Formal and informal management: problems of combination. The concept and types of social status Quotes that each person is individual

36 chose

Not all people who have connected their lives with fashion are aphoristic wits. But when you think a lot about fashion, when your life is connected with fashion and style, words that form into sentences come to mind by themselves, in which nothing can be added or subtracted! .. I picked up 50 fashion quotes belonging to the great designers of XX century, as well as people who mastered the art of creating their own style...

1. In order to be irreplaceable, you need to be different. Coco Chanel

2. Fashion doesn't just make women beautiful, it gives them confidence. Yves Saint Laurent

3. Pure, strong emotions. It's not about design. It's about feelings. Alber Elbaz

4. When you hear designers complaining about the problems of their profession, say: Don't get carried away, it's just dresses. Karl Lagerfeld

5. Fashion is not about labels. And not about brands. It's about something else that's going on inside of us. Ralph Lauren

6. We should never confuse elegance with snobbery. Yves Saint Laurent

7. Girls don't dress for boys. They dress for themselves and, of course, for each other. If girls dressed for boys, they would be naked all the time. Betsey Johnson

8. Women's dress should be akin to barbed wire: doing its job without spoiling the landscape. Sophia Loren

9. Style is an easy way to talk about complex things. Jean Cocteau

10. Give a girl the right shoes and she can conquer the world. Marilyn Monroe

11. I don't do fashion. I myself am fashion. Coco Chanel

12. Fashion designers present on the catwalk four times a year. Style is what you choose. Launer Hatton

13. I like being a woman even in this man's world. After all, men can't wear dresses, but we can wear trousers. Whitney Houston

14. Fashion should be a form of escapism, not a form of incarceration. Alexander McQueen

15. Always walk as if three men are following you. Oscar de la Renta

16. Perfume can tell more about a woman than her handwriting. Christian Dior

17. Dressing as Scheherazade is easy. Picking up a little black dress is harder. Coco Chanel

18. Being different is easy, but being unique is very difficult. Lady Gaga

19. Style is a way of saying who you are without words. Rachel Zoe

20. I don't model clothes. I create dreams. Ralph Lauren

21. I can't concentrate in flat shoes. Victoria Beckham

22. When in doubt, wear red. Bill Blass

23. Nothing makes a woman more beautiful than the belief that she is beautiful. Sophia Loren

24. My job is to combine comfort and luxury, practical and desirable. Donna Karan

25. Luxury should be comfortable. Otherwise it is not a luxury. Coco Chanel

26. Fashion is like architecture: the main thing is proportions. Coco Chanel

27. If you can't be better than your competitor, then at least dress better. Anna Wintour

28. Nothing ages a woman like an overly rich outfit. Coco Chanel

29. Attire - a preface to a woman, and sometimes the whole book. Sebastien-Roche Nicolas de Chamfort

30. A person is painted by clothes. Naked people have very little influence in society, if not none at all. Mark Twain

31. There is nothing special about a skirt when it sways on a clothesline. Lawrence Dow

32. If you can’t remember what a woman was wearing, then she was dressed perfectly. Coco Chanel

33. Fashion is a form of ugliness so unbearable that we are forced to change it every six months. Oscar Wilde

34. I dress for image. Not for myself, not for the public, not for fashion, not for men. Marlene Dietrich

35. Each generation laughs at the old fashion, invariably following the new one. Henry David Thoreau

36. I know what women want. They want to be beautiful. Valentino Garavani

37. I have always considered a white t-shirt to be the alpha and omega of the fashionable alphabet. Giorgio Armani

38. Fashion is what we make ourselves out of every day. Miuccia Prada

39. Fashion is always inspired by youth and nostalgia and often draws inspiration from the past. Lana Del Rey

40. Fashion brings happiness. This is joy. But not therapy. Donatella Versace

41. There is no better designer in the world than nature itself. Alexander McQueen

42. A dress doesn't make any sense if it doesn't make men want to take it off you. Françoise Sagan

43. Buy less, choose better, and do it yourself. Vivienne Westwood

The building blocks of the social structure are statuses and roles, which are interconnected by functional relationships.

The word "status" came to sociology from Latin. AT Ancient Rome it denoted a state, a legal status legal entity. However, at the end of the 19th century. English scientist G.D. Main gave it a sociological sound.

Social status is the position of an individual (or a group of people) in society in accordance with his gender, age, origin, property, education, occupation, position, marital status etc. For example, people studying at a technical school or university have the status of a student; the one who completed the labor activity by age the status of a pensioner; those who lost their jobs - the status of the unemployed. Each status position implies certain rights and obligations.

People have not one, but many statuses in their lives. So, a person can be both a son, and a husband, and a father, and a scientist, and a mayor, and a car enthusiast, and a philanthropist, etc. At the same time, in the set of statuses, one can single out one main status (usually official), which is of decisive importance for a given individual.

Depending on the role played by the individual himself in acquiring his status, two main types of social statuses are distinguished:

• - prescribed
• - achieved.

The prescribed status (it is also called attributed or attributed) is one that is received from birth, by inheritance or by a combination of life circumstances, regardless of the desire, will and efforts of a person. These are, in particular, acquired from birth, or congenital, statuses associated with:

• - with gender (woman, man);
• - with nationality (Egyptian, Chilean, Belarusian);
• - with a race (representative of a Mongoloid, Negroid or Caucasoid racial group);
• - with consanguinity (daughter, son, sister, grandmother);
• - with inheritable titles (queen, emperor, baroness).

The prescribed statuses can also be attributed to “unwittingly” acquired statuses, such as stepdaughter, stepson, mother-in-law, etc.

In contrast to the prescribed, the achieved status (or being achieved) is acquired by the individual's own efforts. It is related:

• - with education and labor qualifications (student, student, worker, foreman, engineer);
• - with work activity and business career (farmer, director, captain, general, doctor of science, minister);
• - with any special merits ( National artist, honored teacher, honorary citizen of the city), etc.

According to Western analysts, industrial society it is the achieved (rather than prescribed) status of people that plays an increasingly decisive role. Modern societies gravitate towards the so-called meritocracy, which offers the assessment of people according to their merits (knowledge, qualifications, professionalism), and not according to inherited or personal connections with "VP" (colloquial, abbreviation from English - a very important person) .

Achieved and prescribed statuses are the two main types of statuses. But life, as always, is "more bizarre" than schemes and can create non-standard situations. In particular, the status of an unemployed person, an emigrant (became, say, due to political persecution), a disabled person (as a result, for example, of a road accident), an ex-champion, ex-husband. Where should these and other similar “negative” statuses be attributed, to which a person, of course, initially does not aspire in any way, but which, unfortunately, he nevertheless received? One option is to attribute them to mixed statuses, since they may contain elements of both prescribed and achieved status.

His social status determines the place of the individual in society, while his personal status determines his position in the environment of the people directly surrounding him.

Personal status is the position of a person in a small (or primary) group, determined by how others relate to him. Thus, each worker in any labor collective enjoys a certain reputation among colleagues, i.e. has a public assessment of its personal qualities(a hard worker is a lazy person, a kind person is a miser, a serious person is a dummy, a benevolent person is evil, etc.). In accordance with such assessments, people often build their relations with him, thereby determining his personal status in the team.

social stratum political individual

social status- the position of the individual or social group in the social system.

status rank- the position of the individual in the social hierarchy of statuses, on the basis of which the status worldview is formed.

status set- a set of several status positions that an individual simultaneously occupies.

Conceptions of social status

The concept of "social status" was first used in science by the English philosopher and lawyer of the 19th century. G. Main. In sociology, the concept of status (from Latin status - position, state) is used in different meanings. The dominant idea is the social status as the position of an individual or a social group in the social system, which is characterized by certain distinctive features (rights, duties, functions). Sometimes social status refers to a set of such hallmarks. In ordinary speech, the concept of status is used as a synonym for prestige.

In modern scientific and educational literature defined as: about the position of the individual in the social system, associated with certain rights, duties and role expectations;

• the position of the subject in the system interpersonal relationships,
• defining his rights, duties and privileges;
• the position of the individual in the system of interpersonal relations, due to his psychological influence on the members of the group;
• the relative position of the individual in society, determined by his functions, duties and rights;
• the position of a person in the structure of a group or society, associated with certain rights and obligations;
• an indicator of the position occupied by an individual in society;
• the relative position of an individual or a social group in a social system, determined by a number of features characteristic of the given system;
• the position occupied by an individual or a social group in society or a separate subsystem of society, determined by characteristics specific to a particular society - economic, national, age, etc.;
• the place of an individual or group in the social system in accordance with their characteristics - natural, professional, ethnic, etc.;
• a structural element of the social organization of society, which appears to the individual as a position in the system of social relations;
• the relative position of an individual or group, determined by social (economic status, profession, qualifications, education, etc.) and natural characteristics (sex, age, etc.);
• a set of rights and obligations of an individual or a social group associated with the performance of a certain social role by them;
• prestige that characterizes the position of an individual or social groups in a hierarchical system.

Each person in society performs certain social functions: students study, workers produce material goods, managers manage, journalists talk about events taking place in the country and the world. To perform social functions, certain duties are imposed on the individual in accordance with social status. The higher the status of a person, the more duties he has, the more stringent the requirements of society or a social group for his status duties, the greater the negative consequences of their violation.

status set is a set of status positions that each individual occupies simultaneously. In this set, the following statuses are usually distinguished: ascriptive (assigned), achieved, mixed, main.

The social status of the individual was relatively stable due to the class or caste structure of society and was fixed by the establishment of religion or law. In modern societies, the status positions of individuals are more mobile. However, in any society there are ascriptive (assigned) and achieved social statuses.

Assigned status- this is a social status received "automatically" by its carrier due to factors beyond his control - by law, birth, sex or age, racial and national origin, consanguinity system, socio-economic status of parents, etc. For example, you can not get married, participate in elections, get a driver's license before reaching the required age for this. Assigned statuses are of interest to sociology only if they are the basis for social inequality, i.e. affect social differentiation and social structure society.

Achieved status - it is a social status acquired by its bearer through his own efforts and merits. Level of education, professional achievements, career, title, position, successful in social relations marriage - all this affects the social status of the individual in society.

There is a direct relationship between assigned and achieved social statuses. Achieved statuses are acquired mainly through competition, but some achieved statuses are largely determined by ascriptive ones. Thus, the possibility of obtaining a prestigious education, which in modern society is a necessary prerequisite for high social status, is directly related to the advantages of family origin. On the contrary, the presence of a high achieved status largely compensates for the low ascriptive status of an individual due to the fact that no society can ignore the real social successes and achievements of individuals.

Mixed social statuses have signs attributed and achieved, but achieved not at the request of a person, but due to a combination of circumstances, for example, as a result of job loss, natural disasters or political upheavals.

Major social status the individual determines mainly the position of a person in society, his way of life.

demeanor. When it comes to stranger, we first of all ask: “What does this person do? How does he make a living? The answer to this question says a lot about a person, therefore, in modern society, the main status of an individual is, as a rule, professional or official.

Lych status It manifests itself at the level of a small group, for example, a family, a work collective, a circle of close friends. In a small group, the individual functions directly and his status is determined by personal qualities and character traits.

group status characterizes an individual as a member of a large social group as, for example, a representative of a nation, confession or profession.

The concept and types of social status

The substantive difference between them boils down to the fact that the role is performed, but the status is. In other words, the role implies the possibility of a qualitative assessment of how the individual meets the role requirements. Social status - This is the position of a person in the structure of a group or society, which determines certain rights and obligations. Speaking of status, we abstract from any qualitative assessment of the person who occupies it, and his behavior. We can say that status is a formal-structural social characteristic of the subject.

Like roles, there can be many statuses, and in general, any status implies a corresponding role and vice versa.

Main status - the key of the entire set of social statuses of the individual, mainly determining his social position and importance in society. For example, the main status of a child is age; in traditional societies the basic status of a woman is gender; in modern society, as a rule, the main status becomes professional or official. In any case, the main status acts as a decisive factor in the image and standard of living, dictates the manner of behavior.

Social status can be:

• prescribed- received from birth or due to factors independent of its carrier - gender or age, race, socio-economic status of parents. For example, by law, you cannot get a driver's license, get married, participate in elections or receive a pension before reaching the required age for this;
• achieved- acquired in society thanks to the efforts and merits of the individual. The status of a person in society is affected by the level of education, professional achievements, career, socially successful marriage. No society can ignore the real success of the individual, so the existence of achieved status has the ability to largely compensate for the low status attributed to the individual;
• private- manifests itself at the level of a small group in which the individual functions directly (family, work team, circle of close friends), it is determined by his personal qualities and character traits;
• group- characterizes an individual as a member of a large social group - a representative of a class, nation, profession, carrier of certain gender and age characteristics, etc.

Based on sociological surveys, it has been established that the majority of Russians are currently satisfied with their position in society rather than dissatisfied. This is a very significant positive trend. recent years, since satisfaction with one's position in society is not only an essential prerequisite for social stability, but also a very important condition for people to feel comfortable in their socio-psychological state in general. Among those who assess their place in society as “good”, almost 85% believe that their lives are going well. This indicator does not depend much on age: even in the group over 55, about 70% share this opinion. Among those who are dissatisfied with their social status, the picture turned out to be the opposite - almost half of them (with 6.8% in the array as a whole) believe that their life is going badly.

Status hierarchy

French sociologist R. Boudon considers social status as having two dimensions:

• horizontal, which forms a system of social contacts and interchanges, both real and simply possible, that develop between the holder of the status and other individuals who are at the same level of the social ladder;
• vertical, which is formed by contacts and exchanges that arise between the holder of the status and individuals located at higher and lower levels.

On the basis of such a representation, Budon defines social status as a set of equal and hierarchical relations maintained by an individual with other members of society.

The status hierarchy is typical for any organization. Indeed, without nes organization is impossible; it is due to the fact that all members of the group know the status of each, there is an interaction between the links of the organization. However, the formal structure of an organization does not always coincide with its informal structure. Such a gap between hierarchies in many organizations does not require sociometric research, but is visible to a simple observer, since the establishment of a status hierarchy is the answer not only to the question “Who is the most important here?”, but also to the question “Who is the most authoritative, most competent, most popular with workers? The real status is largely determined by personal qualities, qualifications, charm, etc.

Many modern sociologists pay attention to the functional dissonance that arises from the mismatch of hierarchical and functional status. Such a mismatch can arise due to individual compromises, when the orders of the leadership acquire the character of a “stream of consciousness”, providing subordinates with a “zone of free action”. The result can be generally both positive and manifest itself in an increase in the flexibility of the organization's response, and negative, expressed in functional chaos and confusion.

Status confusion acts as a criterion of social disorganization and, perhaps, as one of the causes of deviant behavior. E. Durkheim considered the relationship between violations of the status hierarchy and the state of anomie and suggested that discord in the status hierarchy in an industrial society takes two forms.

First, the expectations of the individual in connection with the position he occupies in society and the counter-expectations of other members of society directed towards the individual become largely uncertain. If in a traditional society everyone knew what to expect and what awaited him, and in accordance with this he was well aware of his rights and obligations, then in an industrial society, due to the growing division of labor and the instability of labor relations, the individual is increasingly faced with situations that he I did not foresee and for which I am not ready. For example, if in the Middle Ages studying at a university automatically meant a sharp and irreversible increase in social status, now no one is surprised by the abundance of unemployed university graduates who agree to any job.

Second, status instability affects the structure of social rewards and the level of individual life satisfaction.

To understand what determines the status hierarchy in traditional - pre-industrial - societies, one should turn to modern societies East (except caste). Here you can find three important elements that affect the social position of the individual - gender, age and belonging to a certain "estate", which assign to each member of society his rigid status. At the same time, the transition to another level of the status hierarchy is extremely difficult due to a number of legal and symbolic restrictions. But even in traditionally oriented societies, the spirit of entrepreneurship and enrichment, the personal favor of the ruler affect the distribution of statuses, although the legitimation of status occurs through a reference to the traditions of the ancestors, which in itself reflects the weight of the attributing elements of the status (the antiquity of the family, the personal prowess of the ancestors, etc. ).

In modern Western society, the status hierarchy can be viewed from the standpoint of either meritocratic ideology as a fair and inevitable recognition of personal merits, talents and abilities, or holistic sociologism as a result strictly determined by social processes. But both theories offer a very simplistic understanding of the nature of status, and there are points that cannot be explained in the context of either of them. For example, if status is entirely determined by personal qualities and merit, then how to explain the presence in almost any organization of formal and informal status hierarchies?

Within an organization, this duality refers to the mismatch of competence and power seen in various forms and at various levels, when decisions are made not by competent and impartial experts, but by "capitalists" who are guided by the logic of personal gain, or "soulless technocrats". The discrepancy between professional qualifications and material and status remuneration is also inexplicable. Inconsistencies in this area are often denied or hushed up in the name of the meritocratic ideal of "status by merit." For example, in modern Russian society the situation of low material remuneration and, as a result, low prestige and status of highly educated and highly intelligent people became typical: “The profession of physics in the USSR in the 1960s. enjoyed high prestige, and the accountant - low. AT modern Russia they changed places. In this case, prestige is strongly associated with the economic status of these occupations.

Since systems are more complex and subject to faster evolution, the mechanism for assigning status remains uncertain. First, the list of criteria involved in determining the status is very long. Secondly, it becomes more and more difficult to reduce the totality of various status attributes belonging to each individual to a single symbol, as in traditional societies, where it was enough to say “this is the son of such and such”, so that the social status of a person, his material level, circle of acquaintances and friends. In traditional societies, the individual and his status were very closely linked. Personality and status tend to diverge these days. The identity of a person is no longer set: she herself builds it with her own efforts throughout her life. Therefore, our perception of ourselves as a person is split into many aspects in which our social status is manifested. Personal identity is felt not so much through a connection with a fixed status, but through a sense of one's own value and uniqueness.

Page
3

Second among the factors influencing the development of group cohesion is the group's history of success in completing past tasks. The more such successes, the greater the cohesion.

Certain characteristics of the group itself also lead to group cohesion. For example, if the members of a group have some common purpose leads to greater cohesion than its absence. The last contribution to group cohesion is made by the personal characteristics of group members. We already know that people love more those of their acquaintances whose views are closer to their own. The more such people in the group, the more united it is.

Once developed, group cohesion can have a significant impact on the future of the group.

One consequence of group cohesion is that group members spend more time interacting with each other, thus increasing both the quantity and quality of group interaction. The second consequence is that a cohesive group has big influence on individual members.

Another consequence is that in a cohesive group, its members get more job satisfaction, which is very important.

Finally, group cohesion is closely related to productivity. Members of a more cohesive group will adhere to the group's performance guidelines to a greater extent than members of a less cohesive group. However, it should be remembered that group norms can contribute to both an increase and a decrease in productivity.

The status of an individual in a group

Status refers to an individual's rank, value, or prestige in a group, organization, or society. Status reflects the group's hierarchical structure and creates vertical differentiation, just as roles separate different activities. This is another way to reduce uncertainty and clarify what is expected of us. Like roles and norms, status exists both inside and outside the organizational environment. At the broadest level of analysis, we call it social status. By dividing people according to their social status, we get social classes.

In addition to the public level, there is also a working level of division into statuses. Professional prestige is the relative status of one's profession. Professional prestige is not the same as social status because it depends on only one variable, while social status includes everything. But here the question arises: why then do not all people strive to get a job associated with high prestige? The answer, based on the results of research, is that the individual perceived prestige of a particular profession depends on family perception (family background).

Another important concept of status related to work is called organizational status. Organizational status refers to the informal divisions that take place within an organization. Just like social status, organizational status includes more than one variable (eg, position in the organizational hierarchy, professional affiliation, and performance).

Status refers to the group's recognized rank of an individual in an organization. Status helps clarify how a person should behave towards others and how they should behave in response.

Status symbols are objects or distinguishing marks that identify someone's status level in a group or organization. Status symbols include military insignia, special dress for judges and doctors, as well as, for example, office furnishings and the presence or absence of personal secretary at the managers. It should be noted that some symbols can raise the status of a person in some circumstances and lower it in others.

As a rule, people with higher status tend to play a dominant role in the organization, seizing more initiative. There is, however, one problem here. Since organizational status is formed by many variables, it is not clear which one causes these differences in behavior.

During our lifetime, status changes many times. And changes in status imply that a person must sometimes radically change his behavior. At the same time, the question of what exactly should be changed and what should be learned remains open. Situations in which there is no explicit sequence of events are always alarming.

A condition called status inconsistency occurs when a person satisfies some of his characteristics, and does not meet the requirements of the status in some of his characteristics. The same problem arises when making decisions about career advancement. People do not like that someone who is lower than them in some characteristics is in a higher position than them. All of this suggests that status inconsistency may lead to motivational and behavioral problems. Two obvious solutions to this problem are to select or appoint only those people who fully meet the requirements of status, and to change the opinion of the group about what is appropriate for high position and what should lead to its achievement. But it should be recognized that both of these methods are too complicated to be applied in practice.

Code of Conduct

In any group, even for a short period of time, you can easily notice some patterns in the behavior of its members. These patterns are called social norms. Norms reflect the ideas shared by all members of the group about acceptable behavior expected of them. The difference between norms and roles lies in the fact that roles separate people, make them act differently from one another, while norms, on the contrary, unite members of a group, showing how members of a group act in the same way.

In the very definition of norms, two important characteristics are given. First, norms include fairly clear ideas about what behavior is acceptable. Secondly, there are some agreements between the members of the group regarding these representations. In addition to these two characteristics, several more properties of norms can be distinguished. The first of these is that norms generally include an element of duty, that is, descriptions of how someone "should" behave. Secondly, the norms are more obvious and more easily recognized by people, which is very important for the group. Third, norms are enforced by the group itself. Many work behaviors are set and controlled by the organization itself, while nomes are regulated within groups. Fourth, there is wide variation in the acceptance of norms by a group and in the extent to which deviant behavior is considered acceptable.

The last property of norms given above requires additional explanations. It is important to note that there is some variation in the norms, that is, the norms do not set the exact parameters of behavior, but only the range of acceptable values. The second aspect is that different norms (for example, the time of arriving at work and the time of work itself) are of unequal importance for group members.