The Scientific and Philosophical Understanding of Socio-Cultural Essence of Management

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://allbest.ru

National Academy of Managerial Staff of Culture and Arts

The Scientific and Philosophical Understanding of Socio-Cultural Essence of Management

Elena Kovalenko

Kyiv, Ukraine

Abstract

Introduction. Every science, with its abstract-logical method, in the process of formation inevitably reaches the limits of knowledge of its research subject. The means of expanding these boundaries is the philosophy of science. As for management, it is the philosophy of management as its Meta science. According to the author's article, the management philosophy, in addition to expanding the boundaries of knowledge, will cope with the eclectic danger that threatens management today as a science. However, the philosophy of management in fact has not yet developed.

Purpose and methods. The purpose of the article is to develop scientific and philosophical approaches to understanding the socio-cultural essence of management. The methodological basis of the study is the dialectical principle of cognition, systemic, historical and philosophical approaches to the study of organizational phenomena and processes in society.

Results. Basic scientific concepts and philosophical ideas of management have been analyzed. The content of the scientific approach (sub science of management) on understanding the management nature as a socio-cultural phenomenon has been revealed and the limitations of cognitive possibilities of this approach are shown. The essence of the philosophical approach (meta science of management) to understanding the management nature has been clarified, which, in comparison with the scientific approach, significantly expands the limits of cognition. Emphasis is placed on the need to build management models taking into account national traditions of culture and mentality, which can become not only a condition for effective management practice, but also a long-term factor in the unification of the country.

Conclusions. The scientific novelty of the research results lies in the deepening of scientific and philosophical understanding of the socio-cultural essence of modern management. The practical significance of the obtained results is manifested in the expansion of cognitive capabilities of managers and their horizons of vision of managing objects.

Keywords: management, socio-cultural essence, scientific and philosophical approaches.

Introduction

The problem formulation. Turning to the interpretation of the of society concepts as a context of scientific and philosophical understanding, we can find that in most scientific disciplines there are issues that characterize their boundary grounds, called the philosophy of relevant science. Earlier than others, the basic part of the discipline is formed sub science. And only later, usually with a delay of tens of years, comes the time of Meta science, or sub science philosophy. Economics begins to be accompanied by the philosophy of economics, political science - the philosophy of political science, sociology - the philosophy of sociology. Management in this sense is no exception, as it has reached such a stage of scientific maturity that requires a philosophical understanding of its own foundations.

Meta science does not appear by chance, but in connection with a certain need, because the desire to do without it leads to a crisis of knowledge, although for some time it seems that sub science independently overcomes all obstacles that arise in its path. However, it is not. Over time, the difficulties of cognition of the object of study increase, concentrating on paradoxes that block the sub science development. At the same time, representatives of sub science, including prominent scientists, are no longer able not only to agree, but also to understand each other. Where there are many differences and paradoxes, the philosophy of science is inevitably brought to life.

State study of the problem. The term “management philosophy” outlines a range of generalizing judgments of a philosophical nature about the subject and management methods, the place of management among other sciences and in the system of scientific knowledge in general, its cognitive and social role in modern society. In other words, the philosophy of management considers the ontological, epistemological, axiological and methodological foundations of human activity in the managing process (Martynyshyn et al., 2020). It should be emphasized that management as a type of human practice has existed since the emergence of the need for joint, coordinated human activities. Each stage of historical development of society offered its own rules of relations between subjects and managing objects, as well as methods of organizing the managing process, the understanding of which began with the first social theories, but only in the last 130 years management becomes an independent scientific discipline schools: school of scientific organization of labor and managing (Taylor, 1895, 1903, 1911; Emerson, 1912; Gantt, 1908, 1916, 1919; Gilbreth, 1911; Gilbreth & Gilbreth, 1916, 1917; Ford, 1922), administrative school (Fayol, 1916; Gulick, 1937, 1948; Mooney & Reiley, 1931, 1939; Urwick, 1944), bureaucratic school (Weber, 1921; Merton, 1940; Gouldner, 1954; Grozier, 1963; Downs, 1967), school of human relations (Münsterberg, 1913; Follett, 1928, 1932; Mayo, 1933, 1949; Barnard, 1938; Roethlisberger, 1941, 1968), behavioral school (Maslow, 1954; McGregor, 1960; Herzberg, 1966), quantitative concept (Dmitriev, 1904; Kantorovich, 1939; Slutskiy, 1948; Nemchinov, 1962), system approach (Bogdanov, 1922; Bertalanffy, 1945, 1968; Smuts, 1927; Trentowski, 1963), situational school (Follett, 1928; Mockler, 1971). All these are schools of the industrial stage of society development, which have not lost their relevance today. As for the management of post-industrial society, these issues are still little covered in the literature. They are partially considered in the works: T. Parsons (1977), M. Castells (2001), G. Hamel (2007), P. Drucker (2008), D. Pink (2015), Ya. Martynyshyn and Ye. Kovalenko (2016, 2018), Ye. Kovalenko (2017a, 2018, 2019, 2020) and other scientists.

Modern society cannot develop without a management system, and the philosophy of management becomes the dominant factor. A significant contribution to the management philosophy development, as a study of the fundamentals of management thought, made A. Bogdanov (1922), E. Laszlo (1972), L. Bertalanffy (1976), V. Afanasyev (1980), V. Tyukhtin (1988), E. Yudin (1997), A. Uyomov (2000), D. Gvishiani (2007), P. Drucker (2007), M. Shagiakhmetov (2009), Ya. Martynyshyn and Ye. Kovalenko (2017), Ye. Kovalenko (2017b), Ya. Martynyshyn and O. Khlystun (2018, 2019), Ye. Kovalenko, O. Khlystun and Ya. Martynyshyn (2019), Ya. Martynyshyn, O. Khlystun, M. Blaskova and R. Adamoniene (2020). They pointed out that the management philosophy is fundamentally different from the philosophy of the exact sciences. If, for example, the managing of technical systems is based on the immutable laws of physics, mechanics, electricity, thermodynamics, etc., then in social managing systems there is a person whose behavior depends on his values, needs, worldview, will, which cannot be accurately described and measurement. It should be added that in the world of society there are no immutable laws, and the subject of study is constantly being transformed. At the same time there are contradictions between the principle of science and real behavior of people posing serious methodological problems, thus stimulating the management theory development. In the process of solving methodological problems of management, humanities and natural sciences are forced to cooperate.

Modern theory of management as its own source of knowledge has a practice that complements, formalizes and substantiates knowledge not only of philosophy but also other disciplines: psychology, sociology, social psychology and anthropology, as these sciences cannot consider human activities outside of philosophy and cultural context. Philosophy contributes to a deep penetration into the understanding of the management phenomenon, rooted in culture, restores inherited from the past values, norms, passing them on to new generations.

Unresolved issues. Despite some achievements of previous researchers in the field of management philosophy, it can be stated that in fact the management philosophy has not yet developed. There is no doubt that it is necessary, because otherwise we will not be able to cope with the danger of the final transformation of management with its extremely diverse mosaic of theoretical concepts into eclecticism. Comparative analysis of scientific disciplines shows that eclectic danger threatens management to a greater extent than any other science. Thus, it is necessary to create a management philosophy. But as you know, the philosophy of a scientific discipline involves a kind of intersection of sub science, in our case, management, and philosophy. Creating a philosophy of management, do not do without a “trip” to both “worlds” are both in the world of management and in the world of philosophy. Both of these campaigns are associated with enormous difficulties. Turning to management, we focus on contradictions, conceptual problems. Turning to philosophy, we do not identify the provisions in a form suitable for us. In its modern form, the philosophy of science is mainly focused on the physics philosophy. But we do not need the physics philosophy, but the management philosophy, and it does not exist. It seems that in one form or another it is necessary to take into account the achievements of historical and analytical philosophy, hermeneutics, and poststructuralism. The relevance and significance of the study and solution of these issues determine the purpose and the research objectives.

Purpose and methods: The purpose of the article is the development of scientific and philosophical approaches to understanding the socio-cultural essence of management in terms of increasing eclectic danger that threatens management as a science. Achieving this goal involves solving such problems:

Results and discussion

Scientific approach to understanding management. The study of the theory and management history as a socio-cultural phenomenon should begin with a consideration of basic scientific ideas about managing.

In other sources, the essence of managing is interpreted as: “an act that leads to changes in the state of an object; impact on the object, system, process, etc. in order to maintain their sustainability or transfer from one state to another in accordance with the established purpose” (Kovbasyuk, 2011, p. 675); “directing the course, movement, activity of someone, something; controlling the actions of someone, something” (Ozhegov, 1949, p. 726); “influence on the managed system in order to ensure its desired behavior” (Novikov & Novikov, 2007, p. 335); “targeted, specially organized input impact on the object to keep it in a given state or in a given mode, despite the action of various obstacles” (Butkovsky, 2010, p. 7); “interconnected set of cyclically repetitive processes of development and implementation of solutions focused on the stable operation and effective development of the system and its main parts” (Kodzhaspirova & Kodzhaspirov, 2000, p. 98); “the function of organized systems of different nature (biological, social, technical), which ensures the preservation of their specific structure, support for the mode of operation, the implementation of their programs and goals” (Ilichev et al., 1983, p. 704). There are many other approaches, according to which managing is defined as: action, influence, process, activity, function, system, etc. The term «óïðàâëåíèå» (“managing”) has an ancient Russian etymology, which is defined by the Old Slavic words “right”, “authority”, “correct”, “righteous”, “direct”, “true” and, according to the eminent linguist Sergei Ozhegov (1949), denotes: means of influence; authorities and a set of devices with which to direct the movement of machines or the activities of someone or something (p. 727). This emphasizes the correctness of managing action (influence) not only physically but also morally, identifying with justice. A similar emphasis on the correctness of managerial action on the person, as the basis of the managing system, also makes a famous lexicographer Vladimir Dal (1866): “Managing is an action that is consciously organized by a person when he seeks to influence the course of a process in the right, favorable, necessary for him” (p. 432). In contrast to such a humanistic approach, cybernetics, as the science of the managing laws, is abstracted from the specific features of objects of different nature and managing moral aspects, focusing on the general (physical, formal) that is inherent in them all. From the standpoint of cybernetics, managing is interpreted as “the process of transforming information into action, i.e. the process of converting it into signals that guide the functioning of managing systems” (Shynkaruk, 2002, p. 657). In this case, managing is considered as a system of stable links between the managing subsystem, the managing object and the external environment, which are mediated by the flow of managing information (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Cybernetic model of system managing Source: own development

Applying a purely formal approach to qualitatively distinct objects, cybernetics has played a crucial role in creating a modern managing theory. However, it should be noted that the various managing concepts developed on a cybernetic basis take into account only the verbal communication links between the subject, object and the external environment. A whole layer of nonabstracting non-verbal signals, invisible from the standpoint of cybernetics, is out of the question, which is extremely dangerous in the case of human systems managing, but quite acceptable in the managing of technical objects. Thus, as a result of the analysis of the concept of “managing («óïðàâëåíèå») we conclude that first, in the broadest sense; its meaning is to purposefully influence the managing object, in accordance with the peculiarities and patterns of existence and development of a particular type of object to ensure its integrity, normal functioning, dynamic stability in the environment and the achievement of the goal. Secondly, as you can see, managing is an extremely diverse and very capacious phenomenon. Scientists consider it from different angles, including the cybernetic and humanistic. Therefore, there are a number of definitions. It is important through which epistemological “glasses” a person looks at this phenomenon and what type, sort or kind of managing it is. Depending on the type of managing object, there are managing of natural systems created without human participation and managing of artificial systems created by man - social and technical (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Areas of managing and types of management Source: own development

Natural managing focuses on the processes occurring in animate and inanimate nature, such as plant development, water flow, etc. The technical includes the machines managing, production lines, etc. The object of social managing is people, their relationships, behavior. Each person has an individual character, personal qualities, psychological characteristics, etc. Therefore, its reaction to managerial influences is subjective and not always predictable, and therefore, social managing cannot be purely mechanistic (what is its most important feature). Social managing is as a purposeful influence of subjects of managing on the life of people united in social groups, depending on the specifics of these groups is divided into administrative and public managing (political management), managing of the economic sphere (economic management) and managing of the social sphere (directly social management) people's life.

Today in the Ukrainian language, despite some controversy, the term «ñóñï³ëüíå óïðàâë³ííÿ» (“social managing”) is increasingly associated with the foreign term “management” (from the English verb manage is to manage, which comes from the Latin manus is hand). In addition, in foreign dictionaries, in particular in the Oxford Dictionary, the word «óïðàâë³ííÿ» (“managing”) is translated as “management” (Wheeler et al., 2007, p. 459). Thus, the concepts of “social managing” and “management” in the modern scientific literature are practically considered synonymous.

Management is as a multifaceted socio-cultural phenomenon emerged a long time ago, although its active scientific study began relatively recently - in the late nineteenth century. In general, it should be emphasized that management as an independent phenomenon does not exist. It always exists only where there is a social organization as a union of people. In real life, there are different human organizations: political, economic and directly social. These organizations have different properties, among which the most important are their integrity and viability. Preservation of these properties is provided by means of certain actions of people, and this activity is called management, and people who carry out it are managers. Therefore, in our opinion, consideration of any management issues should always begin with considerations: what is an organization, what is its nature, how it arises, how it is arranged, how it lives and develops, and so on. Thus, “organization” and “management” as categories of scientific knowledge are correlated as general and partial. Management is a separate type of activity, but not autonomous, but one that is naturally included as a subsystem in the activities of the organization as a whole. And given that the first organizations of people arose in primitive society, the beginning of the emergence of management as a special activity, should be considered a period of antiquity in human history.

Common features of any social organization are that its main components are the people who are part of the organization, the tasks to which its activities are aimed, and management, which formulates the tasks and sets in motion the potential of the organization to solve these tasks. Based on this understanding of the components of the organization, it can be defined as a conscious association of people who, by solving the problems facing the organization, pursue their own goals (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Components of social organization Source: own development

Organizations arise and continue their lives only because they allow people to solve their problems. People give life to organizations, they contribute to their lives. But they do so because in return they receive certain benefits from organizations, which they use to solve their personal problems (Figure 4). If the people, on whom the existence of the organization depends, lose interest in it and move away from it, then the organization begins to have problems. And under certain circumstances, it may even cease to exist. Preventing such crises and ensuring the proper satisfaction of the interests of all people on whom the existence of the organization depends, is one of the most important tasks of management.

In view of the above, it means the satisfaction of the interests not only of those who live; work in the organization and to whom it belongs, but also all other stakeholders with whom the organization is associated. This is a very important methodological position and should be used in research on various aspects of management.

Figure 4. Management motivational supply chain integrity and viability of the business organization Source: own development

An organization is a kind of “organism” that is born, lives and develops in a certain environment and the world of economics, business, politics, technology, and culture, nature, which are evolving and constantly changing. In order to survive in this changing world, every organization must also be constantly changing and adapting to it. The ability to change in a timely and appropriate manner is one of the determinants of the survival and success of organizations and a key task of management. Features of management are determined by the type of organization in which it is included (political, economic, and directly social). Their management mechanisms are very different and depend on the specific type or variety of organization, its size, territorial level (local, regional, national, transnational), stage of historical development of mankind (pre-industrial, industrial, postindustrial) and many other factor. And in this sense, management is seen not only as a specific intellectual activity, but also as a process by which managers (managers of different names) form organizations and manage them, by setting goals and developing ways to achieve them. However, often management is also understood as the apparatus (body) of managing, and a certain category (layer) of people who carry out management. In general, management is a purely practical activity that permeates every organization, affecting all its areas.

However, management is not identical to all the activities of the organization. It includes only those functions and actions that are related to the coordination and establishment of interaction inside and outside the organization, with the motivation to carry out activities, etc. And since management applies to all human organizations without exception (business, administrative, educational, artistic, military, etc.), ensuring their reliable functioning, it can be argued that it is the basis of society as a whole.

In addition, in our opinion, management, although the main, but not the only source of managerial influence on the organization. There is at least one other source - the self-organizing nature of the organization itself as an open system. Therefore, it is always necessary to take into account the ratio of managerial efforts and tendencies of self-organization. As a result, the result of managing is ambiguously a linearly predictable consequence of managerial influence, but rather nonlinear, as something like in physics “refraction of light ray in the environment”, or as “an equivalent force equal to the vector sum of individual forces”. Due to the above, management is not an absolute, but always probable predictable regulation of the organization, which requires a very subtle consideration of the peculiarities of the situation and the selforganization nature. Depending on the situation, self-organization can both strengthen and weaken the managerial influence on the organization, and in any case will refract the direction of this influence (Figure 5). Therefore, the managerial decision always involves the inevitable risk, and, consequently, the social responsibility for this decision, for the subsequent regulatory actions and their results.

Figure 5. Illustration of the refraction of managerial influence in a self-organized environment of the organization Source: own development

M_V - managerial influence from the management;

S_O - managerial influence of self-organization;

R_MS - equal influence of management and self-organization

Thus, management is a human “superstructure” over the natural “structure” of self-organization. In organizations, even with all their manageability, the share of self-organization is very large. In certain periods of the life cycle, it is not less and may even exceed the managerial influence. After all, man, like other animals, is a biological species. The amount of self-organization of people sometimes turns out to be much larger than we imagine. But the initial collective nature of humans for their survival as a species once required and still requires today something even greater, additional is management. So the person creates (at first very weak) elements of coordination of efforts of colleagues on a kind and begins management. Thus the person becomes also the social individual, instead of remains only a biological kind in a natural variety, elements of not only management culture, but also culture as a whole arise.

Philosophical approach to understanding management. The central figure on which the success or failure of any social organization depends is the manager. Therefore, in order to be able to continue the scientific and philosophical discussion about management, it is very important to give the correct answer to the questions: “what should a manager do?” and “what makes him a manager?”. It is not just a question of what competencies (qualities) of status may still be lacking for the manager. This is a question about the essence of managing; this is a question about how we understand the theoretical foundations of management, its philosophical and cultural aspects.

Conclusions

The article provides a scientific and philosophical and methodological analysis of understanding the essence of management as a socio-cultural phenomenon in modern society. The results of the study allow us to draw the following conclusions:

1. Traditional management as a science based on the abstract-logical method has a number of disadvantages. First of all, it is the fact that from the field of view of managers who use purely rational methods, a significant part of the object of management falls out, which is not amenable to formalization and scientific logic. The consequences of using such a traditional, purely scientific approach are incomplete vision of managers of managing objects, incorrect assessment of situations and inadequacy of management actions.

2. The management philosophy offers an integrated approach that takes into account irrational factors and by parallel inclusion of abstract-logical and emotional intelligence of the manager ensures the integrity of the object perception of management. At the same time, a person as a carrier and creator of a certain culture, who reveals himself through the sphere of values, ideas, images and other semantic forms that have an irrational character, comes to the fore in the management process. The process of management is seen as an act of existential choice, which has a meaningful nature and is not subject to direct rational description, but is perceived emotionally, intuitively. The activities of the manager are mainly aimed at the conscious production, implementation and maintenance of the meaning of the organization.

3. It has been proved that management as a science at a certain stage of its development is somehow forced to acquire a philosophical companion. The philosophy of management as a Meta science does not appear by chance, but in connection with a certain need, because the desire to do without it leads to a crisis of management, its cognitive limitations. Philosophy of management significantly expands the possibilities of management and provides the key to understanding management as a unique socio-cultural phenomenon of mankind.

4. Scientific and philosophical understanding of management cannot be carried out without taking into account socio-cultural factors. In this regard, the most important task in the field of management is to identify those national cultural traditions that can and should be used in theoretical and methodological understanding and practical application in management. Ignoring the peculiarities of national history and mentality turns into difficulties in the formation of a market economy, social tragedies, technical and technological disasters. And only management models built on national specifics can become effective and overcome emerging difficulties.

5. Addressing management issues, the philosophy of management as the most important task sees the development of conceptual foundations for the formation of national management models, as this task does not fit into one or more disciplines and requires not only interdisciplinary approaches, but also a holistic philosophical reflection. Of course, a scientifically formulated national model of management can become not only a condition for effective management practice, but also a long-term factor in the unification of the country. Such a model should become a key link in the management system at the macro level and permeate its content, defining the rules of the game in all areas of management.

6. It is important to emphasize that management is a purposeful rational activity, and in modern philosophy the rationality concept has undergone a very serious transformation given the stochastic nature of natural and social processes, the diversity of types of life, the presence of different connections and tendencies of self-organization. The philosophy and science of management of the XXI century denies absolute certainty and mechanism, recognizing the variability of the preconditions and norms of rationality, which forces the use of such grounds as ambiguity and uncertainty in assessing the situation and making management decisions.

7. In modern life, organizational interactions are governed by such worldview categories as the relationship between man and nature, the ideas of justice, good and evil, culture and tradition, which means that the basis of modern management is not only a set of specialized disciplines that have applied value, but also a holistic philosophical and methodological approach, inscribed in the modern worldview.

The scientific novelty of the research results lies in the deepening of scientific and philosophical understanding of the socio-cultural essence of modern management.

The practical significance of the obtained results is manifested in the expansion of cognitive capabilities of managers and the horizon of their vision of managing objects.