.

Initially, the quality control and management system was based on quality circles. According to the founder and theorist of quality management in Japan, I. Kaoru, to organize quality circles, managers need to follow the following principles:

* voluntariness;

* self-development;

* group activities;

* application of quality management methods;

* relationship with the workplace;

* business activity;

* mutual development;

* atmosphere of innovation and creative search;

* universal participation in the final result;

* awareness of the importance of improving product quality.

For contribution to achieving high results in the field of quality management, the W.E. Prize has been awarded annually in Japan since 1951. Deming - one of the founders of quality management in Japan.

Trade unions in Japan. Since trade unions in Japan are not divided by profession, but are unions of workers of the same company, they share management values such as productivity, profitability and growth. However, this does not mean that trade unions are servile: they retain their independence, they constantly monitor the correct observance of all agreed standards, and the management of the enterprise perceives the trade union as a legitimate intermediary between management and workers in matters of wages.

Trade unions are fully aware that workers can improve their standard of living only by increasing productivity, so they solve all problems that arise through cooperation. Unions in Japan are constantly looking for ways and means to improve the lives of workers without harming the firm. They understand that the living conditions of workers ultimately depend on the prosperity of the company.

It should be noted that the importance, resources and power of management are not comparable with the resources of trade unions. But union leaders and management share two basic assumptions: firstly, the prosperity of the company creates the conditions for solving other problems, and secondly, hating each other does not benefit anyone.

In general, in Japan there are fewer complaints and claims against management for two main reasons: firstly, the Japanese worker does not feel oppressed, and secondly, he considers his work to be more important than rights or beliefs. The origins of this lie in the fact that managers of Japanese firms pay great attention to the welfare of their workers, which naturally increases their confidence in both management and trade unions.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AMERICAN MANAGEMENT MODEL

American management has absorbed the foundations of the classical school, the founder of which is A. Fayol. The Americans L. Gyulik and L. Urvik did a lot to popularize the main provisions of this school. Subsequently, other American authors made many additions, clarifications and changes to the system of management principles. As a result, the management system in American firms is strictly organized. The management structure here is influenced by various factors.

On the one hand, these are factors of growth in the scale of production, complication of manufactured products, territorial disunity, and on the other hand, factors of the historical characteristics of the formation of specific firms.

Early American firms were characterized by a trust organization, which is why even now in such well-known companies as General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford Motor, enterprises within production departments are deprived of independence. The managers of such enterprises are completely dependent on the heads of production departments. The functions of the production department include the distribution of orders between enterprises, logistics, monitoring the implementation of production plans, as well as the implementation of such general functions as planning, quality management, equipment maintenance, and staffing.

In the 1980s American management has undergone significant changes, which have caused structural restructuring and redistribution of powers in making management decisions. All large companies have brought strategic planning to the forefront, which is a consequence of the development of long-term goals. The prosperity of companies in modern market relations requires the development and implementation of fundamentally new products. It must not only meet the needs of the market, but also be adapted to legislation in the field of price regulation, control over investment attraction, environmental protection, and energy saving.

The American management style also has its own characteristics, because:

* the responsibility of each employee is clearly defined;

* each manager is personally responsible for the implementation of the directive established indicators;

* foreign branches of American corporations more freely use the capital, technology, organizational and managerial experience of the parent company;

* strategic planning in American firms is focused on developing competitive market segments, which are called strategic business centers (SCCs). At the first stages, the company examines the market from the point of view of the rate of profit in the future and without connection with its current activities. At the second stage, the competitiveness of the company is determined.

The main concern of the SSC is to determine the relationship between old and new technology and its impact on the competitiveness of products. The uniformity and interchangeability of products are also studied; availability of resources for its development, production and sales; the presence of competitors comparable in profile and potential. SSH managers have the right to mobilize the resources of their production departments to achieve strategic plans, but are responsible for both the development and their implementation. In the past, American corporations drew up strategic plans based on trends of the past period; currently this process is modeled using mathematical programming methods.

Modern American management as it currently exists is based on three historical premises:

* market availability;

* industrial way of organizing production;

* corporation as the main form of entrepreneurship.

The modern American management model is focused on such an organizational and legal form of private entrepreneurship as a corporation (joint stock company), which arose at the beginning of the 19th century.

The book “The Modern Corporation and Private Property,” published by A. Burley and M. Means in 1932, had a great influence on the formation of the theory of the corporation. Corporations received the status of a legal entity, and their shareholders acquired the right to a portion of the profits, distributed in proportion to the number of shares they owned. Corporations replaced small businesses in which all ownership belonged to the capital owners and they had complete control over the activities of the workers.

American corporations widely use strategic management in their activities. This concept was introduced into use in the 60s and 70s. XX century, and in the 80s. covered almost all American corporations.

The strategy formulates the main goals and the main ways to achieve them in such a way that the corporation receives a single direction of action. The emergence of new goals, as a rule, requires the search and development of new strategies. The content of strategic management consists, firstly, in developing a long-term strategy necessary to win the competition, and secondly, in implementing management in real time.

The concept of strategic management is based on systemic and situational approaches to management. The enterprise is viewed as an open system.

Since the 60s. XX century The demands of corporate workers to improve their socio-economic situation have become increasingly insistent. In parallel with this, many management theorists have come to the conclusion that a number of organizations do not achieve their goals due to ignoring the contradictions of a rapidly changing social environment. A consequence of this situation was the emergence of the doctrine of “industrial democracy”, associated with the involvement of non-professionals in the management of both the enterprise itself and consumers of goods and services, intermediaries, etc., i.e. environment external to the enterprise. Some American authors call the involvement of non-professionals in management the “third revolution” in management.

The first, in their opinion, is associated with the separation of management from production and its separation into a special type of management activity. The second is characterized by the emergence of managers, i.e. people of a special profession. And the third revolution, associated with industrial democracy (or participatory management), began to be seen as a form of participation of all employees of the organization in making decisions that affect their interests. It should be noted that the involvement of workers in participation in the highest management bodies of the corporation - boards of directors - is extremely rare in practice.

In addition, in the second half of the 70s. In American corporations, team methods of organizing work and quality control circles became widespread, the idea of creating which belonged to American specialists in applied statistics W. Deming and J. Juran. However, for the first time, as stated earlier, quality control circles became widely used in Japan.

A prominent representative of American management, P. Drucker, formulated a number of general, mandatory functions that are inherent in the work of any manager:

* determining the goals of the enterprise and ways to achieve them;

* organizing the work of enterprise personnel (determining the scope of work and distributing it among employees, creating an organizational structure, etc.);

* creation of a motivation system and coordination of employee activities;

* analysis of the organization's activities and control over the work of personnel;

* ensuring the growth of people in the organization.

A manager cannot be a “universal genius”; the American practice of selecting executives places the main emphasis on good organizational skills, rather than on specialist knowledge.

INFLUENCE OF NATIONAL HISTORICAL FACTORS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT IN RUSSIA

management management enterprise

Methodological principles for the formation of Russian management.

The transition to the market has brought forward the task of forming effective Russian management. Today we can say with confidence that it is not only being created, but also has its own purely national features.

It is advisable to use workers with a collectivist psychology in areas where specific management methods that are adequate to them are used, with an emphasis on collective work, collective responsibility and control, and the use of a brigade form of labor organization and payment. With this approach, it is possible to carry out targeted selection of managers. A modern Russian manager must be flexible in defining management goals and objectives and firm, when a goal is chosen, in a relentless pursuit of its achievement. This type of leader, combining flexibility, adaptability and enormous strong-willed qualities, will take many years to develop.

A cautious, long-term approach to the formation of Russian management, taking into account the peculiarities of the Russian mentality, the diversity and breadth of Russian conditions, is the most important strategic task of society. Not only the transition to a market economy, but also Russia’s place in the world community largely depends on it. This is a movement towards modern forms and methods of management, which will be formed not blindly, but on the basis of scientifically based measures. The latter becomes extremely important in the conditions of spontaneous market formation and will introduce an element of consciousness into this process.

Infrastructure and features of the development of Russian management.

Modern Russian management, depending on where it develops and is formed, has a number of specific and general features.

Specific features include:

* national characteristics of society;

* historical features of development;

* geographical conditions;

* culture and other similar factors.

In addition, the state of development of Russian society, existing industrial relations, mentality and other factors allow us to merge four main features of Russian management:

1. Priorities and issues, emphasis of attention and efforts.

The most pressing management problems in Russia are anti-crisis management, employment management, information technology, support for entrepreneurship and small businesses, motivating economic activity in the production sector, and banking management. However, the main problem is not to identify them, but to build ranked priorities. It is here that the greatest difficulties arose in understanding management and its role in Russia.

2. Management infrastructure, socio-economic and political conditions of its existence.

Here it is important to understand and formulate the concept of infrastructure itself. It is a combination of many factors that make up the socio-economic environment | in which Russian management is being formed, namely:

* mentality factors (values, national traditions 1 and culture);

* factors of social consciousness, i.e. awareness of the practice 1 of foreign and domestic areas (manager training system);

* factors of the level of scientific thinking, methodological culture, development of socio-economic knowledge.

3. A set of factors that hinder or facilitate the strengthening of management in Russia.

These are factors of the level of scientific thinking, methodological structure, and the development of socio-economic knowledge.

4. Cultural environment, features of social consciousness.

These are factors that cannot be changed overnight and which, as historical development experience shows, do not need to be changed.

In addition, the features of the Russian management style include:

* in most companies the decision-making process is individual in nature;

* decisions are made by managers at each level of management, and senior managers, as a rule, do not duplicate the decisions of their subordinates, although this does occur, it creates many problems;

* strategic planning is carried out exclusively by senior management;

* the Russian top manager combines in his style of quality management both Japanese and American management, i.e. Professionalism, initiative, ability to coordinate actions and control are encouraged;

* the management structure at Russian enterprises, as well as the control procedure, are strictly formalized. Checks are scheduled, the staff is warned about them in advance, therefore, this method of control indirectly stimulates the work of employees and contributes to their career growth;

* in general, at Russian enterprises, career growth is possible and is determined in most cases by personal results, the contribution of a particular person to the common cause through his individual achievements, and less often by the results of the group’s work. A special place is occupied by state organizations, where the most important importance is given to length of service, bonuses are common to all;

* relations with subordinates are formal in nature, but informal relations are not completely excluded.

The history of modern Russian management can be presented in the form of four stages, the duration of each of which is relatively short, since the development of management as such began in the mid-1980s. as a result of socio-political transformations, called perestroika.

The first stage, or early period, of development (late 80s) is characterized by the emergence of manager-entrepreneurs, whose goal was personal enrichment, regardless of the chosen industry or field of activity. Business entities were called cooperatives and allowed their manager-owners to acquire the necessary skills and experience in managing teams, developing new industries and markets, and interacting with contact audiences, including government bodies.

The second stage of development (from approximately 1992 to 1998) is associated with the emerging need to create a new type of managers for the existing sectoral and territorial production structure of the Russian economy, when the production of goods had to be carried out under new conditions. Production and economic ties with enterprises located in the republics of the former USSR were destroyed, requiring a search for other sources of raw materials, components, as well as sales markets. At the second stage, there was a clearer division of managers into three types - business executives, entrepreneurs and hired personnel.

The third stage of development, which began around 1998, is characterized by a faster pace of emergence of a group of professional managers in newly created industries and areas (consulting, investment services), as well as in new markets, such as the stock market, consumers of pharmaceutical products, household goods electronics and electrical engineering.

The fourth stage, the development of which relates to the present period, is characterized by an increase in the share of professional managers working for hire in almost all industries and areas of production and services.

The emergence of the fourth stage is objectively due to the following reasons:

* a large number of managers received training under the Master of Business Administration (MBA) program and the Presidential Program for the Training of Highly Qualified Managers;

* partially manager-entrepreneurs move to a group of hired professional managers after studying abroad or in Russia;

* there is a consolidation of production and economic structures, the creation of corporations, and the revival of industries in which small business entities cannot function independently.

Today we can say with confidence that intellectual capital, skills and competence of managers are key elements of any successful business and directly affect its performance and market attractiveness. This explains the high priority of professional development and promotion of management personnel within the corporate environment as a function of creating and consuming a high-value asset to achieve the company’s business goals. Consequently, the question arises about the further professional development of management personnel as a strategic task for the Russian business community.

Thus, from the above characteristics of the management models being studied, the following conclusions can be drawn (Table 1).

Table 1 - Comparative management

Estimated characteristics of the model
Predominant control method	Economic, supplemented by socio-psychological	Economic, supplemented by command	Team, supplemented by economic and slightly socio-psychological
Predominant leadership style	Participatory or consultative democratic	Consultative-democratic or benevolent-authoritarian
Managers' Focus	In public and in practice	In fact or in people, or both	On yourself or on your property, or on both
Predominant type of management decisions	Consensus or compromise	Solo-consultative or compromise	Purely sole or sole-consultative
Structure of management decisions	Long preparation phase, short execution phase	Short preparation phase, long execution phase	Very short preparation phase, very long execution phase
Predominant type of motivation	Motivation to work for the company, formation of corporate consciousness	Motivation of specific employees based on economic and non-material incentives	Motivating specific employees with material incentives based on the idle speculation of managers, motivation by coercion and lack of motivation
Planning	Careful strategic and tactical planning	Emphasis on long-term strategic planning	Work based on short-term plans or unplanned
Democratization of production	Active involvement of employees in management	Moderate involvement of workers in management	Very weak involvement in management
Automation of management decisions	Very tall and tall	High and very high	Very low and low
Organizational culture			Very low and low
Appointment to a senior management position	A basic university education is required plus a degree as a result of defending a new scientific and practical work	High professional qualifications and successful work experience required	Personal connections are necessary, sometimes formal grounds are required in the form of a diploma or some experience in a leadership position

Posted on Allbest.ru

Facts about Japanese management

Japan is a country that has developed independently of Western civilization for a long time, and therefore it has developed special social norms that predetermine approaches to enterprise management.

Regarding personnel policy, the key guideline for the Japanese here is the level of education of employees. If a candidate for a position does not have a diploma from a prestigious university, then his chances of getting a job in a large company will be slim. A person’s possession of certificates of completion, for example, of advanced training courses, is usually not a compelling argument for a Japanese employer.

One of the key features of the Japanese management model in terms of personnel is the guarantee of indefinite employment of workers. At the same time, their initial qualifications are not particularly important - over the course of many years of work in the organization, they can repeatedly change their profile.

In terms of personnel management methods, the emphasis in Japan is placed, first of all, on the priority of the collective over the individual. It is expected that every employee of the company will work, aware of the global goal of his company.

In Japan, the practice of Kaizen is widespread, which is the formation of attitudes among employees of an organization for continuous improvement of their work. It is expected that all company employees will adhere to such priorities - from ordinary specialists to top managers.

As for the social aspect of employee management in Japan, a notable component of it is encouraging employees to join trade unions, which are formed within the structure of the employing company. This model of interaction between employees, the employer, and the body representing the interests of the former suggests an extremely low potential for social discontent among employees. Strikes in Japanese corporations are rare.

Building a business development strategy in Japan is based, first of all, on a systematic approach to decision making. The actions of managers in terms of improving the corporate management model must be justified and dictated by economic realities. The leaders of Japanese companies thus practice reasonable conservatism.

Another significant feature of management in Japan is that the owners of companies there are considered primarily investors - carriers of capital, along with banks. They are generally not seen or positioned as the main beneficiaries of the business. These are considered to be hired employees who have the opportunity, by giving their labor, to earn good money for themselves and their family. The profit of corporate owners is considered primarily as the merit of the company's employees, as a result of their collective work. Japanese entrepreneurs also strive not so much to extract personal profit, but to increase the level of socio-economic development of society and the state.

Facts about American Management

The USA is a country that has absorbed elements of the culture of a wide variety of peoples. Including in the aspect of management in organizations. However, over time, the American business environment has developed certain corporate governance standards that are characteristic of most companies.

Regarding personnel policy, in the USA, unlike Japan, not too much importance is given to the fact that an employee has a diploma. Unless, of course, we are talking about a person who graduated from Harvard or Yale University. One way or another, the main thing is the real skills of the candidate for the position. In turn, fresh certificates of completion of certain advanced training courses are often welcomed. A very compelling argument for an American employer is positive recommendations about a candidate.

The employee management strategy in the United States is based mainly on the principle of individual responsibility for the quality performance of job functions. The most important thing for an American employer is to see that an employee is doing his job well. If this is not the case, then he can be fired at any time. There are no laws in the United States that require employers to justify their desire to relieve an employee from his position.

The noted features of the employee management policy form, in turn, the desire of employees to search for various tools to protect their own rights. One of the most common is the participation of company employees in trade unions - unlike the Japanese ones, which are independent of employers. Legal confrontations between organizations representing the interests of workers and corporations in the United States are a frequent occurrence.

The strategy for building a business in the United States, in turn, allows the corporation's management to take decisive, sometimes radical, actions. Conservatism is not the most characteristic feature of American management.

In the United States, the rank of managers, as well as other employees, as a rule, is significantly lower than that of the owners of the corporation. Business owners and management are often separated from each other. The interests of the owner may not coincide with those of managers and other employees.

Comparison

What is the main difference between Japanese management and American management? First of all, in the level of consolidation of those people who participate in the life of the enterprise. Japanese corporations in this sense are more united; the role of each employee is considered as important as the functions of a top manager. The owners only contribute to such internal corporate consolidation. In American management, the interests of the company's owners are a particular priority. Often this becomes about extracting as much profit as possible. Employees are expected, first of all, to be personally responsible for performing the functions under the contract - corporate consolidation is secondary.

When considering the main characteristics of Japanese and American management, which we cited above, it becomes obvious that by most criteria both models are very different. Let's try to summarize the differences between Japanese and American management in a table.

Table

Japanese management	American management
When hiring employees, a diploma from a prestigious university is extremely important; the rest can be taught	When hiring employees, skills, experience, and recommendations are more important
Workers can count on unlimited employment	An employee can be fired at any time
Trade unions - in the structure of employing companies	Trade unions are independent and often enter into legal disputes with employers
Reasonable conservatism is a priority in the business development strategy	The business development strategy allows for radical decisions to be made
The owner’s profit is considered as a result of the effective work of employees; corporate owners contribute to the consolidation of management and personnel	Owners strive to make a profit by any means available; the interests of managers and other employees are often secondary

Management schools in the USA and Japan are currently leading in the world and are considered in other countries as a kind of standard for management development. There are certain similarities between them: both schools focus on enhancing the human factor (using, however, different forms and methods), constant innovation, diversification of goods and services, disaggregation of large enterprises and moderate decentralization of production; are focused on the development and implementation of long-term strategic plans for the development of the enterprise (however, if American managers develop their plans for 5-8 years, then Japanese managers develop their plans for up to 10 years or more). At the same time, despite the external similarities, these two management schools have features determined by the specific socio-economic development of their countries.

The basis of the American system of government is the principle of individualism, which arose in American society in the 18th-19th centuries, when hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived in the country. In the process of developing vast territories, such national character traits as initiative and individualism were developed. For Japan, in which until the end of the 19th century. feudalism was preserved, the traditional attitude of social

consciousness towards collectivism (belonging to any social group), and the formation of the modern Japanese management system took place taking this feature into account. Currently, Japanese management is becoming increasingly widespread in countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, taking into account common cultural values and traditions.

There are other differences between the Japanese and American management systems. In the United States, in the management process, the emphasis is on a bright personality who can improve the organization’s activities; in Japan, managers focus on the group and the organization as a whole. American firms have rigid management structures that have certain functions; in Japan, more flexible management structures are used, created and eliminated as specific tasks are completed. The main incentive for American workers is the economic factor (money) - for Japanese workers, a more significant role is played not by money, but by socio-psychological factors (a sense of belonging to a team, pride in the company). Western European and American enterprises are characterized by the presence of moral and psychological prohibitions that restrain the initiative and creativity of workers; Japanese workers are guided by the concepts of internal duty and the subordination of their interests to the interests of the collective. In crisis situations, American managers try to fire part of the staff in order to reduce the costs of their organization and make it more competitive - in Japanese enterprises there is an unwritten law of the so-called lifetime employment of workers, in which working personnel are considered the highest value of the organization, and therefore the administration will do everything possible to retain its employees in the most critical situations. American workers, according to the employment contract, are focused only on fulfilling their functional duties - Japanese workers strive not only to fulfill their job responsibilities, but also to do the most useful for their organization, for example, an American foreman or engineer will never do work cleaning the workshop area, even if he has free time, and a Japanese specialist, having time free from his main activity, will definitely do something useful for his company, since he is focused

not to perform strictly defined functional duties, but to work for the good of their company.

American workers usually change their place of work once every few years, moving to companies that offer them higher wages or better working conditions. This is also due to the fact that in the United States, only a vertical career is traditionally considered successful (when an employee is promoted to a position within the structure of his organization). A common practice is to retire employees who have worked for the company for 20-25 years, even if they have not reached retirement age. In this way, company management strives to create conditions for the career growth of young professionals and retain them in their organization.

In Japan, workers usually work their whole lives in one company, and any move to another organization is considered an unethical act. The career of a Japanese specialist is often horizontal in nature (for example, a middle manager moves to other departments every 4 to 5 years, occupying positions equal to their previous status). This allows the company to improve the system of horizontal connections between departments and services, train broad-spectrum professionals, solve the problem of interchangeability, and improve the moral climate in the team. People who have reached retirement age rarely retire, trying to work for the benefit of the company as long as they have the strength, and in any areas and positions.

Russia has yet to choose the most suitable management model for it, at first simply copying it, and then creatively developing it on the basis of domestic management theory and practice. Apparently, the Japanese management model will be more attractive for us, since it is more consistent with the peculiarities of our history, culture and national psychology (for example, the priority of the group over the individual, submission to the authority of government, etc.). Such a choice, in our opinion, will undoubtedly lead to a change in Russia’s geopolitical interests, to its greater focus on countries located in the Pacific region (Japan, China, Brazil, Chile, Australia, South Korea, etc.), with their huge human populations. , financial, raw material and technological capabilities and historical perspective.

The choice of a management model will mean a change in ideological guidelines in the process of training future managers.

This will be a choice that will determine the historical path of Russia's development for hundreds of years. After all, Russia is a country located at the junction of the West and the East and has absorbed the values of both the Western and Eastern worlds.

Comparative characteristics of Japanese and American management models

§ 4. General principles
government controlled

After the Second World War, Japan quickly moved from a totalitarian-militaristic regime to the rule of law, based on the principle of separation of powers. In Art. 41 of the Japanese Constitution of 1947 states that “the parliament is the highest organ of state power and the only legislative body of the state.”

The Japanese Parliament consists of two houses: the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors, each of which contains up to 20 standing committees. The commissions include deputies from various political parties in proportion to their representation in parliament. The commissions preliminary review the vast majority of draft legislative acts and carry out the main legislative work.

The highest executive bodies in Japan are the government and the cabinet of ministers. The government is formed on the basis of the laws on the cabinet of ministers and on the organization of government, adopted by parliament in 1947 and 1948, respectively. These laws determine the number of ministries and departments, their general structure, the number of state ministers and their deputies, the most general functions, rights and responsibilities of departments and their heads.

The executive authorities are constitutionally under fairly strict control of parliament. This is ensured, first of all, by legal norms and the financing system.

The structure, powers, rights, responsibilities, and size of the management apparatus are determined by special laws on the organization of these bodies, adopted by parliament. Departments are given the right to create the additional units they need, but subject to the limits of the established number. Other changes require the approval of parliament, whose members generally view its sprawl negatively. Therefore, the number of bureaucrats in Japan itself is relatively small.

In addition to legislation, an important lever for parliamentary control over the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers and all government agencies in Japan is Control and Audit Council, according to the Constitution, independent from the government, including the Ministry of Finance. It consists of an office, a secretariat and 5 departments specializing in

on checking the financial activities of specific ministers and departments. The Council, consisting of over 1,200 auditors, annually audits the expenses of all ministries and departments and establishes their compliance with the budget approved by parliament. The results of the audit, together with the government's financial report, are presented to parliament. If there is any financial abuse or misuse of public funds, the guilty heads of departments and their divisions are brought to justice by parliament.

The main law governing the public civil service in Japan is the Civil Servants Law, which aims to ensure a sufficiently democratic and efficient system of administrative power by establishing fundamental standards applicable to all civil servants and ensuring maximum efficiency in the performance of their official duties.

Civil servants under this law are considered to be persons who receive a salary from the state, are selected and appointed to a position by the state, and receive compensation (pension) from the state. The principles and standards for the selection of civil servants are provided for by the Japanese Constitution, which states that “all people are equal before the law.” But nevertheless, the law states that only persons of Japanese nationality can be employed in the civil service.

The basis for admission to the civil service is the candidate’s compliance with the qualification requirements for specialized knowledge and skills in the field of administration, regardless of anyone’s personal considerations and political views. To assess the candidate's abilities, there is a system of examinations and evaluation of his qualifications and experience.

Initial appointment to the civil service is made on the basis of competitive examinations or (in certain cases) an interview and assessment of the candidate's abilities. Written and oral examinations include an assessment of qualifications and performance, as well as a medical examination and other methods to objectively assess the candidate's ability to perform official duties. By law, all persons must be allowed to take exams on equal terms; Sufficient publicity must be ensured during examinations.

The names of those who successfully passed the examinations and the scores they obtained are included in the certificate of entitlement to civil service. The validity period of this certificate is 1 year.

The right of appointment to positions is vested in the heads of ministries and departments, who can delegate these rights to other high-ranking officials of their ministries and departments. The right to temporary removal from office, reinstatement, dismissal or resignation, as well as the right to impose disciplinary sanctions, belongs to the person who appointed the official to the position.

These rights are subject to certain rules. For example, no one can be appointed to a position unless he meets the requirements of the Civil Servants Act. Appointment or promotion is conditional for a period of at least 6 months. During this period, those hired for the first time do not have the status guaranteed for civil servants.

By law, promotions are made on the basis of competitive examinations between applicants or (in most cases) the results of an evaluation of their service.

The law establishes a uniform retirement age for most civil servants - 60 years. This system applies to all civil servants of regular service, with the exception of those hired temporarily or for a certain period.

Self-test questions

1. Describe the philosophy of Japanese management.

2. What is the essence of quality management in Japanese companies?

3. What are the differences between Japanese and American management?

Literature

1. Monden Y. "Toyota": methods of effective management. - M.: Economics, 1989.

2. Morita A. Made in Japan. History of the Sony company. - M.: Univers, 1993.

3. Pronkin V.A., Ladanov I.D. Personnel management in Japan. - M.: Nauka, 1989.

4. Schonberger R. Japanese methods of production management.- M.: Economics, 1988.

Content
Introduction
Chapter 1 Identifying the features of national management

1.1 Identification of features in the American management model

1.2 Identification of features in the Japanese management model

1.3 Identification of features in the Russian management model

Chapter 2 Analysis of the Russian management model

2.1 Identification of national differences between Russian and foreign management models

2.2 Analysis of the management of OJSC GAZ

2.3 Main mistakes of GAZ OJSC management

2.4 Assessment of the situation: present and prospects of OJSC GAZ

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction
Over the entire history of management, many foreign countries have accumulated significant information in the field of theory and practice of management in industry, agriculture, trade and others, taking into account their specific characteristics. Unfortunately, our domestic science of management developed independently and separately, often ignoring foreign experience in the art of management. For many decades, our country was dominated by the administrative-command management system, which mainly directed its efforts to criticize foreign management experience.
However, the experience of doing business and implementing management is rich, often ambiguous and very useful for study by those who have set foot on the path of management. The relevance lies in the fact that creating your own management model requires, on the one hand, the study of everything valuable that is contained in foreign theory and practice, and on the other hand, the use of its best achievements in your activities.
The purpose of the essay is to identify the features of modern Russian management, for this the following tasks are set: to consider the main models of management in foreign countries, compare them and identify the features of these models; consider the model of Russian management and identify its features.
To date, the history of management has not been developed. We are only trying to reflect the development of management in certain features that seem important to us, mainly from the point of view of posing currently relevant problems and deepening their understanding. This also means that the history of the problem will be mainly considered. To trace the connection of certain scientific trends or positions with the socio-political conditions of their emergence, many years of special historical research would be required.

Chapter 1. Identifying the features of national management

The management structure of a corporation (joint stock company) in a particular country is determined by several factors: legislation and various regulations governing the rights and obligations of all parties involved; the actual management structure in a given country; the charter of each joint stock company.
There is no general theory of management suitable for all times and peoples - there are only general principles of management that give rise to Japanese, American, French or German management systems with their own unique characteristics, since they take into account certain national values, features of national psychology, mentality, etc. d.
At the same time, it is necessary to understand that you cannot simply take one of the models and apply it in another country. The process of forming a certain management model is dynamic: the corporate governance structure always meets the conditions and characteristics of a particular country.
Western management textbooks give national differences a primary role. The difference between American, European and Japanese leadership styles has been described many times. But managerial differences in multinational Russian management cause surprise and even initial protest.
“Scientists have been arguing for many years about what national character is and whether it is correct to use this term at all. It seems to me that, first of all, it is important that the employee be a bright and extraordinary person. It is these qualities that primarily help employees and, therefore, ", the company will solve those unexpected daily tasks that our unpredictable Russian reality poses to everyone. And people of any nationality can be bright personalities."
1.1 Identification of features in the American management model

The American model is used in corporations in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and some other countries. It is characterized by the presence of individual shareholders and an ever-increasing number of independent, i.e., non-corporate shareholders (these are called “external” shareholders or “outsiders”), as well as a clearly developed legislative framework defining the rights and responsibilities of three key participants: managers, directors and shareholders.

Management as a science, a scientific discipline, arose in the USA at the beginning of the 20th century. The American engineer and researcher F. Taylor (1856 - 1915) is rightfully considered the founder of management science. The system of labor organization and management relations he proposed caused an “organizational revolution” in the sphere of production and its management.

In the 20-30s of our century, a school of human relations arose, the focus of which is the person. The emergence of the doctrine of “human relations” is usually associated with the names of American scientists E. Mayo and F. Roethlisberger, who are known for their research in the field of sociology of industrial relations.

The term “human resource management” arose in the 60s. The “human resources” model is considered as strategic and focused on the active position of the individual in the organization. Each person must be responsible for the results of his work and contribute to their achievement. In turn, the organization must encourage its employees.

Modern American management is based on three historical premises: the presence of a market; industrial method of organizing production; corporation as the main form of entrepreneurship.

Corporations have the status of a legal entity, and their shareholders have the right to a portion of the profits, distributed in proportion to the number of shares they own. Corporations replaced small businesses in which all ownership belonged to the capital owners and they had complete control over the activities of the workers.

According to management theorists, the creation of corporations entailed the separation of property from control over its disposal, that is, from power. The real power to run the corporation passed to its board and managers. In the American management model, the corporation is still the main structural unit.

American corporations widely use strategic management in their activities, which consists of developing a long-term strategy and implementing real-time management.

Currently, four main forms of involving workers in management have become widespread in the United States: participation of workers in managing labor and product quality at the shop level; creation of works councils (joint committees) of workers and managers; development of profit sharing systems; attracting worker representatives to corporate boards of directors.

American scientists continue to pose and develop real management problems. The American practice of selecting executives places the main emphasis on good organizational skills, rather than on the knowledge of a specialist.

1.2 Identification of features in the Japanese management model

The Japanese management system is recognized as the most effective all over the world and the main reason for its success is the ability to work with people. The Japanese consider their human resources to be the main wealth of the country.

In recent years, interest in Japanese forms and methods of management has been growing all over the world, because The rapid successful development of the economy of this country allowed it to occupy a leading position in the world.

The Japanese system of government developed partly under the influence of local traditions, partly as a result of the American occupation after the Second World War, and partly as a reaction to the need to combat poverty and devastation after the war.

Japanese management constantly uses the most useful management concepts of Western countries, their methods and techniques, adapting them to their national characteristics, thereby preserving and strengthening their values and helping to establish a special style of thinking and methods inherent only to Japanese managers.

The essence of Japanese management is people management. The Japanese model is based on the philosophy “we are all one family,” so the most important task of Japanese managers is to establish normal relationships with employees, to create an understanding that workers and managers are one family. The companies that managed to do this achieved the greatest success. In addition, in Japan there is a tradition of subordination to the elder, whose position is approved by the group.

Japanese management, based on collectivism, used all the moral and psychological levers of influence on the individual. First of all, this is a sense of duty to the team, which in the Japanese mentality is almost identical to a feeling of shame.

The main features of the Japanese management system are determined by a number of concepts that are absent in the American model. The most important of these are the lifetime employment system and the collective decision-making process. Another important feature of Japanese management is the concept of continuous learning. The Japanese are confident that continuous learning leads to constant improvement of skills. Every person can improve his or her job performance through continuous learning.

One of the distinctive features of Japanese management is human resources management. Japanese corporations manage their employees in such a way that they work as efficiently as possible. The Japanese worship work. They are often called "workaholics." In the hierarchy of values of the Japanese people, work comes first.

The Japanese management model is focused on the “social person”, who has a specific system of incentives and motives. The formula “enterprise is people” is the sincere belief of employers. Japanese managers instill in their employees not only technical skills, but also moral and ethical values.

The strongest means of motivation in Japan is the “corporate spirit” of the company, which means merging with the company and devotion to its ideals. The basis of the “corporate spirit” of the company is the psychology of the group, which puts the interests of the group above the personal interests of individual employees, since the company must function as one cohesive team. Thus, management always thinks from the group's perspective.

Quality management occupies a central place in the operational management of Japanese management. Quality control covers all stages of production. All employees of the company are involved in the control system. In all spheres of the Japanese economy, there are currently quality groups (circles) that solve all problems, from technological to socio-psychological.

Three main features of Japanese industrial organizations are noteworthy: first, lifelong employment, second, the influence of seniority on wages and salaries, and third, unionization.

Japanese management accepts the union as a legitimate intermediary between management and workers in matters of wages. But since trade unions in Japan are not divided by profession, but are unions of workers of the same company, they share management values such as productivity, profitability and growth. The unions are fully aware that workers can improve their standard of living only by increasing productivity, so they have begun to cooperate with management.

In general, in Japan there are fewer complaints and claims against management for two main reasons: firstly, the Japanese worker does not feel oppressed, and secondly, he considers his work to be more important than rights or beliefs. The origins of this lie in the fact that managers of Japanese companies pay great attention to the welfare of their workers. This naturally increases their confidence in both management and trade unions.

1.3 Identification of features in the Russian management model

When writing my course work, I studied A.B. Bakhur’s article “Features of National Management”, in which the author analyzes the properties of the Russian management model, tries to compare the mechanisms of public management in Western Europe and Russia, and identify the necessary aspects of using the experience of other models and innovative potential your model. After reading the article, you can draw the following conclusions.

The domestic model has great potential, most likely even greater than the Western one. But to unlock its potential, a significantly higher level of methodological development is required, knowledge and consideration by managers of Russian legislative and regulatory acts, a high level of training, the presence of business ethics standards and deep knowledge of the market, economics and management itself as a management science. Without this, it is more likely that her weaknesses will appear.

Obviously, the experience of the Western model is useful in this regard. First of all, experience in procedural support for general work, experience in procedural enforcement. In general, the problem of “implanting” the experience of the Western model is still unresolved. We already have a long historical experience of trying to use it. We can say that the first were the reforms of Peter I. Well, the fact that the problem has not been resolved to this day is confirmed by the very recent experience of reforms in the early 90s of the 20th century, in which the same mistake was repeated - direct copying of Western experience.

Indeed, it is worth noting that both of these management models were generated by significantly different people, with different mentalities. It is now generally accepted that national and regional mentalities are the most important factor influencing the forms, functions and structure of management. There is a deeper relationship between management and mentality. Analyzing the forms and methods of management in different countries, we cannot help but take into account German punctuality, English conservatism, American pragmatism, Japanese paternalism, and Russian laxity. A person cannot be free from society, from himself, from his mentality. Moreover, he is always in a certain hierarchical system: he either subordinates and leads, or is subordinate. Even when alone, he directs his actions, actions emanating subconsciously from his mentality. This demonstrates the compliance of management with the mentality.

Russia's borrowing of other people's experience could bring even more negative results. This is explained by the fact that the Russian mentality has always been characterized by the presence of polarity, the desire for the grotesque, and taking any situation to the extreme. Russia is a bizarre combination of Westernism and Slavophilism; it has always stood between Europe and Asia. From Asia, Russia absorbed a form of groupthink - groupism, and from Europe - individualism with its inherent worldview. Groupism and individualism are two fundamental qualities that form the basis of the Russian mentality. Moreover, it must be taken into account that the Russian mentality is dynamic, with a tendency towards individualization, making its way in the conditions of the emerging market. The system of emerging Russian management must take this into account, distinguishing and noting individuals whose individual mentality predominates.

A specific feature of Russian management should be its reliance on the employee’s hard work, focus on diligence and punctuality. These inherent qualities in the people must be encouraged in every possible way. By cultivating these qualities, in the process of establishing a national management system, we can make a gradual transition from rigid management decisions to flexible ones. Today, toughness is a necessary but forced measure. The strategic perspective of Russian management is a movement towards management that is softer in form, but also more effective in content.

Modern Russian management was formed under conditions of transition from an overly centralized, planned economy to a market economy, in a short time. It largely inherited the features of the previous administrative-command system. Many modern organizations using new organizational and legal forms were formed on the basis of former Soviet enterprises. Many key positions in them are occupied by managers raised in Soviet times.

At the same time, organizations - economic entities have been operating for several years in the conditions of a market, although still very inefficient Russian economy, and have acquired some of the most important features characteristic of subjects of market relations.

Very specific general economic factors have had and continue to have a significant impact on the reform of Russian management, and, above all:

Economic and political instability in the country;
- decline in industrial and agricultural production;
- high level of unemployment;
- high level of taxation of organizations;
- high level of inflation;
- low solvency of many organizations;
- imperfect and unstable legislative and regulatory framework for the functioning of the economy;
- the use by state and local authorities of models and solutions that are inadequate to the current conditions. There is a disregard for horizontal system formation, self-government, and insufficient consideration of modern trends in the development of socio-economic systems;
- corruption of state and local economic regulatory bodies;
- chronic asymmetry of the information space, business information, which makes it extremely difficult to form transactions;
- underdevelopment of market relations, market infrastructure, information environment; high level of uncertainty and risks in the market for goods and services;
- high level of criminalization of the economy, vulnerability of entrepreneurs from criminal structures.

The formation of Russian management must take into account the main trend in the development of mentality towards developing individualism, increasingly focusing on the individual, the implementation of individual control, taking into account individual contribution and payment according to it. This means that promotions based not on acquaintances and family connections, but solely on the personal abilities of each individual, should become increasingly important in enterprises. A modern Russian manager must be flexible in defining management goals and objectives and firm, when a goal is chosen, in a relentless pursuit of its achievement.

A Russian enterprise, becoming an independent object of commodity-money relations, fully responsible for the results of its economic activities, must form a system of effective management that could allow the enterprise to achieve a competitive and sustainable position in the market.

Compared to the old management system that existed for many years at Russian enterprises, new functions appear in the new conditions: developing a strategy and development policy, searching for the necessary material and labor resources, improving the production and organizational structures of enterprise management.

Under these conditions, demands on Russian managers for the timeliness and quality of decisions made have sharply increased. The role of scientific and technological progress has increased, making it possible to meet market needs through innovation. In Russian business there is an urgent need to conduct marketing research to study these needs. To produce competitive products while minimizing production costs, issues related to personnel management, which in the new Russian realities is becoming the main resource, are becoming increasingly important.

Management at Russian enterprises places high demands on the professionalism of management personnel and management style. In the context of a shortage of financial resources, it became necessary to use motivation methods developed by global management practice.

Russian experience in the field of business management comes down to the use of planning methods and control over the implementation of plans.

Russian so-called “new commercial structures” are not yet business, but purely speculative enterprises. Manufacturing enterprises attempting to operate in a market environment face many challenges and environmental constraints on their business operations. Therefore, it is important for Russian managers to study foreign management experience and creatively use it in new Russian conditions in order to build an organization of a new type for our country.

An approach from the perspective of the human factor is very important for Russia, which has many years of experience in administrative-bureaucratic, overly formalized management.

Russian management is a creative understanding of foreign experience taking into account Russian specifics, i.e. synthesis of global experience of effective management and existing domestic experience based on the national and historical characteristics of our culture. Simply put, everything is still in its infancy and we are trying to find a middle ground between the Japanese school of management and the American one and are looking for acceptable methods from both.

Chapter 2. Analysis of the Russian management model

Russia must respond to the challenges it faces today. In the medium term, it is necessary to prevent a further widening of the gap between Russia and developed countries, and in the long term, it is necessary to restore and strengthen Russia’s position as one of the leading countries in world development. To take advantage of the “window of opportunity”, it is important to determine which path leads to the realization of potential and balanced development.

The state's development strategy is based on freeing up private initiative and strengthening the role of the state in ensuring favorable economic conditions, including financial and social stability. It is this modernization that will allow us to achieve the goal of radically improving the standard of living of the population based on the self-realization of every citizen, reducing social inequality, preserving the independent and cultural values of Russia, and restoring the country’s economic and political role in the world community. This goal is the goal of Russia's development strategy until 2010. To achieve this goal, society needs an updated system of values that meets the traditions of Russia and the requirements of modernity: freedom, responsibility, trust, high value of the individual. You need to achieve your goal at your own expense and with your own efforts. The path to prosperity is conscientious work, fair competition, conscious obedience to the law. At the same time, the scale of tasks for creating and training Russian management is simply enormous.

For example, there are now 14 thousand enterprises in the form of federal state unitary enterprises, and 23 thousand in the form of institutions. By 2004, during privatization, the public sector of the economy was reduced to 1.5 - 2.5 thousand enterprises, i.e. at least 15 times. This required a large number of managers capable of working in market conditions. In forming a socially oriented economy in Russia, it is necessary to resolve the main issue: how and how much to pay. If you pay according to work, then you must take into account that work is a process of joint activity, it has no value, it cannot be weighed. It would not be wise to introduce various measures of this process, in particular standards - conditional, abstract, etc. You have to pay for the usefulness of the product being created; payment should depend on the use value. Pay not according to costs, but according to the final result of labor, crystallized in the cost of the sold product of labor and services rendered

Russian management is a complex innovative science that is just emerging simultaneously with the formation of a market economy, the development of entrepreneurship, the creation of specific conditions and competitiveness, and the formation of favorable preconditions for enhancing the activities of individuals and legal entities.

2.1 Identification of national differences between Russian and foreign management models

There are many opinions about national differences and management characteristics. It seems to me that in order to analyze these concepts it would be appropriate to know the opinions of people who are associated with this.

Georgiy Abdushelishvili, senior partner at Ward Howell, does not see national differences within Russian management. He sees differences between the Dutch, French and Indians, but finds no differences in management among Russians, Georgians and Jews, who live in equal social conditions and received approximately the same education. From his point of view, there is a noticeable difference in the Moscow and St. Petersburg management styles." Muscovites are much more free in their reasoning,
etc.................

Descriptions of American Japanese and Russian management systems. The focus is not on production, but on adaptation to the external environment. Modern American management, as it currently exists, is based on three historical principles:

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Facts about Japanese management

Facts about American Management

Comparison

Table