Social hierarchy of laws

Social hierarchy can be represented as a pyramid, built on the basis of a number of laws.

First law: the number of vacancies, located at the bottom, is always greater than the number of vacancies, located upstairs. Under the vacancies we should understand jobs, positions, or positions in the formal structure of the organization. Because the job is less than the top, and the desire to take their present in the majority, it is possible to select people: there is competition. Pyramid Principle in management involves the selection of applicants for vacancies. The higher level of the hierarchy, the higher the reward, the closer the scarce good.

The Second Law: The number of social benefits that are given to those who are at the top, always a lot of social benefits received by those at the bottom. So, we get back (inverted) pyramid.

Two universal laws are created the third - the law of social inequality. Under this law, a majority of the social hierarchy of social benefits always have a minority of the population, and vice versa. Between two social poles (those at the bottom and has a few, and those located at the top and has many) social tension arises, which turns into a social conflict. People, who are at the bottom, try to move up. In this case we can speak of positive motivation, because people are willing to change their low position to a higher and get more social benefits. When it comes to those who are located at the top, we are confronted with the phenomenon of negative motivation of people who refuse to voluntarily give up his position, and social opportunities.

Fourth law closely related with others - the law of social polarization states that, in any society, there are two extreme points, where the number of jobs and wealth is inversely proportional. This law describes the familiar situation in which most people have a minority of social benefits, and a minority of people - the majority of goods. Social polarization is characterized by in the population of the middle class, which fills the space between the poles and makes the transition from one pole to another gradual, or is so small its presence, which does not give him the opportunity to have a significant influence on the distribution of property and the profiling of stratification.

Social polarization follows the fifth law - the law of social distance, which reflected some empirically observable characteristics:

1. The more levels in the hierarchy, the further apart the poles of wealth and poverty 2. The more levels in the hierarchy and the longer the total distance or the distance between the adjacent positions of status, the more difficult the single individual to overcome this distance in their lifetime 3. The more levels in the hierarchy and the longer the distance between the poles, so:

a) less transparent to the public is the social pyramid;

b) is more difficult to control the lower ranks of the top;

c) wider range of freedom of maneuver and a higher likelihood of illegitimate actions on horseback;

d) more likely people doing the maintenance of the pyramid, will seek to preserve it, not change;

e) to a greater extent the fate of each individual official will not depend on his personal abilities, but on the general rules and traditions existing in the hierarchy;

f) are more likely to progress to the next step will be determined not contest rules and seniority and length of service;

g) likely that the complexity of the passage of each subsequent level will increase and pass filter become harder.

Comparing management in market and non-market societies, comparing the numerous historical accounts, we can concluded that, in the administrative system of control subjects (officials) are interested in preserving the hierarchy than in management. If we take as an object of study a market society, and to compare the public and private sector, it appears that in the public sector civil servants interested in maintaining power relations more than in the private sector, the least.

From here you can take another one, the sixth, the universal historic law of the board - the conservation status quo hierarchy, as follows: the more benefits (benefits, privileges, advantages) promises entities control the social hierarchy, the greater their motivation to save, and not destroy it. Example Kormlenschikov famous institute that existed in Russia since the beginning of time, assures us that if the service people put to place the central government, receive subsistence only by fees from the local population, they maximize the interest to keep the current system intact. If your organization, whether large or medium, professional advancement based on seniority, and everyone is waiting for their turn, the interest in changing the status quo would be higher in those who got out of the system the least amount of goods, and vice versa. In other words, the old-timers who have exhausted reserve mobility and move up the hierarchy to the highest position available to them will be considered to be acting in the organization of a system of fair and efficient. On the contrary, young staff, waiting for their turn, and are at the bottom of the pyramid would be to treat it as more negative.

But the more interested in maintaining its existing management agents, officials, the lower its rate of social renewal, the fewer the number of administrative innovations, falling here at a time. We call this statement the seventh control law.

The speed of social renewal of various types of control systems varies. In a market society. It is higher whereas in non-market it is lower. Since management is developed, that is, introducing a different number of management methods, principles and techniques to radically change the situation, with different rates, after sometime between the two types of societies is a gap in time. It shows how non-market society has lagged behind in its development of the market.

In a market society, which by its nature is interested in a little level hierarchy and rapid staff turnover, social time is moving faster and the number of innovations that are attributable to the unit of time, above. In the social scale, as well as at the level of an individual organization, management system that was created and operates over the distribution of scarce goods.

Good - that's all that can meet the daily living needs of people benefit from them. Prized above other scarce goods, namely, what is lacking is usually the last ones are the power, income, education, and prestige. If money was not enough, there is a need for a reasonable distribution among populations. In socialist society, social and economic benefits sought to be split equally, regardless of the contribution, privilege or status. This is the socialist ideal embodied in the real society with more or less variations. Under capitalism, no ideals are invoked, and the benefits are distributed based on competition and market forces. Since the competitiveness of different people, to the extent benefits accrue to all are not equally, but in proportion to the contribution of personal labor.

Scarce goods can not do anything, just what a person needs, that in which he has a need. In the language of economic need - this demand. He is known to the supply.

As we discovered, the greatest number of social benefits in the pyramid is concentrated at the top, the least - at the bottom. People do not rush down and bottom-up. But on their way society constructs a system of filter-barriers. Coues of it is: american sociologists W. Moore and K. Davis created a theory of social stratification and the management hierarchy, according to which the most valuable positions in society are at the top, where management decisions made by the most important.

If any decision and SEM manager (manager) address a limited set of people and can always be corrected superiors, errors and solutions executives concerned the whole population and no one has corrected, and their activities are not insured.

Rationally arranged institution - be it the general public or a private company in particular - is based on a number of axioms that can be formulated as follows:

1. Axiom 1. Senior management positions in the organization shall be the most capable and qualified employees.

2. Axiom 2. The higher the position in the hierarchy, the more capable and qualified to be occupying her manager.

3. Axiom 3. The higher the position in the hierarchy, the more quality manager should be taken administrative decisions.

4. Axiom 4. Most quality management decisions should be made at the top level of the hierarchy.

5. Axiom 5. The higher the quality of the received solutions manager, the higher should be its responsibility to those whom the decision relates.

6. Axiom 6. The higher the manager responsible for it to decide the more power to put it into effect it should have.

7. Axiom 7. The higher the quality and the responsibility for the decision, the more stringent should be the selection of candidates applying for higher positions in the hierarchy.

8. Axiom 8. As strict filters barriers should be on the top step of the pyramid.

No organization can function long and successfully if all the intellectual power of its concentrate at the bottom or the middle, and all will be at the top of mediocrity. Such an organization will simply fall apart. The successful organization of the life principle states: the most talented and well-educated open the green light to the top.

According to the functional theory of stratification, the most senior positions should be at the most qualified people. It is a mechanism of interest (mobility). But it must exist and feedback mechanisms (downward) mobility, by which it should be, understood procedures such as demotion in military rank and dismissal, loss of privileges and titles, etc.

Hence, un important conclusion: the mechanism of social mobility is symmetric about the positive and negative sanctions. A society in which there is no mechanism of recruitment (nomination) talented people and their further promotion and becomes less stable.