Shchedrovitsky thinking part and whole. Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky guide to the methodology of organization, leadership and management

Georgy Shchedrovitsky

Organizational thinking: ideology, methodology, technology

Course of lectures 3rd edition, corrected and enlarged

Publishing house Art. Lebedev Studios

Responsible editor P. G. Shchedrovitsky

Editors G. A. Davydova, A. V. Rusakov

This book is the third edition of the course of lectures on management by G. P. Shchedrovitsky (1929–1994), a Russian thinker, philosopher, methodologist and public figure. The author believes that the activities of organization and management are leading for the development of any practical areas. The source of the principles of the methodological school of management is a deep theoretical and ontological study of organizational thinking. The knowledge and ideas that the methodology operates with are in the nature of prescriptions for action or projects for organizing activity (or thinking). Special attention the lectures focus on the systematic approach developed in the Moscow Methodological Circle.

The book is intended for specialists in organization, management and leadership, for undergraduate and graduate students of all specializations in the field of management.

© NSF “Institute for Development named after G. P. Shchedrovitsky, main text, 2005

© P. G. Shchedrovitsky, foreword, 2014

© G. A. Davydova, A. V. Rusakov, editors' introduction, notes, index of names, 2014

© A. V. Rusakov, Literature, 2014

© Art. Lebedev Studio, design, 2014

P. G. Shchedrovitsky. Foreword

I go up the escalator of the Paveletskaya metro station, jump out into the street and, squinting from the sun, run to the crossing over the Garden Ring. On the opposite side of Sadovoye, near the bridge over the Moskva River, there is a typical Soviet building - it looks like it was built in the 1930s, made of brick, painted with yellowish paint. The Institute for Advanced Studies of the USSR Ministry of Energy is located here. It is here that the lectures of my father, Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky, and the organizational and activity game dedicated to management problems will begin today. Outside - May 1981.

Situation

In the Soviet Union, since the late 1960s, plans for the construction of nuclear power plants (NPPs) began to expand significantly. Party and government documents, including a 1980 resolution, provided for the commissioning of 66.9 million kW between 1980 and 1991, as well as the creation of the necessary civil infrastructure nuclear energy to provide nuclear power plants with a total capacity of 100 GW. The active promotion of domestic nuclear technologies to the markets of Eastern and Northern Europe continues.

In the periods immediately preceding and following the reading of Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky's lectures at the IPK of the Ministry of Energy, a number of significant events take place in the nuclear industry.

On April 8, 1980, the third unit was launched Beloyarsk NPP, the construction of which lasted almost 13 years. In June 1981, the operation of the first unit of the Beloyarsk NPP was completed ahead of schedule. After the accident in December 1978, the fate of the first and second blocks was actively discussed and scenarios for the development of the site as a whole were being developed. Georgy Petrovich and members of his team were later involved in these discussions.

As the scale of construction of new power units increased, numerous problems of serial construction of nuclear power plants became more and more acute. Despite the ongoing development and further adoption in 1982 on the basis of the accumulated experience of “mandatory technological rules for the construction of a power unit” (the so-called OTP-82), which were focused on the serial construction of nuclear power plants, these deadlines were violated everywhere and, in fact, the pace and quality of construction depended largely on the quality of management of a particular object.

In the seventh lecture, Georgy Petrovich, having lost patience, reads out an excerpt from the report of the government commission on the results of checking the progress of construction at the Kalinin NPP.

“... At our construction site,” Georgy Petrovich quotes, “for many years the plan for commissioning capacities has not been fulfilled ... The main disadvantages of the construction of energy facilities are the insufficient concentration and dispersal of capital investments, an increase against the standard duration of construction, uneven commissioning of capacities throughout the year, uneven loading workers and technology, slow productivity growth. The construction results are negatively affected by the backlog of the Ministry’s own industrial base, chronic non-compliance with the principle of advanced construction of residential buildings, social and cultural facilities.”

Thus, the issue of construction management at that moment was extremely acute, which set the applied focus of the work that was carried out by the IPK of the Ministry of Energy with a reserve of personnel.

It should be said that from March 30 to April 4, 1981, at the request of the director of Beloyarsk nuclear power plant Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky conducts Vadim Mikhailovich Malyshev in the town of Zarechny Sverdlovsk region organizational and activity game "Ensuring the normal functioning and development of technologies and activities at nuclear power plants." One of the consequences of the game was the involvement of Georgy Petrovich in discussing the situation in the industry and inviting him as a lecturer at the IPK of the Ministry of Energy to work with the personnel reserve.

Situation

Lectures Georgy Petrovich reads in parallel with the game. The game is called "Introduction to the position of the head of the nuclear power plant construction department." A little later, Georgy Petrovich will play another game with the personnel reserve of the IPK Ministry of Energy - “Programming social development NPP construction team.

The personnel reserve of the Ministry of Energy was a rather heterogeneous and uneven-aged team. As far as I remember, there were only two real heads of construction departments among the students of the 1981 summer stream. Most reservists are deputies, both line and functional. But there were also several specialists who were at the lower levels of the notorious Soviet vertical of control, who, as is often the case in the practice of advanced training and retraining, were sent at the last moment to replace deputies from those construction sites where, as always in the summer months, " emergency."

“A scientist can be a dogmatist, a scientist can be, excuse me, stupid, and he will remain a scientist,
and a leader cannot be stupid - he will not remain a leader.

But Shchedrovitsky is a different story: he is from a different cultural environment, he is from the last century, he was brought up on different values, he thinks differently than we are used to, he doesn’t say what we expect, and he doesn’t care about questions that can be easily answered. find the answer on the internet. Shchedrovitsky's book is like a breath of fresh air. It's as far out of the straight line of identical business books as it can be. No more “my friend Seth Godin” hated by you, no mention of Jobs and Kroc, no baseball stories. The beauty.

Despite the fact that Shchedrovitsky cites many examples from life, and conducts business games in parallel, this is not an instruction book. Those who want to quickly find ready-made solutions to actual everyday tasks in it will probably be disappointed. The value of Shchedrovitsky's book lies elsewhere - it forms managerial thinking in a person, teaches him to think in a new way. She helps him look at work from a managerial angle and shows how to keep this angle of view. If you like, Shchedrovitsky's book is a philosophy of management, but the philosophy is practical, very integral. It will not replace the story of a modern practitioner (there is not a word about the fight against the tax), but it will complement it well and become an excellent basis for the development of practical ideas and real actions.

The book is a treasure trove of interesting ideas. For example, Shchedrovitsky specifically pays attention to the difference between the concepts of "organization", "management" and "leadership". Look here:

“I will continue to discuss organizational work in more detail. And then I will ask why the organizer created the organization, whether the organization corresponds to its goals and the purpose that he attributed to it, or displaces this purpose, begins to live on its own. So far, at the first call, only one moment is important to me. The organizer refers to a certain set of elements, collects elements of a certain type and type in certain quantities, combines them and sets certain relationships and connections between them. When he did this and thus created the structure of the organization - and the structure is given by the arrangement of elements and the type of connections and
relationships - it fades into the background, and this thing can either remain dead or begin to live according to its own laws. And here everything is exactly the same: whether we design a machine tool, a machine, or we build, as you do, a power plant, nuclear power plant, - we organize all the elements, building blocks, etc., everything that is needed there, we collect all this in a certain order. But when you design a machine, it either works or, as is often the case, it doesn't work. So is the organization.<...>Further, this organization will function either regardless of the goals of the organizer, regardless of what he laid down and provided for in it, or in accordance with his goals. And will he “own” its further functioning or will its life take place irrespective of him, contrary to his plans, this question is directly related to the organizational
does not apply to work. Organizational work is limited to the selection of elements, their assembly and the assignment of certain relationships and connections. Here's what I need to reiterate.
So: selection of elements, assembly of elements, setting certain relationships and connections,transforming a set of elements into a whole - this is the work of organization, if such elements are people - sometimes without machines, sometimes with machines, but it is assumed that people in the full sense of the word: acting people working with certain means.

Now look further. What is management and in what case do we exercise management? Is it possible, say, to control a chair? […]
- Can.
No, I say. You can put it, you can move it, you can break it, transform it. It will be a certain practical, transformative activity. But this is not control every time. Now a more complicated case - a car. Here the car is standing, you haven’t pressed the accelerator yet - is it possible to control it?
- No.
It is forbidden. When does it become possible to drive a car? When she went. Control is possible only in relation to objects that have self-movement.<...>As long as there is no such self-propulsion, setting such a task or goal - management - does not make sense.<... >You can imagine a situation where you can control the flight of a chair. Imagine something like a musketeer battle: someone throws a chair, and instead of defending myself from it, I direct its flight somewhat in another side. I carried out a one-time, one-time act of control - I changed the direction of the flight of the chair. In this sense, I have managed this process. But look what I managed? I was flying the chair, not the chair.

And now about the leadership. Leadership is possible only within the organization, within the framework of special organizational ties.
What is the essence of leadership? In setting goals and objectives for other elements. But in order for me to be able to set goals and objectives for other elements - people, it is necessary that they renounce their own goals and objectives and undertake to accept my goals and objectives. And that is exactly what happens within an organization.
The organization of people - I go back to the organization and fix its properties and qualities - is always carried out in this way: a person occupying a certain place, thereby renounces his own goals and objectives, from his own self-movement and undertakes to move only in accordance with this place and, accordingly, those goals and objectives, which through the channels of the organization will be transferred to him by higher authorities.<...>People, getting into the organization, give up their own goals and goal-setting function and undertake - this is the meaning of the statement “I ask you to accept me for a position ...” - to accept tasks, goals, tasks of higher authorities and fulfill them through their activities.

Now I will take one more step. Since people who hold their positions do not always realize that they must give up their goals and tasks, and in addition, since people who have abandoned goals and tasks are always of little use, people do not really give up their goals and tasks. . Or refuse within certain limits. This is such a game. They pretend that they are ready to give up some of their own goals and accept some other people's goals and tasks, but what really is is another question. They can temporarily hide their goals, or, on the contrary, they can use the execution of tasks to achieve their goals.

And when self-movement begins, leadership becomes either impossible or
carried out within very narrow boundaries, and there is a need for management. The leader not only manages, but is also forced to manage, because his subordinates never give up their goals, their entire self-promotion. But when they begin self-movement, it is no longer possible to lead them. You have to use another technique - control technique.

What does this give us? And here's what: management, organization and leadership are essential different types activities. Anyone can be involved in the organization - he came, he established connections, he left. Leadership can only be done in a prepared environment in which you have the authority to do so. If I now come to some company and start giving instructions to employees, they will call security - I have no right to lead there, no authority.
If you are the head of a large state corporation (and even without the state prefix, this is true), then you lead and, possibly, organize. But are you in control? Is not a fact. This is one of the curses of project management in general - many lead, organize, but do not manage. On the other hand, by gaining experience about the objects of management, you can manage them, even if you are not a leader, without any authority. And this is the thrill of project management - a manager, not being a leader, manages a moving project, collecting information about people, about the connections between them and influencing them.
This also means that you don’t have to be a manager in a company to manage, it’s enough to catch these connections, collect information - and you can influence. It's good, right?)

The book touches not only on general issues of management and project management, but also topics related to education (especially adult education), discusses how science is related to management activities (we are asked not to abuse scientific approach), tells whether it is possible to grow a good manager from a specialist...

What am I telling you all about? Run to the store!

The main difference between game instrumentalism and other approaches and technologies for mastering managerial skills is that it has its own “tool workshop” built into it. In other words, a student who masters this approach acquires the ability to make the tools he needs according to the situation (ad hoc - for this case).

For this you need:

Take the position of "student";

Learn to work with the arsenal of management ideas, schemes, tools that mankind has developed (diagram 30);

To understand the fundamental structure and limits of the use of tools of managerial mental activity (Scheme 31).

A few words about this last but important work. I ventured to do the sketching experience overall picture the genesis of tools for managerial thought and activity (Scheme 30). It is very extensive and yet obviously incomplete. Its design implies the ability to add and remove authors, ideas, schemes, reorganize the structure as a whole at your own discretion.

And generally play.

At the same time, willy-nilly, you will have to read something, remember something, think about something. And this means - to embark on the path of historical and cultural research. There will definitely be something left in the toolbox.

The scheme is multilayered and deployed along the time axis. Layers from bottom to top indicate places:

For practical and methodological descriptions of management activities - Situations of decision-making and Accumulation of experience;

For experiences of grasping the essence of managerial activity in theoretical models and constructions - Activity;

This division is rather conditional and is necessary only for the primary open storage of ideas and the names of their creators for the purpose of operational use. Fixing in different top-places the scheme of individual names, ideas, schools allows you to simultaneously “take a look at them” and link them into the structure necessary for the business. Those who are interested in names can make an anthology. Those who are interested in ideas can design tools.

Assigning an idea to a name presupposes, as a logical continuation, the preservation of the name by the forces of a group of successors. The tasks of translation require the formulation of an idea (corpus of ideas) in the form of a discipline and placement in the appropriate subspace of culture, where similar units are placed on the shelves according to the rubricator.

Good luck.

A.P. Zinchenko

Thinking, Action and Thinking Research Program

1. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Fav. works. - M., 1995.

2. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Philosophy. The science. Methodology. - M., 1997.

3. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Technology of thinking //Izvestia. - 1961. - No. 234.

4. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Scheme of mental activity - system-structural structure, meaning and content // System Research: Yearbook.1986. - M., 1987.

Basic schemes and concepts of the ORU methodology

1. Shchedrovitsky G.P. outdoor switchgear (1). Organizational thinking: ideology, methodology, technology: a course of lectures // From the archive of G.P. Shchedrovitsky. - T.4. - M, 2000.

2. Shchedrovitsky G.P. outdoor switchgear (2). Methodology and philosophy of organizational and managerial activity: basic concepts and principles // From the archive of G.P. Shchedrovitsky. - T.5. - M., 2002.

3. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Problems of system research methodology. - M., 1964.

4. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Construction problems systems theory complex "populative" object // System Research. Yearbook. 1975. - M. 1976.

5. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Principles and general scheme of methodological organization of system-structural research and development // System Research. Methodological problems: Yearbook. 1981. - M., 1981.

6. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Scheme of mental activity - system-structural structure, meaning and content // System Research. Methodological problems: Yearbook. 1986. - M., 1987.

Knowledge in management: practical and methodological, historical, natural science (about objects), technical, methodological

1. Shchedrovitsky G.P. The system of pedagogical research (methodological analysis) //Pedagogy and logic. - M., 1993 (1968).

2. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Beginnings of a system-structural study of the relationship of people in small groups // From the archive of G.P. Shchedrovitsky.-T.3.-M., 1999.

3. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Initial representations and categorical means of activity theory //Development and implementation automated systems in design (theory and methodology). - M., 1975.

Experimental practice of the ORU methodology

1. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Automation of design and tasks of development of design activities // Development and implementation of automated systems in design (theory and methodology). - M., 1975.

2. Shchedrovitsky G.P., Kotelnikov S.I. Organizational-activity game as new form organizations and the method of development of collective mental activity // Innovations in organizations: Proceedings of the seminar at the Research Institute of System Research.

The Moscow Methodological Circle (MMK) is the philosophical, methodological and intellectual-practical school of Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky - "GP", as many students called him.

The circle arose in the early 1950s and finally took shape in 1954 during a discussion on the problems of logic at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University. Was originally known as Moscow Logic Circle (MLK). The founding fathers of the MLK are A.A. Zinoviev, G.P. Shchedrovitsky, B.A. Grushin and M.K. Mamardashvili.

In 1958, after a divergence from A.A. Zinoviev, G.P. Shchedrovitsky became the ideological and organizational leader of the Circle, and the Circle itself received the name Moscow Methodological. Now the students of the GP have created independent organizations that continue the traditions of the intellectual work of the Circle, and the MMK has turned into a wide methodological movement.

The followers of the Shchedrovitsky school - participants in the methodological movement - are developing in cultural studies, the theory of law, the theory of sociocultural systems, in the methodology of education and science, the methodology of social change, design educational systems, work in financial and organizational and managerial consulting, in structures strategic development local and government agencies authorities.

The school has developed an original approach to the analysis of the widest range of socio-cultural and intellectual phenomena - the system-thinking-activity approach. An outstanding achievement of the GP and his students is the creation of a fundamentally new socio-cultural practice - organizational and activity games, which are a unique tool for the analysis and development of almost any system of mental activity - organizations, intellectual directions, programs and projects, etc.

For more than 30 years, during the life of the GP, methodological seminars were the center of MMK's intellectual life, led by Georgy Petrovich himself. After the seminars stopped in 1987 for various reasons, the GP sought to maintain the organizational and ideological unity of the Circle by holding methodological congresses. The first such congress (at first it was modestly called a "meeting") was held in Kyiv in January 1989. In total there were 5 congresses.

Already at the first methodological congresses, it became clear that the MMK was turning into a methodological movement - devoid of the former organizational forms unity, but held together by an intellectual tradition, a common school and the figure of the Teacher - G. P. Shchedrovitsky.

After the death of G. P. Shchedrovitsky, attempts to co-organize the methodological movement resulted in holding methodological congresses. In total, 2 congresses took place - in 1994 and 1995. And since 1996, Readings in memory of G.P. Shchedrovitsky.

In 1991-1999, the journal "Problems of Methodology" was published, and since 1990 to this day the methodological almanac "Centaur" has been published.