Organizational environment and organizational environment. Interaction between a person and the organizational environment

Systematic human behavior in an organization can be presented from two perspectives:

1) from the perspective of human interaction with the organizational environment (in this case, the person is at the center of the model);

2) from the position of an organization that includes individuals (in this case, the organization as a whole is the starting point of consideration).

If the starting point in considering the interaction of a person and organizational environment a person acts, the model of this interaction can be described as follows.

Model of inclusion of a person in the organizational environment

• a person, interacting with the organizational environment, receives stimulating influences from it that encourage action;
• a person, under the influence of stimulating signals from the organizational environment, carries out certain actions;
• actions carried out by a person lead to the performance of certain works and at the same time have a certain impact on the organizational environment.

In this model, the organizational environment includes those elements organizational environment that interact with humans. Incentives cover the entire spectrum of possible stimuli; which may include speech and written signals, actions of other people, light signals, etc. In the model, a person appears as a biological and social being with certain physiological and other kinds of needs, experience, knowledge, skills, morals, values, etc. Reaction to stimulating influences covers the perception of these influences by a person, their assessment and conscious or unconscious decision-making about response actions. Actions and behavior include thinking, body movements, speech, facial expressions, exclamations, gestures, etc. The results of the work consist of two parts. The first is what a person has achieved for himself by responding to incentives, what problems he has solved caused by stimulating influences. The second is what he did for the organizational environment, for the organization in response to the incentives that the organization applied to the person.

If we consider a person with an organizational environment from the perspective of the organization, it will look like this. Organization as single organism, having an input, a converter and an output, interacting with external environment, in a certain way corresponding to the nature and content of this interaction, includes a person as an element of the organization in the process of information and material exchange between the organization and the environment. In this model, a person is considered as component input and acts as a resource of the organization, which it uses, along with other resources, in its activities (Fig. 1).

Model of inclusion of a person in the organizational environment from the perspective of the organization

Strategic management is characterized by a view of considering the interaction between a person and an organization from the perspective of a person.

Ways to establish interaction between a person and an organization

The process of interaction between a person and the organizational environment is very complex and extremely important for both parties. It is very difficult to debug it, make it painless and mutually acceptable. Entering new organization a person faces many problems of interaction with the organizational environment, which in turn undergoes deformation and changes with the advent of a new member, so many collisions arise.

Organizational environment

Typically, the organizational environment refers to that part of the organization that a person encounters while working. First of all this workplace and its immediate surroundings. However, for most

People's organizational environment is much broader than their workplace and includes such characteristics and components of the organization as production profile, position in the industry, market position, size of the organization, its location, rules of behavior and internal regulations, working conditions, payment system, philosophy of the organization, norms communication, labor Relations, colleagues and much more.

Each member of the organization has his own environment because:

• Firstly, he identifies for himself those characteristics and aspects of the organization that are important to him,
• Secondly, he himself usually takes specific place in an organizational environment, performs certain functions and carries out the work of others.

Strategic management is impossible without including a person in the team. The possibilities of this inclusion depend not only on the characteristics of this environment, but also on the characteristics of the person.

The role and place of models of interaction between a person and an organization in modern management

Definition

Model (lat. modulus - measure, analogue, sample) is a simplified layout of any object, presented in an ideal form, and serves as a basis for further study and construction of a real process.

The task of management within the framework of organizing effective interaction between a person and an organization is to create the most productive relationships with staff as possible, to find precisely those methods and approaches that will contribute to more effective work. The staff needs to be encouraged, conditions must be created under which every employee will have the desire to work fruitfully and with inspiration. Rewards and punishments in the theory of interaction models are considered as the influence of an organization and a person on each other. Wherein important role the performance of workers and their qualifications play a role. The use of such forms of incentives as free lunches, provision of medical services, and organization of recreation at the expense of the enterprise will increase the motivation of employees.

Many managers, moving towards maximum profit, solving material and financial problems, while updating the technical base, they forget about the workers, creating conditions that are impossible for them to work. This is too risky, as it can lead to losses, first of all, of highly qualified workers. If the manager is really interested in the safety of this employee, he may decide to promote him wages in accordance with the level to which this person is applying.

To prevent unwanted losses of employees from ineffective use of the model of interaction between an organization and a person, it is advisable for the enterprise to develop measures for monitoring moral - psychological climate in the team, the degree of satisfaction of each employee with work, working conditions, rest, satisfaction with the level of salary. The best methods for this are surveys, questionnaires, and conversations, which can be either group or individual. The value of such events is the ability to identify employees with high potential and prospects. This is positive method stimulating the work process, as it promotes career growth, the interest of workers in increasing labor productivity. The use of these methods helps to solve psychological problems in a team: not everyone can directly express their opinion, but it is easier to do this indirectly. One of the factors that helps reduce problems in human resource management is a systematic analysis of the interactions between people and the organization of personnel in the enterprise, its plans and problems.

Model from the perspective of an organization including individuals

This model implies that the enterprise has a motivating and stimulating effect on the person interacting with the organizational environment. The reaction of human resources to the influences of the organization is transformed into a conscious or unconscious decision to take certain actions.

In order to correctly formulate a model of successful interaction and neutralize negative impact human factor In the process of implementing the organization's development strategy, the company's management first of all needs to determine the goals that the enterprise sets for itself. And only then you can develop short-term and long-term goals for the team. The model of a person’s inclusion in the organizational environment from the person’s perspective is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Model of inclusion of a person in the organizational environment from the perspective of a person

Human activity within an organization is based on the fact that the individual has his own thinking and qualification potential. The results of the work consist of two components. The first is what a person has achieved by realizing his desires in achieving personal goals. The second is what he did for the organizational environment, for the organization in response to the incentives that the organization applied to him.

In this model of interaction, a person acts as an integral part of the input and is considered as a resource of the organization, which it uses, among other resources, in its activities. The model of a person’s inclusion in the organizational environment from the organization’s perspective is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Model of a person’s inclusion in the organizational environment from the organization’s perspective

For organization along with social goals the dominant position is occupied by the priorities of making a profit. The most important indicators the effectiveness of human resource management is positive financial indicators organizations, increased labor productivity, etc.

The problem of increasing efficiency of use human capital is closely related to issues of social inequality and differentiation of income of the population. To provide quality education to people from all social groups we need opportunities that the state should provide. Highly qualified employees should have opportunities for professional implementation in the labor market with the possibility of earning an income that ensures their superiority relative to professions that do not require high qualifications.

The basis of any organization and its main wealth are people. People are the most valuable “resource” of an organization.

A good organization strives to make the most effective use of the potential of its employees, creating all conditions for the fullest performance of employees at work and for the intensive development of their potential.

In order to understand how the interaction of a person with an organization is structured, it is necessary to understand what the essence of the problem of interaction between a person and an organization is, what personality characteristics determine a person’s behavior in an organization and what characteristics of the organizational environment influence a person’s inclusion in the organization’s activities.

A person’s work in an organization is a process of constant interaction with the organizational environment. This is a very complex and multifaceted process, which is extremely important for both parties. In the very general view organizational environment- this is the part of the organization that a person encounters during his work in it. First of all, this is the workplace and its immediate environment. However, for most people, the organizational environment is much broader than their workplace and includes such characteristics and components of the organization as industrial profile, position in the industry, market position, size of the organization, its location, leadership, organizational structure, rules of conduct and internal regulations, working conditions, payment system, system of social guarantees, philosophy of organization, communication, labor relations, colleagues and much more. Each member of the organization has his own environment, because, firstly, he identifies for himself those characteristics and aspects of the organization that are important to him, and, secondly, because he himself usually occupies a very specific place in the organizational environment, performs certain functions and performs certain work.

No matter how much a person and an organization strive to reduce their interaction only to performing certain jobs at a certain workplace, they will never succeed. Human interaction with organization always broader, since a person cannot be reduced to the state of a machine, and the organizational environment cannot be reduced to a workplace.

In each specific situation of the emergence of difficulties and problems in the interaction of a person with the organizational environment, specific reasons corresponding to the given situation that gave rise to these problems can be found.

Individual's perception of the organizational environment includes two processes, each of which occurs both in accordance with general laws and under the influence individual characteristics personalities: selection of information And systematization of information.

The most important feature of information perception is selectivity. A person using visual, sound, tactile channels to obtain information. does not perceive all the information coming to him, but only that which has a special meaning for him. The selection of information is influenced not only by the physical capabilities of the senses, but also by the psychological components of a person’s personality, such as attitude to what is happening, previous experience, professed values, mood, etc. As a result, the selection of information, on the one hand, allows a person to discard unimportant or unnecessary information, and on the other hand, leads to the loss of important information, to a significant distortion of reality.

Systematization of information involves its processing in order to lead to a certain type and comprehension, which allows a person to react in a certain way to the information received.

A person’s perception is influenced by three components:

perceived person;

perceiving person;

the situation in which perception occurs.

Until now, we have described mainly the internal processes of the organization, what is usually associated with nature and its internal environment. However, there are no less important problem the relationship of the organization with the external organizational environment.

The logic of the relationship between an organization and its environment is one of the most important and controversial problems of modern organizational science. At the same time, there is no doubt that the very existence of an organization, not to mention its development and functioning, cannot be imagined outside of its interactions with the environment. What is meant by the external environment of an organization? Why is the external environment of an organization so important to its functioning? How is the organization's relationship with its environment built? Despite the fact that these questions were posed quite a long time ago, in the early 1950s, there is still no clear answer to them.

If we talk about wide, full and precise definition organizational environment, then at the level of ordinary language the external environment in this logic is usually defined as “everything that is not an organization.” Such a broad definition is formally impeccable, but unproductive in science, and it cannot be used in management practice.

As G. Simon noted, a person, due to his limited rational nature, is not able to cope with the complexity of the (so understood) total environment and is forced to operationalize and segment the external environment into components and specialize workers in each segment of the environment [Simon G. A., 1995] . One of the side results (effects) of such fractionation (intermediate and far from the only one) is the identification (definition) of several simple and significant types of ideas about the organizational environment, defined on one important basis. In particular, the environment can be considered:

• 1) as a “resource storehouse” - a source of various types of factors necessary for an organization to function (from raw materials, energy, technology to money, information, human resources, etc.);
• 2) as a “microenvironment” – a set of organizations that control access to these resources; sometimes within this group of organizations an even narrower group is distinguished - the “target environment” (or “task environment”); in this case we're talking about about organizations on which the survival of a given organization directly depends (in relation to business organizations we are talking about resource suppliers, product sellers, competitors operating in the market);
• 3) as a “macroenvironment” - a set of laws, rules (written and unwritten), traditions that should guide any organizations operating in a given society, as well as those bodies and social authorities that are designed to monitor compliance with these laws and rules.

This simplified view of the organizational environment compared to the original definition greatly facilitates its use. In most cases main characteristic the environment still remains difficult to perceive and weakly predictable. At the same time, a fairly high level of uncertainty remains an integral characteristic of the environment (see Chapter 3). The latter is derived from two characteristics of the environment: a) the rate of change in the state of the environment; b) turbulence of the environment.

On this basis, it is customary to distinguish three fundamentally different models (logics) of the organization’s relationship with its environment: 1) “model of organization as a closed system”; 2) "organization model as open system "; 3) "model of an organization as a selectively (or partially) open system." The first model arose in an era of powerful influence on the sociology of organizations systematic approach, in the 1950s, and was used in management practice until the early 1980s. The second model was created under the influence of cybernetic theory at the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, becoming to a certain extent the result of criticism of the absolutization of the systemic understanding of the organization.

Although the terms “closed system model” and “open system model” were borrowed from thermodynamics, the concepts of their openness and closedness as applied to organizations have undergone significant changes. The fact is that in thermodynamics, the use of the term “closed systems” indicates that resources do not enter the system from outside. It is impossible to imagine any organization (including a prison) as not exchanging resources (energy, information, services) with the external environment (staff, other people).

What is the meaning then of the concepts of the model of an organization as an open and closed system?

Model of an organization as a closed system– an ideal-typical model, within the framework of which the latter consumes environmental resources and supplies (offers) its product (or services), but in fact does not respond to changes in the external environment. This model of organization in the language of cybernetics is described as a system whose inputs and outputs are stable when exchanging resources with the external environment. It is well adapted to situations of relative stability of the external environment, for example in relation to business organizations, or to the situation of an unsaturated market.

The emphasis in management in this situation is on the processes of rationalization of activities in internal environment organizations. Different areas of work within this model in different time reflected in the works of F. Taylor, A. Fayol, H. Emerson, G. Ford, D. McGregor, E. Mayo, J. Woodward, and in our country - P. Kerzhentsev, N. Witke, R. Grigas, N Lapin, V. Podmarkov, O. Shkaratan, in the early works of A. Prigozhin and others.

Model of the organization as an open system– such an ideal-typical model in which the organization is described not only as exchanging resources and products with the environment, but which manifests itself as a plastic formation that actively responds to changes in the environment and synchronously changes its properties. In cybernetics terms, we are talking about a system where inputs and outputs are constantly changing. Theoretically, this model is well adapted to situations of high environmental uncertainty. The logic of management and development of organizations operating in this mode is associated with a shift in focus from the processes occurring in the internal environment of the organization, where the product is created (the zone of the technical core of the organization), to the external environment where it is implemented (the zone of buffer divisions, divisions in contact with different segments of the environment). In this model, the organization acts as a plastic artificial system that actively responds to all changes in the environment. The logic of structural changes in the organization is directly connected here with the implementation innovative projects and organizational strategies - selective management reactions to environmental conditions.

This view of the life of an organization was very popular in the 1960s and 1970s. and found active embodiment in the works of many Western scientists (I. Ansoff, G. Mintzberg, P. Lawrence, J. Lorsch, D. Katz, R. Kai, J. Ifeffer and J. Selancik, etc.) and partly domestic researchers ( A. Prigozhin, S. Filonovich, S. Frolov, M. Franchuk, etc.). Although representatives of this view of the interaction of organizations with their environment still exist (including in our country), it can be said that, starting from the 1990s, there has been a gradual revision of it. The revision of these canonical provisions of organizational theory was especially acute when it came to the logic of the formation of organizational structures and structural changes.

The basis for revising the provisions of these ideas was a number of discoveries made during empirical studies of organizational behavior from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, during which the following was proven.

• 1. Modern large business organizations cannot be described as either open or closed systems. They should rather be considered as “selectively open or selectively closed systems,” because they do not represent integrity; their different parts (as well as their different management structures) react to the environment in different ways: some - in the logic of constant contact with the environment (level strategic management); others – in the logic of ignoring environmental changes ( operational management); third - in logic permanent shift orientations either to the internal or to the external environment (coordination management) (F. Kast, D. Rosenzweig, J. Thompson).
• 2. Advanced business organizations often do not behave like flexible structures. If on early stages development, they quite actively adapt to the environment, but as they develop, they increasingly ignore the challenges of the external environment. Increasingly ignoring the environment, they retain a high ability to survive in a market environment and competitiveness (the phenomenon of increasing conservatism of an organization as it develops was considered by A. Hawley).
• 3. Large business organizations demonstrate the phenomenon of structural inertia, reacting poorly to changes in the external environment, while maintaining those features that were necessary for them at the time of their emergence (A. Stinchcombe).
• 4. B large organizations radical transformations generated by technical and organizational innovations, radical strategic changes dictated by the challenges of the external environment do not always lead to an increase in their ability to survive and increase competitiveness in environment in the course of its existence. Often the result of their implementation is a decrease in management efficiency and what is usually called the formation of “pathological management structures” (T. Burns).
• 5. The development and implementation of business and organizational development strategies in conditions of high uncertainty (which is typical, for example, for working in a saturated market) cannot be carried out in rational logic. They are usually based on conventional agreements and do not imply the desired effect of rationalizing the organization’s interactions with the environment (“inspiration strategies” by J. Thompson).

One of the results of scientists and practitioners’ awareness of these problems was the emergence in the late 1980s. row alternative models, which describe in a new way the logic of structural changes in an organization, which constitutes the core of the problems of the sociology of organizations

One of the approaches proposed new model A sociological approach to the problems of structural changes, called “organizational ecology” (M. Hannon, J. Freeman, V. Shcherbina), has become a sociological approach to the problems of structural changes called “organizational ecology” (M. Hannon, J. Freeman, V. Shcherbina). The developers of this concept made the following adjustments to the understanding of the processes of structural change.

Firstly, they suggested describe the structural transformation of an organization as a product of two factors: a) environmental challenges (changes in the state of resource niches); b) the availability of ways for organizations to have a wide range of sociocultural samples that allow them to adequately respond to these challenges (organizational repertoire).

Secondly, they linked organizational development with expanding the repertoire of organizations – increasing the number of responses to environmental challenges. At the same time, the researchers proceeded from the idea that in order to adequately respond to external changes It is not enough for an organization to face a challenge from the external environment (as was the case in systems theories organization). The organization also needs to have an adequate response to this challenge.

Thirdly, having questioned the possibility of successful adaptation of a single organization to its environment, they proposed to describe the processes of structural change (through the expansion of the sociocultural repertoire ) at the level of the entire group of similar organizations, competing for scarce resources in a certain socio-economic and geographic space (organizational population).

Fourthly, by connecting the origins of development with the formation by organizations of a population of different types of innovative change projects, in a situation where all They faced fundamentally new environmental challenges; researchers showed that not all of these patterns form the basis of structural changes. They proved that the basis of structural transformations is the development by organizations of the population of a certain group of samples included in the so-called fund of changes, where each of the samples has proven its consistency and effectiveness.

Fifthly, they showed that the fund of changes is formed in logic natural selection and selection. The selected samples included only those that were created by organizations that actually improved their market positions during the period of crisis associated with changes. The result of the described process is that almost all organizations of the population mastered the entire set of new samples, adding it to the previously existing set. At the same time, the development itself at the population level of organizations occurred in leaps and bounds (“break of gradualism” - J. Hannon, M. Freeman). In a limited period of time, almost all population organizations significantly expanded their “sociocultural repertoire.”

Sixth, the creators of the approach showed that the stimulus for structural changes actually becomes only those changes in the external environment that this type of organizational population has not previously encountered.

Seventh, based on this theoretical model a method was created for empirical modeling of the list of those “sociocultural samples” that, in the near future, while maintaining the rules of the game, should ensure high efficiency of organizations in the near future("landmark modeling organizational development one step from the present" [Shcherbina V.V., 2010 |).

The basis of any organization and its main wealth are people. There was a time when it was believed that a machine, an automatic machine or a robot would displace humans from most organizations and would finally establish the primacy of technology over the worker. However, although the machine has become the absolute master in many technological and management processes, although it has displaced humans partially or even completely from individual divisions of organizations, the role and importance of humans in the organization not only has not fallen, but has even increased. At the same time, a person has become not only the most valuable “resource” of the organization, but also the most expensive. Typically, the organizational environment refers to that part of the organization that a person encounters while working. First of all, this is the workplace and its immediate environment. However, for most people, the organizational environment is much broader than their workplace and includes such characteristics and components of the organization as production profile, position in the industry, market position, size of the organization, its location, management, organizational structure, rules of conduct and internal regulations, working conditions , payment system, social guarantee system, organizational philosophy, communication standards, labor relations, colleagues and much more.

Each member of the organization has his own environment, since, firstly, he identifies for himself those characteristics and aspects of the organization that are important to him, and, secondly, he himself usually occupies a very specific place in the organizational environment and performs certain functions and carries out certain work.

Strategic management is impossible without the full socialization of a person, which is a form of inclusion of a person in a team. The possibilities of socialization and inclusion of a person in the organizational environment depend not only on the characteristics of this environment, but also on the characteristics of the person. A person’s personality is multifaceted, and he interacts with an organization not as a mechanism performing specific actions and operations, but as a rational and conscious individual with aspirations, desires, emotions, mood, imagination, sharing certain beliefs and following a certain morality.

No matter how much a person and an organization strive to reduce their interaction only to performing certain jobs at a certain workplace, they will never succeed. The interaction of a person with an organization is always broader, since a person cannot be reduced to the state of a machine, and the organizational environment cannot be reduced to a workplace. And this is precisely where strategic management comes from in the part that concerns managing people in an organization.

Systematic human behavior in an organization can be presented from two perspectives:

• 1. From the perspective of human interaction with the organizational environment. In this case, the person is at the center of the model.
• 2. From the perspective of an organization that includes individuals. In this case, the organization as a whole is the starting point of consideration.

If the starting point in considering the interaction between a person and the organizational environment is a person, the model of this interaction can be described as follows:

Rice. 1

• · Human, interacting with the organizational environment, receives stimulating influences from it that encourage action.
• · Human under influence stimulating signals from the organizational environment carries out certain actions.
• · Actions, carried out by a person, lead to him performing certain jobs and at the same time have a certain impact on the organizational environment.

In this model organizational environment includes those elements of the organizational environment that interact with a person. Stimulating influences cover the full range of possible stimuli, which may include speech and written signals, the actions of other people, light signals, etc. In the model Human appears as a biological and social being with certain physiological and other kinds of needs, experience, knowledge, skills, morals, values, etc. Reaction on stimulating influences covers the perception of these influences by a person, their assessment and conscious or unconscious decision-making about response actions. Actions and behavior include thinking, body movements, speech, facial expressions, exclamations, gestures, etc. Work results consist of two parts. First- this is what a person has achieved for himself by responding to incentives, what problems he has solved caused by stimulating influences. Second- what he did for the organizational environment, for the organization in response to the stimulating influences that the organization applied in relation to the person.

When considering the interaction of a person with the organizational environment from the perspective of the organization as a whole, the system model of this interaction has the following form:

organizational employee environment environment

Rice. 2

An organization as a single organism that has input, converter And exit, interacting with the external environment in a certain way, corresponding to the nature and content of this interaction, includes a person as an element of the organization in the process of organizational and material exchange between the organization and the environment. In this model, a person is considered as an integral part of the input and acts as a resource of the organization, which it, along with other resources, uses in its activities.