In order to ensure the cost-effective functioning of the organization in modern conditions, it is necessary in personnel management to constantly combine the principles and methods proposed by various management theories. If we ignore the variety of management styles and take two fundamental and diametrically opposite, such as democratic and dictatorial management styles, and consider them from the point of view of procedures for timely decision-making and their implementation, we get that it is the dictatorship that will be most successful from this point of view . Since the managerial decision is made quickly and by one person, and the execution is mandatory and motivated by fear. But the paradox of this situation is that the dictators ’instructions will be strictly followed, but from a psychological point of view they must select subordinates“ dumber than themselves ”and the final economic effect may be negative, since the system of assessment and balances (alternatives) does not work, and From the point of view of economic feasibility, no serious analysis has been carried out. But if we consider “pure democracy”, then here we will see that the passage of various approvals, statements (reapproval), voting, etc., leads at best to delay the management process and lost profits, at worst to the “funeral” itself control systems.
In modern conditions of the development of society, when the material structure of production is replaced by the technological structure, it is not the management of material resources that comes to the fore in the management process, but the management of the labor resource, and in our opinion, the process of managing objects is transformed into a process of interaction between subjects. K. Marx said: “The main drawback of all previous materialism — including Feuerbach’s — is that the object, reality, sensuality is taken only in the form of an object, or in the form of contemplation, and not as human sensory activity, practice, not subjectively” [ 1]. But he in his works, did not consider the process of labor, through the process of interaction and motivation, but stated: “the object produced by labor, its product, resists work as a kind of alien creature, as a force independent of the producer. The product of labor is labor, fixed in a certain object, embodied in it, this is the objectification of labor. The implementation of labor is its objectification. In those orders that are supposed to be political economy, this is the implementation of labor, its actualization acts as turning the worker out of reality, objectification acts as the loss of the subject and enslavement by the subject, mastering the subject as alienation ”[2]. That is, K. Marx did not consider human interaction in the process of labor as creating prerequisites for meeting his needs, needs, and most importantly, he did not identify the concept of satisfaction and motivation. One of the first scientists to pay attention to employee motivation in the labor organization system was. F.U. Taylor, at its core, his theory has two main tenets: the rational execution of work and increasing labor motivation. But at the same time F.U. Taylor, like K. Marx, considered labor as a resource, that is, as labor, and, accordingly, as surplus value. In addition, F.U. Taylor believed that the effectiveness of workers depends only on material incentives.