Theory and History of the Humanistic Management Culture in the Era of Industrialism

: Introduction. Insufficient consideration of the human factor and the inability to fully realize its potential has led to criticism of mechanistic management as a basic in the industrialism formation. Subsequently, against this background, humanistic management was introduced, which in some way compensated for the shortcomings of the mechanistic approach. However, the cultural and historical aspects of humanistic management have remained out of science's attention so far, which has necessitated this research. Purpose and methods. The purpose of the article is a theoretical and historical analysis of the humanistic management culture, identification of its features and key factors of development in the conditions of industrialism. The methodological basis of the research is the dialectical principle of cognition, systemic and cultural approaches to the study of social phenomena and processes, the fundamental provisions of the theory and history of management culture. Results. It is established that the culture of humanistic management, in contrast to the mechanistic concept of “economic man”, which responds only to material incentives, uses the “social man” concept, which assumes that, in addition to material gain, the worker seeks to meet moral needs. In this case, the formal organization with officially established rules is complemented by an informal organization based on behaviorism, based on the theory of Y, moral aspects of interaction, B-leadership and the motivators’ predominance that guide human activity to self-realization. Conclusions. The scientific novelty of the obtained results is to identify the objective preconditions that led to the emergence of a culture of humanistic management, as well as to generalize the features of the main directions of this culture of management. The practical significance is seen in the expansion of ideas about the theory and history of world culture, including in them previously virtually unexplored in the cultural and historical context of the ideas of humanistic management of the industrialism era.

of classical mechanics Isaac Newton from the new picture of the world deduced the thesis of the naturalness of the constitution, which should limit the power of the monarch, "because the Sun obeys the law of gravity" (1686, p. 322). German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz believes that "processes in the human body and every living thing are as mechanical as processes in the clock" (1685, p. 174). When a person was convinced that he or she was a "machine" and at the same time a part of another huge machine, it allowed to turn it into a controlled "cog" in industrial society. The world, which was a temple for the people of traditional society, became a great Factory.
Modern science has destroyed this Temple, presenting man with a world in the form of a Machine that can be described by mathematical formulas. As a result, man found himself outside the world and became opposed to him as a conqueror. From that moment on, moral values fell into the hands of religion, and science began to focus only on objective truth. This was completely new in the human society culture. By this act of cognition was associated with value orientation and it is going in the name of Good, as a step towards understanding the Creator's plan.
As a deep mutation in Western culture, a new economic model has emerged; that is the market economy. It appeared when things that in traditional society could not be considered a commoditymoney, land, and laborbecame commodities. It was a profound revolution in the consciousness of the man of that time. The spiritual basis of society's acceptance of this model was the Protestant ethic, the higher benefit of which "first of all in profit, in increasing profit with complete abandonment of the pleasure given by money ... this profit is so conceived as an end in itself that becomes something transcendent and even simply irrational about the "happiness" or "benefit" of an individual" (Weber, 1905, p. 44).
The person's transformation into a free "atom" changed the idea of the state, which was previously paternalistic. The Reformation leader, Martin Luther, legitimized the class state, in which the representative of God was not the monarch, but the class of the rich. The founder of classical political economy Adam Smith identified the main role of the state in protecting private property from those who did not own property (1776, p. 329). And it was industrialism that gave rise to the type of state that Hobbes described as Leviathan, a vigilant guard capable of legitimizing a competitive "war of all against all".
Based on the mechanistic picture of the world, the economy was represented by a machine that operates according to natural laws, only instead of the masses movement was the movement of goods, money and labor. The abstraction of economic man was similar to the abstraction of a material point in kinematics. The principle of equilibrium and the "invisible hand" was transferred from mechanics, which, of course, was to bring the market economy into balance.
Under the conditions of the domination of the mechanistic worldview, the mechanistic management culture was quite naturally born. Its characteristic feature is that the object of control is considered as the car which conditional "cogs" are not only means and subjects of work, but also workers. The main task of management, in this case, is only the ability to establish a smooth and highly productive operation of such a mechanism. This management culture and the earliest scientific publications on its theorizing first appeared in Great Britain (see Babbage, 1832;Ure, 1835), as it was this country that first embarked on the path of industrialization. At the end of the XIX century, after the leadership passed to the United States, the works of American scientists and practitioners became conceptual for the formation of a culture of mechanistic management in the Western world.
The creators of the mechanistic management culture, being mainly mechanical engineers, transferred their knowledge about the activities of technical mechanisms in the management field. It was the technical education of the founders of this culture that determined its specificity. They believed that, based on observations and engineering measurements of production processes, using logic and analysis, it is possible to significantly improve many operations and achieve their most efficient execution .
The practical application of the principles of mechanistic management has allowed achieving a significant increase in productivity, improving economic performance of enterprises. At the same time, the spread of these ideas led to increased employee exploitation, increased staff turnover, exacerbation of contradictions between management and workers and, contrary to the views of Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol and their followers, did not lead to the desired harmony and cooperation in enterprises. This is largely due to the fact that the human factor was given a secondary role, or the same as the means and objects of labor.
The emphasis in the mechanistic culture of management was on the adaptation of the worker to the machine, and the activation of the human factor was carried out mainly through the new approaches development to the system of remuneration and improving formal relations between managers and workers. However, with the production improvement, increasing the share of highly skilled workers and professionals, increasing their welfare, many recommendations of mechanistic management have lost their relevance.
The limitations of mechanistic management were noted in the 1920s of ХХ century. Mechanistic concepts have been contrasted with management theories of a new management culture, often called the "humanistic challenge".
State study of the problem. Insufficient consideration of the human factor and the inability to fully realize its potential has led to criticism of the mechanistic culture of management. A reassessment of views on production systems and ways to activate the basic elements of these systems has begun. The experience of leading industrial firms confirmed that the realization of the potential of the technical subsystem of production is largely determined by the possibility of realizing the potential of the social subsystem (qualifications of employees, their interest in effective work, leadership style, moral and psychological climate). All this created a social atmosphere, which led to the emergence of new approaches to management (Figure 1). The culture of behavioral management A significant contribution to the substantiation of the humanistic concept of management, in contrast to the prevailing (from the end of the XIX century and even until now) mechanistic concept, was made not by mechanical engineers, but by representatives of various humanities: psychologists, sociologists and more. Our analysis revealed two separate directions in the evolution of humanistic views in the industrial management context: 1) theory of human relations management, the founders of which are considered Hugo Münsterberg (1913), Mary Follett (1928, Chester Barnard (1938), Elton Mayo (1949), Fritz Roethlisberger (1968; 2) the behaviorism theory in management (behavioral management), the creators of which are John Watson (1930), Frederic Skinner (1953, Abraham Maslow (1954), Douglas McGregor (1960), Frederick Herzberg (1968. In the future, a lot of scientists are trying to adjust and modernize these areas of humanistic management through their theoretical completion, as well as linking and adapting to new realities (Drucker, 2008;Florida, 2019;Hamel, 2007;Kovalenko, 2018;Martynyshyn & Khlystun, 2018, 2019Martynyshyn & Kovalenko, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, 2018bMintzberg, 2011;Pink, 2015;Senge et al., 2010). Representatives of various currents of humanistic management insisted on the need to revise mechanistic theories on the characteristics of employees, the motives of their behavior, the position and functions of the head of the organization and the principles of management.
Unresolved issues. Despite the large number of concepts and theoretical and methodological approaches to the justification of humanistic management, as well as the important role they played in the establishment of industrialism, it should be noted that they are all quite different and interpreted mainly in isolation or in contrast to the mechanistic component positions of psychology and sociology. Cultural and historical aspects of humanistic management, its key preconditions of origin, system vision and prospects of further development remain out of the scientists' attention that have worked or continue to work in this direction. The unresolved nature of these issues and the importance of their study necessitate our study.

Purpose and methods
The purpose of the article is to carry out a theoretical and historical analysis of the culture of humanistic management, to identify its features and key factors of development in the context of industrialism. The study of these issues makes it possible to significantly expand the understanding of the problematic field of theory and history of world culture, including previously unexplored in the historical and cultural context of the ideas of humanistic management.
The methodological basis of the research is the dialectical principle of cognition, systemic and cultural approaches to the study of social phenomena and processes, the fundamental provisions of the theory and history of management culture. Based on this, the culture of humanistic management is studied primarily in terms of the general laws of nature, society and thinking. The research object is considered as a system of interacting elements that is in constant motion, development and adaptation to changing environmental conditions. A special perspective on the study of the problem of humanistic management is given by the cultural approach, which emphasizes the role of values and archetypes of consciousness, the specificity of which is largely determined by the industrial type of civilizational development of mankind. Based on the dialectical principle of cognition, special attention is paid to the fact that industrial management, as a unique phenomenon and socio-cultural phenomenon, is a contradictory unity of mechanistic and humanistic cultures of management, as polar opposites like the cosmic forces "Yang" and "Yin". We see these opposites as those who are at the same time not only in a state of struggle, but also, above all, strive for organizational unity and harmony.
Research methods. To solve certain problems, cultural-historical, typological, system-structural and functional methods were used, as well as a set of general scientific methods of cognition, which allowed to comprehensively investigate various aspects of the phenomenon of humanistic management. Thus, in particular: the cultural-historical method makes it possible to study the processes of origin, formation and development of the industrial culture of management in chronological order, thanks to which an in-depth understanding of the essence of the problem is achieved; typological helps to solve the problem of identifying and analyzing socio-cultural types of humanistic management; system-structural and functional methods will reveal functionalstructural connections and patterns in the system of culture of humanistic and industrial management in general.
Research information base. The information base of the research was the scientific works of leading domestic and foreign scientists, the most important scientific theories on the explanation of the culture of humanistic management as an object of study. The chronological boundaries of the research cover the industrial cycle of civilization, and territorial are determined mainly by the historical terrain of Western society, which spread throughout the world.
The essence of the humanistic management concept, in the figurative words of the American scientist, one of the most influential management theorists of the last quarter of the twentieth century Peter Drucker, can be formulated as follows: "You cannot hire only labor" (2008, р. 189). Based on this view, representatives of various scientific schools of humanistic management, since the 20 years of last century, argued the urgent need to take into account the human factor in the process of production management as the most important, and therefore insisted on special approaches and methods regarding the management of this specific human resource.

Culture of human relations management
The ancestor of the managerial culture of human relations, which emerged in the early twentieth century, is an American psychologist of German descent Hugo Münsterberg. He appreciated the mechanistic management contribution to the development of the management culture theory, stressed that they paid much attention to the rational organization of labor, efficient use of means of production and practically did not consider the mental state of workers. He believed that to improve the efficiency of management, scientific methods of work organization must be combined with meeting the spiritual needs of employees.
H. Münsterberg's study "Psychology and Industrial Efficiency" was essentially the first attempt to use psychological principles in management. First of all, it considers the requirements for work and the criteria for selecting those people whose qualities are most suitable for its implementation and argues that the most effective way to increase productivity is to select employees that best suit their psychological characteristics (1913, рр. 81-83).
H. Münsterberg tried to determine under what psychological conditions you can get the best results from each employee. In addition, he considered how to influence the needs of employees and their satisfaction can achieve the desired results. The researcher has created a lot of psychological tests, which studied the abilities and aptitudes of the subjects to different professions, positions, compatibility of employees with each other, fatigue problems, the impact of various psychological techniques to increase work motivation, etc.
To carry out the selection and selection of personnel, he has developed professional profiles that contain specific requirements for a particular profession to the employee. There are six main criteria: employee training time, abilities, the nature of nervous tension, predisposition, physical and sensory effort, working conditions. After conducting test tests, their results are compared with the standards set by profession grams.
According to H. Münsterberg, a psychologist should be included in the work when there is dissatisfaction of workers in the absence of obvious shortcomings. He was the first to realize the importance of humanizing the management process, knowledge of the psychology of each person employed in the enterprise and believed that the manager must control first of all people, not machines. His principles of personnel selection remain relevant today.
The founder of the managerial culture theory of human relations is also considered to be the American sociologist Mary Follett. In her work, she focused on the study of such issues as group behavior, power, authority, leadership, conflict, employee participation in management. Distinctive features of its new concept of management culture and at the same time prerequisites for the creation of management theory can be considered the following: in the process of research the achievements of both natural and social sciences are used; social phenomena are considered not as static formations, but in dynamics taking into account a situation; in contrast to the mechanistic approach, the study begins with an analysis of the organization and ends with an examination of the individual; each problem is considered both in parts and as a whole; proceed from the fact that organizations have a common goal; based on the philosophy of Johann Fichte, the predominance of group interests over individual ones is defended; following the group principle, it is believed that the true essence of man is manifested only through group organization; management is seen as a universal phenomenon applied everywhere (Follett, 1928).
Based on these methodological prerequisites, M. Follett presented a new look at the problems of functioning of enterprises and their management culture, and the principles of organization of industrial society as a whole. In her works, she focused on taking into account the requirements of the situation in management: the situation is always changing; the decision must be the law of the situation; decisions should include circular rather than linear behavior. Based on this, she concluded that taking into account the situation implies constant changes in the management culture.
M. Follett paid important attention to the study of problems of coordination culture: "The form of organization should be such as to allow or encourage continuous coordination of the experience of employees" (1932, p. 18). She argued that the criterion for the quality of the firm is the answer to the question of how coordinated the activities of all its administrative units, because it is through coordination that the unity of the structure is achieved. According to her opinion, it is impossible to achieve coordination from the center. The only mechanism in this is the internally binding experience of the workers. The researcher believed that for effective action was not enough obedience from the governed, and their participation was necessary in management at all levels. The researcher believed that for effective action is not enough obedience from the governed, and their participation is necessary in management.
The system of orders has a significant impact on the efficiency of the organization. M. Follett found that people obey orders if the latter appeal to their behavior patterns. Therefore, when considering the order, you need to take into account behavioral habits that will ensure its implementation. In addition, she found that problems arose through the ways in which orders were given. Abusive treatment and despotism are unacceptable, because the more pressure there is the more opposition to managers. Because of this, it was proposed to depersonalize the return of orders, to unite all efforts to study the situation, to identify the law of the situation and obey it.
Due to the fact that employees have a negative attitude to close supervision of their work, the researcher tried to identify which form of control is most appropriate from the point of view of the individual employee and the organization. It was found that control cannot be achieved until there is unity and cooperation between all components of the organization. It should be based on self-regulation and self-government of individuals and their groups who recognize common interests and control the performance of their tasks. From this, it was concluded that the manager should control not the individual elements, but their relationships, not people, but situations.
There is a problem of responsibility with orders and control, which, according to M. Follett, is due to the function that a person performs in the organization. The employee should not look for answers to the question "to whom" he is responsible, but to find out "for what" he is responsible. Besides, the manager must develop in workers a sense of not only individual but also, most importantly, cumulative responsibility, which is a consequence of the diffusion of functions in the organization. Mutual coordination of work of people and divisions should be provided by means of cross-functioning, group and cumulative responsibility as functions do not exist in isolation. In this case, the researcher concludes that each employee, performing his function, should be responsible for integrating their work with others (1928, рр. 186-189).
Criticizing mechanistic management, M. Follett opposed the absolution of the authority role and proposed to distinguish between the concepts of "power" and "authority". Power is seen by it as an inseparable function from management, so managers cannot delegate it, and the directions of its distribution are determined at the stage of designing the structure of the organization. While authority is separate, it can arise not only at heads, but at experts who have essential weight in the organization. Thus, there is a reassessment of the role of the central authority of the organization. In addition, the idea of replacing the dominant power -"power over"a common power -"power C" was put forward. According to M. Follett, the concept of "power over" leads to a waste of resources, while the "power over" concept, which involves joint activities, increases the capabilities of the group, is more in line with human nature, and is a better way to influence than coercion (1928, р. 259). Thus, "power C" is a system in which people work with each other, and are not under each other, which ensures their participation in management.
M. Follett was one of the first in the theory of management culture to raise the conflict issue. In her opinion, the conflict itself as a fact of difference of opinions, interests, aspirations of people can be neither bad, nor good. And since it cannot be avoided, we must be forced to work for us. Analyzing ways to resolve conflicts, Follett proposed the most constructive integration, in which the wishes of both parties are fulfilled, and neither of them sacrifices anything and both sides win, in contrast, the victory of one side over the other, and a compromise reached by senseless concessions on both sides (1928, р. 284).
The researcher believed that the manager should abandon the formal relationship with employees and be a leader recognized by them, and not appointed by a higher authority. He must convince people that the goal they are pursuing is not his personal but his general one, and that they should work with him to achieve it. The leader must give everyone the opportunity to make a creative contribution to the cause and prove leadership not by force, but by the correct formulation of goals, coordination and rapid response to the law requirements of the situation. In addition, M. Follett emphasized that "the greatest success is achieved by a leader who is able to see a picture that does not yet exist" (1928, р. 304).
A significant influence on the formation of the theory of culture of human relations management was made by the American business leader, the author of innovative works on the theory of management Chester Barnard. His book, "The Functions of the Executive", examines the people's behavior of in organizations, by which he means a system of coordinated action to enable people to achieve results that they would not be able to achieve alone. There are two types of organizations: formal and informal. According to Barnard, "the most important basis of society is a formal organization as a conscious, intelligent, purposeful version of human cooperation" (1938, р. 27). But because of the reluctance to cooperate, many organizations fail. Some organizations break up due to internal imperfections, but for most of them the cause of failure is the inability to cope with the influence of external forces.
Ch. Barnard believes that the survival of an organization depends on maintaining balance in a changing environment, which requires constant internal adjustment and adaptation of the organization to changing external conditions. Compared to the previous internal organizational approach, this understanding of the organization, which involves combining elements of internal and external regulation, was new. The new was that it expanded the organization to include investors, suppliers, consumers and customers. In view of this, the main management tasks were: defining goals taking into account the changing requirements of the environment and the values formation of the organization, its culture, which allow to solve the tasks; creation of a communication system both in the vertical direction and between all individuals and units; developing incentives to attract and retain staff, as well as their commitment to the goals and the organization objectives (Barnard, 1938, рр. 96-98).
The basic factor in analyzing the culture of the organization, according to Ch. Barnard, there are personalities. They decide to cooperative action. He believed that the success of cooperation is determined by its efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency refers to the realization of the cooperative activity purpose and has a social character; its criterion is the achievement of a common goal. Effectiveness refers to the satisfaction of individual aspirations and is personal in nature, its criterionthe desire of the individual to continue to participate in cooperative activities. The effectiveness of cooperative activity is the satisfaction degree of the motives and of members' goals of the organization. An inefficient organization cannot be effective and will eventually cease to exist. If employees do not feel that the organization satisfies their desires, they lose interest in the job or leave. The organization must be effective in terms of both public and private tasks.
Within the formal organization of Ch. Barnard singled out informal organizationsa set of personal contacts and interactions of people and their groups that are not part of the official organization and are not managed by it. An informal organization does not have a structure and a common goal, but can be quite stable, as it is created on the basis of common interests and sympathies. Such organizations arise spontaneously, as a result of working contacts and they establish norms of behavior, traditions and customs (Barnard, 1938, р. 170). Unlike formal, informal organization is more dynamic and includes all communication networks.
Ch. Barnard in his research also addresses the problem of power in the management culture, which is related to the need to analyze possible contradictions caused by the need to maintain organizational unity and the presence of different individual motivations of employees. In his view, this problem includes two aspects: subjective, or personal, which is expressed in agreeing to obey instructions, and objective, which is the essence of the instruction, by virtue of which it is agreed, associated, respectively, with informal and formal organizations. The source of power in Barnard is not those who give orders, but those who accept or reject them. He identified the conditions under which subordinates agree and carry out orders: understand the meaning of the order; it does not contradict their personal interests; meets the interests of the organization; have the abilities and capabilities necessary for its implementation (Barnard, 1938, рр. 214-216).
The researcher also highlighted the differences between power due to position and power due to the personality strength. The first type of power is official or official power. The second type is the power of leadership, in which the subordinate obeys orders because he respects the leader and trusts him because of his personal qualities (Barnard, 1938, р. 219). He believed that the leader must first form the positive values of the organization and only then manage, having loyalty and faith in the organization. He singled out the universal qualities of a leader: the ability to achieve the desired results; organizational skills; ability to set goals correctly and maintain collective enthusiasm in cooperative activities; balance and flexibility.
A well-known representative of the theory of culture of human relations management is an American psychologist and sociologist Elton Mayo. The basis of his concept is the assertion that the problem of production should be considered, taking into account the psychological and social factors. As an uncompromising critic of the mechanistic management culture, Mayo believed that the production process itself, technological and physical working conditions have less impact on the worker, compared with the impact determined by his socio-psychological state in the production process.
E. Mayo's book "The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization" contains a report on Hawthorne's experiments (Hawthorne studies). The first chapters of the book are devoted to the problem of fatigue and monotony. Mayo observed that these phenomena are related not only to the work as the "lack of balance in the individual and between him and his work" (1933, р. 38). Therefore, if the work is organized in such a way that can eliminate the imbalance in the psychological attitudes of the employee, then even the most tedious work may seem quite satisfactory. Next, the experiments themselves are considered and the main emphasis is on the relationship between the growth of production and the development of cohesion of the working group, led by educated and caring leaders. In the last sections, Mayo tried to extend the results of Hawthorne experiments to public life and concluded that with the industrialism emergence there was a destruction of traditional norms and forms of cooperation, resulting in the emergence of poorly adapted and unhappy individuals.
Developing his ideas in "The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization", E. Mayo emphasized that the real threat to civilization is not the atomic bomb, but those leaders who do not have the skills to manage human relations (1949, р. 23). Thus, the key role in establishing social harmony was given to management.
Based on the need to humanize management, E. Mayo proposed a model of organization as a family, the most important function of which is to meet the person's social needs. In his opinion, it is necessary to form a kind of family relations in the workplace, abandoning rigid bureaucratic mechanisms. At the same time, the possibility of maintaining authoritarianism was envisaged, but only in an implicit form, hidden under the "mask" of parental care for the employee.
E. Mayo put forward the principle of individual differences and stressed that leaders must recognize the uniqueness of each person. One of the manager's functions should be the responsibility to ensure that each employee finds his special interest in work.
A feature of the Mayo concept is the rejection of conflicts. He saw the conflict as a mistake caused by a lack of social life skills. He believed that a hierarchical formalized system of government is incompatible with human nature and will inevitably lead to some resistance. Its elimination is possible by establishing harmonious relationships. To do this, it is necessary to meet the sociopsychological needs of employees and try to include in informal groups of lower management (Mayo, 1949, рр. 152-153).
In contrast to the supporters of the culture of mechanistic management, E. Mayo questioned the universality of the role of monetary reward as the main way to motivate work. In his opinion, only material incentives cannot achieve long-term motivation of the organization employees.
An important contribution to the theory of human relations management culture also made Mayo's student, American sociologist Fritz Roethlisberger. Unlike the representatives of mechanistic management, for whom the organization was an economic object, in F. Roethlisberger, the organization is a holistic social structure consisting of individuals. Therefore, the technical and economic spheres of the organization cannot be considered in isolation from the human factor. Employees, in addition to the physical needs that must be met in the first place, there are social. In his opinion, it is necessary to achieve a balance between the technical and social aspects of the organization and direct the efforts of employees to work together to achieve a common goal (Roethlisberger, 1968, р. 172).
In developing the theory of management culture, a lot of attention was paid to the informal groups study. F. Roethlisberger, like E. Mayo, believed that any formal organization based on rules and regulations is always complemented by an informal organization based on people's sympathies and moral aspects of interaction.
This system of unwritten social roles and behavior principles, in contrast to the formal system, arises spontaneously in the process of daily interaction between members of the organization. He noted that a balance must also be struck between formal and informal structures.
In his book "Management and Morale", F. Roethlisberger emphasized that human behavior is determined more by mood than by money, and it is groups that have a decisive influence on it. According to this approach, when developing a motivation system, it is necessary to abandon the idea that human behavior can be described by the formula "stimulus -reaction". In his opinion, the formula of employee behavior looks like "stimulusattitude -reaction" (Roethlisberger, 1941, р. 154). That is, the response to the stimulus depends on the settings. This approach remains relevant today.

The culture of behavioral management
Behaviorism is a branch of psychology that studies human behavior that originated in the United States in the 1930s. of ХХ century. Its philosophical basis is positivism and pragmatism. The founder of behaviorism is considered to be an American psychologist John Watson. The main idea of his theory is that human behavior is a reaction (P) to an external stimulus (C), i.e. the stimulus generates some behavior, activity, human reaction: CP. With this in mind, J. Watson believed that if the reaction is a function of the stimulus, it is enough to choose the right stimuli to get the right behavior (1930, рр. 43-47).
However, this approach turned out to be purely mechanistic, as it did not take into account the person's inner state. This led to the emergence of a new theory of behaviorism, authored by an American psychologist Frederic Skinner. According to his concept, between the external stimulus (C) and the reaction (P) there is another element that expresses the internal attitudes of man (Y), his needs, aspirations, passions, etc.: СYР (1953, рр. 231-235). This internal component changes the human reaction, aiming to achieve the desired result and is a characteristic feature of humanistic management behavioral type, which considers the role of human behavior in the society of organizations.
One of the most famous developers of the theory of the culture of behavioral management is an American psychologist Abraham Maslow. His theories were formed under the influence of the achievements of anthropology, biology, clinical psychology and psychoanalysis. The main contribution of the researcher to science is related to the theory development of the hierarchy of needs, known as the pyramid of needs.
In his book "Motivation and Personality" A. Maslow formulated a new concept of motivation, in which he set out his own view on understanding the mechanisms of human behavior culture. In contrast to the proponents of the mechanistic direction of management, he argued that the motives of people's actions are mainly not economic factors, but various needs that can only be partially and indirectly met with money. According to his opinion, all the various needs can be divided into basic and meta-needs, and basic needs and into five hierarchical groups (Maslow, 1954, рр. 68-101): 1) physiological needs that are necessary for daily existence (food, drink, sleep, clothing, housing, etc.); 2) the need for security (protection from aggression, order, legality, confidence in the future); 3) the need for a person to belong to a certain social group, interaction with other people and love; 4) need for recognition: self-esteem, confidence, competence; respect from others, gaining high status, fame, career growth and leadership; 5) needs for self-actualization, involving self-realization of the individual, the fullest use of knowledge and abilities, the desire for self-expression through creativity, spiritual needs.
A. Maslow emphasized that these basic needs are not subject to the principle of mutual exclusion. On the contrary, they are so closely intertwined that it is almost impossible to separate them.
Maslow attributed the need for various values to the meta-needs. He pointed out that meta-needs constituted unity with basic needs, and its absence led to pathology, which was manifested in a lack of values, meaninglessness and life futility.
According to the scientist, the driving force of motivation is the fact that people can never achieve their goals in full. Once one goal is achieved and any need is met, a new goal arises, related to the need to meet a new need that has arisen, and so on.
The needs of lower levels are inherent in all people to approximately the same extent, and the needs of higher levels are in different ways. Higher needs help to differentiate employees and are of great importance for the value orientations formation of the individual. The highest human need is self-realization. According to A. Maslow, self-realized individuals make up about 1 % of people. They are an example of mentally healthy people and serve as a benchmark for others. They have inherent meta-needs and they are excellent managers.
In view of this, A. Maslow formulated the main features inherent in selffulfilling people: adequate perception of reality; simplicity and naturalness; remoteness, the need for solitude; autonomy, independence from culture and environment; will and activity; a fresh look at things; mystical and higher experiences; sense of identification of humanity; the ability to completely merge with loved ones; democracy; the ability to distinguish means from purpose, good from evil; ministry; creativity; sense of humor (1954, рр. 218-247).
In the next book, "Eupsychian Management" A. Maslow noted that the society development is the rejection of authoritarian control and increases the need to use humanistic management approach that is by winning the competition. He identified the following humanistic management principles: the credibility of the people and taking into account their differences; the desire of employees to improve and self-actualize and provide them with complete information about the situation in the organization; rejection of authoritarianism; replacing polarization with hierarchical integration; forming relationships based on friendliness, not rivalry; emphasis on teamwork; objectivity in assessing the abilities of employees; freedom to express dissent (1965, рр. 48-77).
According to A. Maslow, the theory of "Eupsychian Management" corresponds to the concept of advanced individuals "Theory Y" D. McGregor, the use of which contributes to success and can lead to a better society. At the same time, the value of Eupsychian Management is determined not only by greater productivity, but also by the formation of better individuals who are ready to come to the aid of others and intolerant of injustice. In essence, he sought to transform his approach into a religious concept in the spirit of the modern New Age religion.
A. Maslow proposed a new approach to defining leadership and its role. He singled out D and B leadership. In D-leadership, the individual seeks to take leadership positions and usually underestimates or ignores the objective needs of the group, situation or work of the organization. In B-leadership, subordinates give power to the leader voluntarily and consciously, so a trusting relationship is established between the group and the leader. The B-leader is the one who can do the job better than others or organize its performance in the best way. The concept of B-power is connected with B-leadership, i.e. the power necessary for realization of B-values: truth, good, beauty, justice, perfection, an order, etc. Such power allows us to build a better world or make it more perfect (1965, рр. 213-217). According to Maslow, a good manager must be able to meet the requirements of the situation, which involves building tactics and management strategies taking into account the behavior of different social groups, personality types and culture of a country.
A significant contribution to the development of the theory of the culture of behavioral management was made by an American scientist Douglas McGregor. In his book, "The Human Side of Enterprise", he writes that the success of management depends largely on the ability to anticipate and control human behavior. However, this is not possible due to a misunderstanding of human nature (1960, рp. 140-141).
Based on his research, D. McGregor identifies two models of human nature and behavior -"Theory X" and "Theory Y". In his opinion, the main provisions of "Theory X" are widely represented in the literature and existing management practice. This theory assumes the following: almost everyone has an innate aversion to work and a tendency to avoid it; because people do not like to work, it is necessary to force, control and intimidate them; the average person prefers to be managed, is afraid of responsibility and has no ambitions. Thus, workers will be passive without the active intervention of managers (convinced of the "incompetence of the masses"). Therefore, the main task of the manager is to guide, persuade, punish and control. The manager must be "tough" and "strong".
D. McGregor noted that "Theory X" inadequately explains human behavior, which is associated with the endless process of meeting needs from lower to higher. And a satisfied need cannot play the role of a motivator of behavior (1960, р. 259). This is exactly what those who use "Theory X" do not take into account. Given Maslow's pyramid of needs, physiological needs are at a lower level, and their importance differs favorably from others if they are not met. When they are satisfied, human behavior begins to be determined by social needs: in communication, recognition, love, friendship, involvement. Social needs are followed by selfish, self-esteem and reputation. The main, according to McGregor, are social and selfish needs. He noted that management, providing the opportunity to meet physiological needs, should shift the emphasis towards social and selfish needs, as well as the highest needselfexpression (1960, р. 260 ).
However, the conditions of modern life provide little opportunity to meet them. And if management continues to focus on meeting only physiological needs, its impact will be clearly ineffective, even an increase in wages will not be able to stimulate productivity growth of work. Thus, motivation on the principle of "whip and gingerbread" ceases to be effective, and people who are deprived of the opportunity to meet significant higher needs become sluggish, lazy, resist change, not ready to take responsibility.
"Theory X" fully corresponds to the mechanistic culture of management. It is based on bringing workers to the common lowest denominatorthe concept of "factory worker" and denies the possibility of development in the workplace. Based on research, McGregor concludes that the mechanistic culture of management is no longer fully consistent with the social changes of the mid-twentieth century.
Criticizing the basic assumptions of mechanistic ideas about human nature and management methods, D. McGregor formulated "Theory Y", which reflects a new approach to management. It is based on the following provisions: the expenditure of physical and mental strength in the course of work is as natural as play or rest; the average person will not necessarily dislike work, which may be a source of satisfaction or punishment, depending on the conditions; control and the threat of punishment are not the only means of directing efforts in the direction of solving problems; almost everyone has a tendency not only to accept but also to seek responsibility; the ability to show a developed imagination, ingenuity and creative talents in solving problems of the organization has a wide range of people (1960, рр. 262-279).
"Theory Y" reflects the shifts in the culture of management associated with the development of the human relations theory. It is based on the principles of integration, which means working together for the benefit of the organization and allows everyone to participate in the resulting reward. The principles of integration require the creation of a creative atmosphere in which members of the organization could successfully achieve their own goals, directing their efforts to achieve the organization success. In these conditions, control is replaced by self-control, and the goals of the organization are internalized and considered by employees as their own.
The difficulty of applying "Theory Y" in practice is due to the fact that people are accustomed to being controlled, and to meet their social, selfish needs, as well as the need for self-expression can only be outside the organization. Moreover, such an installation is typical for both management and employees.
D. McGregor noted that managers are not born. Accordingly, as organizational culture changes, it is necessary to make changes in the system of training managers. Instead of the traditional, "technical" method of training managers (courses, programs, business games, etc.), he proposed to use a new approach based on the detection and disclosure of hidden talents for management.
The American psychologist also made a significant contribution to the theory of the behavioral management culture Frederick Herzberg. His merit lies in the development of motivational and hygienic theory and the creation of the labor enrichment concept. The theory developed by F. Herzberg, also called the theory of "atmosphere-actualization" factors, borrows and synthesizes ideas from psychology, Darwinism and Christianity. It is based on a hierarchical approach to human needs and the study of biblical stories about Adam and Abraham. The starting point is the idea that a person has a complex hierarchical structure of needs, on top of which is the need for self-actualization, which can be met only in the process of work. The study of Christian histories has allowed the scientist to conclude that they express common to all mankind types of motivation.
F. Herzberg and his co-authors presented the results of the study in the book "The Motivation to Work", which showed that the factors that cause job satisfaction are different from those that cause dissatisfaction. In addition, there are factors that always contribute to satisfaction, and there are those that always act negatively. Positive feelings were associated mainly with work experience and its content, and negative were with external conditions, with the context in which the work is carried out.
Eliminating the causes of dissatisfaction did not necessarily lead to increased satisfaction. Conversely, if a factor has contributed to the growth of satisfaction, then the weakening of its impact will not necessarily increase dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959, рр. 25-26). Therefore, satisfaction and dissatisfaction should not be assessed on the same scale.
Accordingly, the scientist divided the factors influencing employee behavior into two groups, which are differently related to the emergence of incentives to work. In the first group, he included ten factors that are external to work and called them hygienic (borrowing the word from medical terminology, where the term refers to factors that help maintain health): company policy and management style; technical guidance; interpersonal relationships with the immediate supervisor, colleagues, subordinates; salary; employment guarantees; private life; working conditions; status (Herzberg et al., 1959, р. 49). If at least one of these factors decreases to a level that is considered unacceptable by the employee, he will begin to feel dissatisfied with his work. Therefore, hygienic needs must be met as much as possible; otherwise there may be deterioration in performance. However, the use of these factors provides only temporary satisfaction.
Achieve a lasting change in individual human behavior in the process of work is possible only by meeting his or her need for self-actualization. The real motivators for this are the following six factors: personal success; recognition; promotion; work by itself; opportunity for growth; responsibility (Herzberg et al., 1959, р. 91). In contrast to external stimuli, which are not able to force a person to work hard, internal motivators encourage you to apply all your strength and skills to work. It was found that the interests of the employee meet both groups of factors, but job satisfaction, which provides better performance, can only be determined by the action of motivators.
In his next book "Work and the Nature of Man" F. Herzberg tried to build a model of human behavior using two Old Testament images. He believed that on the one hand, a person has an image of Adam, whose goal is to avoid pain when interacting with the outside world, which corresponds to hygienic factors. On the other hand, the other side of human nature is the image of Abraham and it is aimed at self-realization, which corresponds to motivational factors. Herzberg emphasized that the dichotomy of Adam and Abraham is present in every person. However, individuals may have a propensity for hygiene or motivation. An individual prone to hygiene will be motivated by working conditions and will not get pleasure from the work done, and aimed at motivation will be motivated by the essence of the task, which will be the main source of satisfaction (1966, рр. 39-40).
According to F. Herzberg, caution should be exercised against employees who focus on hygienic motivation factors, as they are focused on achieving short-term results, and the main incentive for them is material reward. Even more blow to the future of the organization is likely to head, focused on hygiene. In view of this, he was quite critical of the existing management culture, as its attention is focused only on Adam's (hygienic) factors, which does not always lead to long-term staff motivation. In contrast to the supporters of the culture of mechanistic management, the scientist argued that material incentives alone do not motivate employees, but only allow them to come to terms with tedious work.
The consequence of the motivational and hygienic theory of management culture was the labor enrichment concept. The main elements of this concept are as follows: direct relationship with the client; personal responsibility of the employee and reporting; Feedback; the right of direct appeal; free schedule; control over employee resources; advanced training and getting a unique experience. In the article "One More Time: How do You Motivate Employees?" F. Herzberg (1968), along with proposals for individual enrichment of labor, identified three concepts of group projects of labor organization, which became very popular in Japan, the United States and Europe in the second half of the twentieth century: 1) participatory management, which allows employees to discuss with management some management problems and ways to solve them, as well as focuses the attention of managers on training staff in interpersonal skills; 2) socio-technical systems, an example of which is the brigade form of labor organization, in which the group is given the authority to determine the mode and schedule of work and the opportunity is given to rotate jobs within the group; 3) quality circles, where employees are responsible for accounting for product quality and developing proposals to improve production.
The scientist noted that although each of these projects of labor organization uses its own specific motivators, they all seek to manipulate the employees' behavior through social approval or disapproval, i.e. submission to group pressure, which leads to the averaging of personal potential in the group. Group work organization is more effective for short-term tasks than for long-term motivation for productive work.
Thus, F. Herzberg destroyed the dominant at that time in the culture of management ideas about human nature, based on mechanistic theories, according to which the increase in wages was reason enough to accept any working conditions and increase the efficiency of production tasks.

Conclusions
The phenomenon study of humanistic management in the cultural context and historical thought, which aimed to identify the basic determinants of the genesis and features of the development of this management culture in the conditions of industrialism, allowed us to draw the following conclusions: 1. The humanistic management culture involves the abandonment of a purely engineering approach to management, in which man is part of the production line. It has been proved that the employee cannot be considered as a mechanism that performs the specified purpose. The organization began to be considered not only as a technical but also as a social system. In contrast to the mechanistic concept of "economic man", which responds only to material incentives, came to the fore the concept of "social man", which assumes that, in addition to material gain, the worker seeks to meet moral needs.
2. In the culture of humanistic management, the main object of attention is the person with whom you need to communicate as a person. With standard rules and instructions, it is not possible to achieve standard behavior for all employees, so each of them requires an individual approach. In this case, any formal organization with officially established rules must be supplemented by an informal organization based on the moral aspects of interaction. Informal can have a significant impact on the formal effectiveness. Therefore, it is important to strike a balance not only between technical and social systems, but also between formal and informal organizations.
3. In the context of humanistic management there was a transition from strict regulation to management democratization, humane relations with subordinates, respect for their opinions, group decision-making, and taking into account the emotional factor and the interests of employees, group attitudes and traditions. The analytical tools of management research using the achievements of such sciences as psychology, sociology, pedagogy, anthropology, cultural studies and others are expanding.
4. The culture of humanistic management rejects mechanistic behaviorism, which does not take into account the inner state of man and is based on the theory of X, D-leadership and Adam's (hygienic) factors of work. This culture is based on humanistic behaviorism, which in the causal relationship between external stimulus and reaction, includes an element that expresses the inner state of man and adjusts his behavior to personal needs. It is based on the theory of Y, B-leadership and the predominance of Abraham's factors in the workmotivators that direct human activity to self-realization.
5. Motivators of self-actualization, able to form a sense of devotion to their work are personal success, recognition, promotion; work itself, the possibility of growth, responsibility. In contrast to external (hygienic) incentives, which are not able to force a person to work hard, internal motivators encourage you to apply all your strength and skills to work. People may have a tendency to focus on hygiene or focus on motivation. A person prone to hygiene will be motivated by working conditions and will not get pleasure from the work done, and aimed at motivation will be motivated by the content of work, which will be the main source of its satisfaction.
Thus, since the second quarter of the twentieth century, management has acquired a socio-psychological orientation. The engineering approach, as well as the concepts of mechanistic management, began to be considered insufficient both from the theoretical, and from the practical points of view. It should be emphasized that theorists of the culture of humanistic management do not completely abandon the mechanistic methods of rationalization of management, and try to humanize and harmonize them.
The scientific novelty of the obtained results is to identify the objective preconditions that led to the emergence of humanistic management culture, as well as to generalize the features of the main directions of this management culture in an industrial society.
The practical significance of the research results is seen in the expansion of ideas about the theory and history of world culture, including previously unexplored in the cultural and historical context of the ideas of humanistic management of the industrial era.
Prospects for further scientific research in this direction may be the development of ways to integrate the above two areas of humanistic management into a single concept suitable for use in the new conditions of society.