The first stage (early 20s – mid-50s) coincided with the rapid development of empirical sociological research. In the formation of economic sociology, the most significant role was played by three areas: industrial (industrial) sociology; sociology of the organization; theory of social stratification and social mobility. The first two directions were associated with the search for ways to effectively manage the human factor of the economy, which was served by the concepts of “human relations” developed at that time, formal and informal groups in organizations, the theory of small groups, interpersonal relations, leadership and leadership. Although industrial sociologists did not set out to specially analyze the relationships between the economy and society, the results they obtained objectively contributed to a deeper understanding of these connections. That is why, describing the history of the formation of the sociology of economic life, its founders, among their predecessors, as a rule, call the American sociologists E. Mayo, F. Rothlisberger, D. McGregor, W. White and other theorists of stimulating labor activity and labor relations.
American sociologist and psychologist E. Mayo. (1880 – 1949) was one of the founders of American industrial sociology and the theory of human relations. The most significant contribution of E. Mayo to the development of the sociology of management and industrial sociology is the famous Hawthorne experiments (in 1927-1932). Studying the influence of various factors (conditions and organization of work, wages, interpersonal relations and leadership style) on increasing labor productivity in an industrial enterprise, E. Mayo came to discover the role of human and group factors.
The concept of E. Mayo is based on the following provisions:
a person is a “social being” oriented and included in the context of group behavior; rigid hierarchy of subordination and bureaucratic organization are incompatible with human nature and freedom; industry leaders should focus more on people than on products, which ensures the social stability of society and the satisfaction of the individual with his work, the rationalization of management taking into account the social and psychological factors of people’s labor activity is the main way to solve social contradictions in society.
In the 50s, the American sociologist D. McGregor supplemented the theory of “human relations” with the doctrine of styles of treatment of subordinates, or the theory of “management through complicity”, in which he argued that with proper treatment, a person shows initiative and ingenuity and works better where they “focus on people”, and not just “on products”. McGregor argues that the development of an organization is slowed down by the influence of a series of misconceptions about the motives of the people working in it. In this regard, he compares two concepts of management organization, conventionally called “theory X” and “theory of game”.
Theory X, wrote D. McGregor, leads to an emphasis on control tactics, on procedures and methods that make it possible to prescribe to people what they should do, determine whether they are complying with it, and apply rewards and punishments. Since it is based on the assumption that people need to be forced to do what is necessary for the success of the enterprise, attention is naturally focused on management and control methods.
Theory Y, on the other hand, leads to an increased focus on the nature of relationships, creating an environment conducive to the emergence of dedication to organizational goals and providing an opportunity for maximum initiative, ingenuity and independence in achieving them.
D. McGregor argued that, according to the basic premise of Theory X, people in the organization do not like their work and therefore they must be constantly forced to perform it, exercising strict control. People cannot make a positive contribution to the activities of the organization without the threat of deprivation of the opportunity to meet their material needs.
According to Theory Y, which reflects, according to D. McGregor, the current situation, people in the organization mainly satisfy their material needs. Consequently, material encouragement cannot serve as an incentive to encourage a person to work more efficiently. These desires of the “highest level” can only be satisfied by work that requires, as D. McGregor puts it, “intellectual activity” and moral choice. D. McGregor believes that as theory of Y is implemented, the structures of organizations will undergo major changes, differing from the pyramidal structure, where all power and responsibility are concentrated only from above. This, in general, is the attitude of the doctrine of “human relations” to the problem of motivating the behavior of an individual in an organization.
The theory of social stratification and social mobility originated and develops in the controversy between the two research approaches, On the one hand, social mobility is considered in the context of a social hierarchy within which individuals and groups can be ranked according to income, educational level, social and economic prestige. On the other hand, in the context of the class structure that determines: the place of individuals and groups in the system of social production; their attitude, for the most part enshrined in laws, towards the means of production; their role in the social organization of labor and, consequently, that part of the social wealth that they possess. One direction appeared in the United States and was called the tradition of status achievement (P. A. Sorokin, P. M. Blau, O. D. Duncan), the other – distinguished European researchers and was called the tradition of class analysis.
(K. Marx, M. Weber).
American researchers JI. M. Blau and O. D. Duncan, in their book American Professional Structure (1947), studied social mobility in the context of status achievement. The Blau-Duncan model was widely accepted and used with wide variations: in some studies, the social hierarchy was treated as a hierarchy of professional prestige, while in others it was interpreted more broadly, including aspects of socio-economic status.
The tradition of class analysis, more characteristic of European studies, proceeds from the assumption that individuals are born into different social classes, the stay in which is lifelong and determines the choice of basic life values, norms, lifestyle, membership in associations. The class analysis program departs from the Blau-Duncan scale of professional prestige in favor of a discrete scale of categories whose members share similar values and similar positions within “market situations” and “work situations”.
The determination of the economic status of different social groups on the basis of fluctuations in per capita national income and wealth, measured in monetary units, made it possible to come to the following conclusions, set forth by P. A. Sorokin (1589-1968) in the work “Social Mobility” (1927). First, the wealth and income of different societies vary significantly from one country to another, from one group to another. Second, the average level of wealth and income in the same society is not constant, but changes over time. Thirdly, in the history of a nation, a community, a group, there is no steady trend towards either enrichment or impoverishment. All well-known trends are fixed only for a limited period of time. History does not provide sufficient evidence to suggest that there are persistent trends towards a “paradise of prosperity” or a “hell of poverty”. The distribution of national income, for example, in European countries, being quite stable, shows only pendulum fluctuations.
Thus, the first stage in the development of the current state of economic sociology was the stage in the formation of methodological approaches and the factual base for the new science that arose much later.