FULL TEXT

Transkrypt

FULL TEXT

WSPÓŁCZESNE ZARZĄDZANIE 3/2011
CONTEMPORARY MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY 3/2011
23
About utopias in management
Łukasz Sułkowski*
Key words: organizational discourse, management rhetoric, utopias in management
Słowa kluczowe:dyskurs organizacyjny, retoryka zarządzania, utopie w zarządzaniu
Synopsis: A thesis can be put forward that management sciences, while building their identity, reached
to utopian thinking proposing explicite or implicite a vision of a ‘better world’ and the fullness of
knowing after implementation of scientific management ideals. The purpose of this article is to attempt
to reconstruct the utopia of management and to indicate its possible interpretations in organizational
discourse.
The term ‘utopia’ appeared in the language of the humanities in the 16 th century through
the work of Thomas More. As Jerzy Szacki says ‘[utopia is] … an everlasting journey to the
country that does not exist, searching for a happy island…” [Szacki, 1980, p. 13]. It is also
an ideal, a dream and the project of social experimentation. Yet the essence of utopian thinking underlies the functioning of all communities. It is an inherent human condition, aiming to
build an ideal community sublime over the actual disability of communities [Bauman, Tester,
2003, p. 66]. This excellent community will be characterized by complete stability, sustainability, justice, reaching a specific state of the status quo – ‘the end of history’ [Fukuyama,
1992].
What does it have in common with management? I would like to put forward a thesis that
management sciences, while building their identity, reached to utopian thinking proposing
explicite or implicite a vision of a ‘better world’ and the fullness of knowing after implementation of scientific management ideals.
I would like to propose an allegorical interpretation of literary works belonging to the
genre of utopia and at the same time find utopian motifs in several classic works in the field
of management sciences. The method of conducting analysis relates in a conventional way
the literary work of art with the interpretational motif and a work from the classics of management. Sources are the five famous literary utopias, from Plato, More, Bacon, to Marx and
Skinner. Themes are the five issues of interpretation taken by the utopias and crucial for
management, namely:
- attitude for control and social and organizational power,
- the issue of simplicity and harmony,
- the vision of management as a science and rationality,
- the concept of equality and justice,
- the importance of organizational culture
The purpose of this article is then to attempt to reconstruct the utopia of management and
to indicate its possible interpretations in the organizational discourse [Sułkowski, 2005].
-
-
-
-
Introduction
-
*
Prof. dr hab. Łukasz Sułkowski, Uniwersytet Jagielloński
24
Ł. Sułkowski, Utopie w zarządzaniu
Ł. Sułkowski, About utopias in management
Meaning of utopia in management
Utopia is the belief in reaching a perfect, ideal ultimate and unsurpassable state, in which
nothing can be improved [Kołakowski, 1999, pp. 11–12]. Management derives from the
spirit of modernist thought based on the belief in the fullness of rationality and progress
[Taylor, 1985]. Therefore at the foundation of the main scientific tendency of management
there emerges a modern utopia of rational, fair and progressive organization as a source of
sustainable social order. The implementation of sophisticated ideas of management of quality, strategy and corporate culture would lead to the condition of sustainable and dynamic
perfection. On the macro level this would be a productive and stable free market equipped
with mechanisms of selection of better mechanisms. On the micro level the ideal state would
be the source of satisfaction not only for managers and owners but also for customers, employees and other members of society (stakeholders). The buckle fastening up this status quo
on the mezo level is an effective organization based on rational and universal principles of
scientific management. The condition to reach this perfection is planning and supervision
executed by enlightened and responsible managers who can be associated with utopian rulers
– wise men [Bauman, 2004, p. 22].
Different authors indicate different threads of utopian thinking in management.
G. Burrell and K. Dale notice that at the basis of the development of corporate order there are
default principles, perceived as obvious ones: protection of organizational group, defining
the limits of organization, rational and harmonious control and formalization of management
patterns [Burrell, Dale, 2002, pp. 106–109]. P. Reedy believes that management gurus often
exploit utopian motifs, referring to the vision of an ideal organization leading to the perfect
social order [Reedy, 2002, pp. 175–176]. P. Senge’s concept of a ‘learning organization’
constituting the foundation of the ‘knowledge society’ is quoted as an example [Senge 1993].
I would like to suggest a slightly different analysis of utopian threads in management,
employing allegories on the one hand, but on the other hand – referring to the division into
social and epistemological utopias. ‘Scientific management’ from the very beginning contained elements of social utopia and epistemological utopia. In the social sphere it was the
belief in building a perfect, rational and happy society thanks to management. In the epistemological sense it was a neopositivist pursuit to discover the fullness of truth and reach the
certainty of knowing the organization and management.
Four utopias of management
-
-
-
-
-
In the philosophy and fiction literature utopia functions as a separate literary genre. From
the point of view of the idea, this genre is characterized by an attempt to describe an ideal
human community, therefore – the organization as well.
1. Utopia of control and power.
The first utopia known to mankind was developed by Plato, more than a thousand years
before the ‘utopia’ word, work of art and genre were created. The ‘State’ (or, more widely, all
Plato’s works) is, according to Alfred North Whitehead, the culminating achievement of
mankind and all subsequent philosophical works are just references to the treaties of the
great Greek. Karl Popper saw it differently, however. For him, the ‘State’ is the first totalitarian utopia [Popper, 2006]. The description of the society under permanent steer and control,
where the perfection of functioning does not leave any space for freedom. The power is total
here, because the rulers – wise men ensure the full and rational control of the society. Social
structure is absolutely stable, hierarchic and unchangeable with a precise division of responsibilities of each social class. Also the process of upbringing, or rather indoctrination, of the
young, the guardians and other social groups is perfect [Plato, 2001]. Following Sir Karl
25
-
-
-
-
-
Popper’s ideas I will not interpret Plato’s ‘State’ as a dialogue about justice, but rather as the
first in history apology of totalitarian control and power.
Allegorically Frederic Winslow Taylor’s Scientific Management could be referred to
Plato’s work. The creator of modern management science also developed a quasi-totalitarian
utopia of control. Taylor’s organization, seen metaphorically, is a perfect mechanism where
people are just cogs in the machine. Chronometers, procedures, detailed and compulsive
regulations make an organization a total institution. The power is centralized because all
employees are supposed to work according to specifically defined regulations developed by
the executive level and supervised by managers. The control is one of the most important
links of this system. The process of labour is technisized and based on algorithms, leaving no
space for volunteering.
Taylorian utopia resembles Goffman’s total institution, with its formalization, detailed
regulations, hierarchic structure, production-orientation and strict division into managerial
staff and production staff [Hoffman, 1975, pp. 150–151]. Total control and power create
a dehumanized, but at the same time a perfect and stable organizational system.
2. Utopia of simplicity and harmony.
The very term utopia was created in the 16th century by Thomas More. The title of his
work is ambiguous, because the word can be derived from Greek outopos (Gr. ou — no,
topos — place, place that does not exist), or from eutopia (good place). More was aware that
the work he created is not a description of reality and is ambiguous, which is reflected in
paradoxical names of characters and objects, e.g. Hythlodaeus – ‘talking nonsense’, the Anydrus river – ‘with no water’ etc. Thomas More’s work, which can be read as a satire or social
and political criticism, indicates simplicity idealized by the author [Szacki, 1980]. In the
community there is communism, manifested by the lack of ownership and at the same time
there are no conflicts. Utopian social, political, religious and cultural relations are very simple. Lawyers are unnecessary because the legal system is simple. There is tolerance and
freedom of religious faith (except for atheism). The most important and idealized activity is
cultivating the soil. It is then the community living in simplicity, in permanent ‘golden age’.
Social relations are devoid of conflicts, harmonious and balanced which makes it a community of absolute status quo, isolating itself from other communities, unchanged and stable.
Simplicity, as well as social control, is one of the features of social order of the majority of
utopias presented here.
If, allegorically, Plato’s ‘State’ could be identified with Taylor’s ‘Scientific Management’,
then More’s ‘Utopia’ should be compared to Peter Drucker’s ‘The Practice of Management’.
Not only because of the meaning of this work for management sciences, but also due to the
idealization of simplicity. The Practice of Management, published in 1954, sees management
as both practices (arts) and as sciences, which are however oriented towards practical, simple
and understandable goals. Drucker postulates rational management, which understandable
for all employees and is of decentralized character, i.e. it disassembles centralized model,
characteristic for scientific schools of management and administration (the so-called command & control). He is an advocate of simplifying strategies and organizational structures,
which is manifested only in decentralization but also in endeavouring to delegate powers and
orientation towards permanent training of staff. In the ‘Practice of Management’ one can
notice lack of trust towards complex management structures, especially in public administration, which are perceived as bureaucratic, conflicting and ineffective [Drucker, 2003]. ‘Practice of Management’ expresses also the desire to create the ideal of management harmony.
The image of organization emerging from this work will be close to organic metaphor.
A ‘healthy’ organization is a balanced, purposeful and rational system. Self-control and management through objectives are of key significance for the development of an organization
[Drucker, 2003, pp. 139–154]. Harmonization of structures and organizational strategies is
26
-
-
-
-
-
necessary. Managerial ethos implies then being of healthy character, honesty, responsibility
and will to work on one’s self.
Peter Drucker’s functionalist vision of organizations is a specific ideal of simplicity and
harmony. This approach is based on common sense and many years of practical experience
of management gurus. However, looking from the point of view of non-functional paradigms, in organizations there also appear conflict and disharmony, which can have a creative
and developmental character. Interpretative perspective presents the complexity of senses,
interpretations and group imageries influencing management, such as: metaphors, archetypes
and symbols. Drucker notices the key role of culture in management, calling it the ‘spirit of
organizations’, yet he treats it instrumentally and rather superficially [Drucker, 2003, pp.
163–179]. Representatives of critical tendency recognize such functional approach to people
and culture as non-ethical and manipulative [Willmott, 2003, pp. 73–87].
3. Utopia of science and rationality.
One of the founders of contemporary empirical sciences also dreamed about creating an
ideal society, based on scientific foundations. Francis Bacon in ‘New Atlantis’ presented the
vision of society praising the respect of science, thanks to which it will be possible to control
nature [Bacon, 1954]. The priority was supposed to be the development of knowledge, which
triggers progress thanks to the scientists, and each social group had the elite of experimentators focusing on innovations. The most important institution of the New Atlantis, which participated in executing the power, was the Solomon’s House, comprising wise men and researchers. They conducted empirical research in many scientific fields, the results of which
were implemented or, if they posed a threat, were kept in secret [Weinberger, 1976, pp. 865–
885].
The empirical school in management sciences, created in accordance with the neopositivist ideal and based on natural sciences has many representatives. In 1940’s Russel L. Ackhoff
developed the operational research method, which has a wide application in management,
mostly to solve technical problems [Ackhoff, 1957]. The vision of management sciences
based on operational research had much in common with the ideal of science proposed in the
New Atlantis. It was an empirical science, formalized and mathematisized, using empirical
research and experimental method to collect data. It was the scientific analysis of information that was supposed to be foundation for making rational and correct managerial decisions. Management applying formalized mathematical methods was to get close to the ideal
of economy – ‘physics among social sciences’. This hyper rational project appeared to be
cognitive utopia.
Ackhoff was aware of the limitations of the operational research method in management,
and in the seventies became one of the critics of technically oriented operational research. In
1972 he published a work on the subject of purposeful systems in which he clearly indicated
that they can learned only by getting an insight into social, psychological and cultural
mechanisms. [Ackhoff, Emery, 1972]. R.L. Ackhoff is then not only the father of operational
research but also, beside K. Lewin and I. Ansoff, one of the precursors of the system conception in management. Systems thinking also has some features of utopianism, especially if it
is manifested by the pursuit of idealized harmony and balance. In general, utopias, including
the ‘New Atlantis’, present static communities, systems unchanging and immersed in perfection. It is similar with classical system thinking trying to build a universal, timeless theory of
an organization which will allow a harmonious management. Peter Drucker wrote about
Russell Ackhoff that his works made us realize that first thinking and understanding are
necessary in management, and only then is the place for quantitative and technical analysis
[P. Drucker’s letter].
27
-
-
-
-
-
4. Utopia equality and justice.
The problem of equality belongs to basic issues in utopias, especially the ones that were
developed after the French revolution. A utopia of equality, which was implemented and then
turned into a dystopia, is communism; It can reconstructed on the basis of the ‘Communist
Manifesto’ by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and then ‘Capital’ [Marx, Engels, 2009; Marx,
1951]. Utopia created by the philosopher and industrialist was supposed to be the realization
of the ideal of equality by the liquidation of unfair order, which gave privileges to the possessing class. Ultimate state of communism assumed the perfectly equal society, with no
class divisions at all. The aim of the revolution was to destroy the existing, repressive, although undergoing evolution, social structure and passing the power into the hands of the
persecuted class – the proletariat. The dictatorship of proletariat leading to the elimination of
social and national divisions was to be implemented by: abolition of private ownership, centrally planning the economy, control of the state over all social and economic processes as
well as equal and free access to all social services (education, science, healthcare, social
care).
The appearance and quick development of critical management science is accompanied
by the ideals of equality and justice derived from Karl Marx. Mats Alvesson and Hugh Willmott, drawing upon the heritage of Marxism, carry out a critical ‘vivisection’ of the theory
and practice of contemporary management [Alvesson, Hugh, 1992]. They describe the oppressive and manipulative character of contemporary organizations. They criticise inequality
imprinted in existing economic, social, cultural and organizational systems and propose
a radical change. Representatives of CMS believe that the management theory is ideological
and serves the reproduction of status quo by promoting a false awareness. Under instrumentally oriented organizational discourse there are threads of interests, which maintain the unjust system for the benefit of those in power: businessmen, managers, politicians etc. The
theory and practice of management, according to critical scientists, is based upon the instrumental mind, which means that people, natural environment and public good are manipulated
and exploited. The process of globalization is seen through the lens of neoimperialism and
exploitation of people living in less developed countries [Sułkowski, 2006, pp. 5–13].
CMS researchers are perfectly aware of the collapse of communism but at the same time
they believe in utopia and think that neomarxism is the foundation of changes of contemporary organizations. They adopt the position of radical criticism because they want to change
the orientation of management sciences. By postulating the application of commitment
methods emancipating the disadvantaged groups they want to destroy the existing order and
approach the ideal of social justice and equality. Radical criticism is a kind of katharsis, to
trigger the potential of recovering change.
5. Utopia of culture.
Frederic Skinner wrote the novel ‘Walden Two’ in 1948, which is the exemplification of
the idea of behaviourism. Skinner society is rationally constructed in order to efficiently
socialize the members of a small community. The community is managed by the board of
planners, which also executes the selection of the other three group: managers, scientists and
workers. F.B. Skinner believed that a man can be shaped by managing culture. In his most
important work ‘Beyond Freedom and Dignity’ he included a chapter entitled ‘The Design of
a Culture’ where he describes the method of constructing social incentives which could then
shape rational members of a community [Skinner, 1978].
The vision of social order presented by Skinner has hyper-culturalistic character. Similarly to the whole behaviourism tendency, man is wholly shaped by the environment. Incentives coming from the environment, including cultures, determine the behaviour, personality,
temper and way of thinking of every man. S. Pinker describes behaviourism as an example of
culturalism, which negates the existence of human nature and accepts the concept of tabula
Universalism of utopia
Utopias are born in particular historical conditions and in this sense refer to problems of
their era. On the other hand, however, utopia as a genre is characterized by certain universal
-
-
rasa. Its assumptions say that we are completely ‘programmed’ by culture and that ‘human
nature’ does not exist. We are ‘programmed’ by evolution, with our cooperation-competitive
orientation, desire to dominate, reluctance to others and even perceptive illusions. We can be
aware of this luggage, but we cannot get rid of, as it is within us, constituting a part of human
nature. Most utopias ignore this human nature, which shapes every kind of a community,
from society and nation to organizations and families. Organization will never be the embodiment of equality, because hierarchy and distribution of power are processes deeply
rooted in human minds and nature of the community. Organization, leadership and other
processes will never be fully rational because man’s cognitive apparatus is not a computer
but an evolutionary tool of survival in which the extra-rationally motivated activity is rooted.
Intuition, impact of emotions and stereotypes will then always influence decision processes.
‘In Search of Excellence’ by Peters and Waterman is probably the best known book about
values and corporate culture. Peters and Waterman in their bestseller turned attention to the
fundamental meaning of culture and values for the success of organizations [Peters, Waterman, 2000]. According to the authors, organizations presenting a specific culture, i.e. oriented towards eight fundamental values, pursued perfection. Among the most important
values were: active attitude, customer orientation, autonomy and entrepreneurship, productivity related to orientation towards human, openness to different systems of values and philosophy of organizations, specialization, simplicity, delegating power, successful and not too
detailed planning [Peters, Waterman, 1982; Kreitner, 1992].
Corporate culture and values are interpreted instrumentally, as tools for achieving success. It is a kind of ‘organizational engineering’ resembling ‘designing culture’ proposed by
F.B. Skinner. It means that culture can be managed and steered almost freely in order to
achieve pre-defined goals. A man and employee is the object of this instrumental culture. By
controlling culture then, it is possible to manage the whole organization, also its members. It
is undoubtedly a utopia, criticised by many authors who point out both its instrumental as
well as too idealized character. An attempt to steer corporate culture, and by its mediation
steer employees, in order to achieve instrumental goals, is not ethical. What is more, as experience shows, it is in most cases not successful, because culture develops spontaneously.
The attempt to implement values does not mean that they will be assimilated by members of
the community. It often happens in organizations that next to official culture being promoted
there appear competitive subcultures, which are its contradiction. An attempt to create ‘cultural engineering of an organization’ seems then to be a utopia.
The authors of the publication see the main reason of success within an organization, in
relation to its values, which is a manifestation of a peculiar culturalism. If an organization
possessed particular features, it then has the chances for a spectacular success, maybe even
for perfection.
In reality, however, the situation is more complicated because the success depends on the
connection and interrelations of factors within and outside the organization. Besides corporate culture, other equally important variables include the kind of economic activity, sector
competitiveness and economic prosperity. As many critics of Peters and Waterman indicate,
many of described examples of ‘perfect’ organizations were taken over, lost competitive
position or even went bankrupt. The allegory of ‘Excellence’ with ‘Walden Two’ is then
a lesson that an attempt to build determinist relations, assumed by behaviourism, does not
come true in cultural sphere.
-
-
-
28
29
features, pointed out by Chad Walsh. They are a number of assumptions referring to human
nature and essence of society.
- Man is basically good, i.e. observed faults are the result of unfavourable conditions
of life, not of permanent human nature.
- Man is a flexible creature and can easily be changed.
- There does not exist any undeletable contradiction between the success of an individual and the success of the society.
- Man is a rational creature and is able to become more rational, which makes it possible to eliminate absurds of social life and to finally establish fully rational order.
- The future comprises indefinite number of possibilities and they are fully predictable.
- One should pursue happiness on earth.
- It is possible to find fair rulers or to teach them justice.
- Utopia does not jeopardize human freedom because true freedom is realized within
its frames [Walsh, 1962, p. 71].
Similarly, in management sciences we can point out certain universal features of utopia,
which will refer to man in an organization, the organization itself and management.
- Organizations and people in organizations are flexible and can be shaped.
- It is possible to improve organizations and man in management.
- Success of an organization translates into the success of its members.
- Man and organizations are rational.
- The future can be controlled in the process of management.
- Management leads to the progress of mankind.
- Managers can be good and just.
-
-
-
-
-
Social utopia of management
Social utopia of management is based on a belief in creating a better social order thanks
to employment of the ideas of scientific management. Many theoreticians and practitioners
of management are visionaries. Creators of scientific management, such as Frederic Winslow
Taylor or Henry Fayol, believed that mankind needs the science they created. This belief is
also familiar to contemporary management gurus such as: Peter Drucker, Tom Peters, Peter
Warterman and Charles Handy [Pinnington, 2001]. Social utopias were rooted in the conviction that thanks to management man’s work was to bring the best possible effects, which
were then supposed to be fairly distributed between employers and employees. An organization is the most important place for a man’s self-realization, both as an employee and as
a consumer. It is characterized by concentration on the ideological vision of social order
based on enlightened managers steering rational employees. Managers, in the utopian interpretation, are not egoists pursuing to dominate other people and to secure privileged position,
they are philanthropists of the mankind building a new, better social order. Scientific management is then the discipline, which from the very beginning created a clear, although utopian, mission supposed to lead to mankind’s emancipation.
Seeking for the framework of the social utopia of management I would like to indicate
a few threads, recurrent in management, creating its peculiar mythology.
1. An organization should constitute the most important source of identity and self realization of an individual.
2. Work and consumption constitute the basic dimensions of human existence.
3. Managerialism is the most perfect system of social power and manager is the hero of
our times.
30
4.
Aiming at professional success constitutes the foundation of the ethical code of contemporary times.
5. Only the free market can be the foundation of well being and social order in human
communities.
6. Money is the universal measure of value.
7. Ownership is a fair and the only rational foundation for social stratification.
8. Knowledge should be the instrument of dominating the reality.
The above list is just a proposal of norms related with each other, but it seems it creates
a consistent image of utopian ‘managerial society’. This idealized vision of social order can
be found in the most propagated and rooted in management metaphors of organization (machine, organism, learning, functional culture) [Morgan, 1997].
-
-
-
-
-
Cognitive utopia of management
Management was created in the spirit of positive science, drawing from natural and engineering sciences. There can be enumerated a few utopian neopositivist postulates adopted by
scientific management.
- Belief in sustainability of scientific progress and cumulative development of knowledge.
- Seeking for a universal, reliable and certain scientific method [Sułkowski, 2004, pp.
3–14].
- Mathematisation and formalization allowing description of management processes in
the form of formulae, functions and mathematical models [Chatelier, 1972, p. 104].
- Reductionism allowing identification of causative influence of all variables active in
the management processes.
- Aiming to create a complete, deterministic causative explanation of management
processes.
Epistemological utopia indicating the possibility to create deterministic, closed system of
universal and reliable knowledge in management sciences turned to be myth, which however
still exists in our discipline. Neopositivist images of management, although subject to severe
criticism, is still deeply rooted in the minds of many researchers and experts. It often remains
a kind of not very conscious, ‘common sense’ vision of the discipline which does not require
posing difficult questions about cognitive foundations [Sułkowski, 2005].
It seems, however, that the development of management sciences and critical reception of
proposed postulates bring management sciences closer to other social sciences, proving the
utopian character of epistemological postulates adopted by the creators of scientific management. Contemporary management is increasingly becoming an interdisciplinary and self
reflection science. In the light of indicated tendencies of the development of management
sciences ‘hard’, neopositivistic approach of scientific management can be recognized as a
kind of cognitive utopia. Contemporary management sciences are socially oriented and far
from ideals of scientism.
Neopositivistic, Taylorist projects of ‘scientific management’ have not come true. Not in
the sense that science and practice have not acquired any meaning. Quite the contrary, it is
contemporarily an unusually influential academic discipline with powerful social interaction.
It is rather a completely different vision of ‘scientificity’ of management, which has no
chance to save mankind by knowledge, nor can it offer specific knowledge that the creators
of ‘scientific management’ had dreamed of. We are nowadays witnessing the decline of modernist utopia of management. This is the decline of epistemological and social utopia of this
discipline. There is no hope that the ultimate truth of management revealed by the ‘gurus’ or
arduous discovered in empirical research will be presented. Managers are not sentenced to
31
the fullness of rationality, knowing and progress; ‘contrarily to their predecessors from the
times of national construction, global elites do not have any mission to fulfil; do not feel the
need and do not intend to convert anyone, to put forward the fire of knowledge, to teach or to
change’ [Bauman, 2004, p. 27]. Organizations should be competitive, bring profits to their
owners and do not have a chance to reach perfection.
Conclusions
Organization is a universal process, accompanying mankind from its very origins. It is
then reflected in the whole heritage of culture, also in philosophies and fiction literature. The
issue of utopia is just an example of such a universal thread, important for man, community
and organization as well. A method for analysis can be a kind of a developed comparison of
allegorical character. Allegorical method can then be favourable for in-depth reflectivity in
the discourse of management sciences.
It can be obstinately stated that utopia is necessary for both individuals and communities.
People and societies have a need to act in a purposeful and sensible way, which aims at
reaching the ideal state. Utopias are the source of this sense [Cyrzan, 2004, p. 9]. Therefore
the belief in the mission that management sciences can perform is the source of identification
and identity for practitioners and theoreticians of management. However, an uncritical relationship with social or epistemological utopia of management reaching back to taylorism
brings the risk of dogmatism. Theoreticians and practitioners of management are nowadays
deprived of illusions of the great cognitive and emancipating mission of their discipline.
Recognition of the significance of utopian thinking in management is a lesson of humility
making one reflect upon the development of this science. The emerging image of the issues
of management suggests bringing the field of interest closer to social and humanistic sciences and to take up the task of critical analysis of existing concepts. It is also difficult to set
oneself free from the impression that utopian thinking is revealed in management through the
creation and reception of the ideas of management gurus. Remains of utopian and messianic
motifs in management sciences can be found in fashions and pseudo-universal prescriptions.
It seems that that realization of the utopian character of such an assumption will incline to
more sceptical treatment of new concepts of management.
Bibliography
1.
2.
3.
4.
7.
8.
9.
10.
-
-
-
-
-
5.
6.
11.
12.
13.
Ackhoff R.L., Churchman C.W., Arnoff E.L., (1957), Introduction to Operations Research, John
Wiley & Sons: New York.
Alvesson M., Hugh W. (1992), Critical Management Studies, Sage, London.
Bacon F., (1954), Nowa Atlantyda, wyd. polskie.
Bauman Z., Tester K., (2003), O pożytkach z wątpliwości. Rozmowy z Zygmuntem Baumanem, Sic,
Warszawa.
Bauman Z., (2004), Utopia bez toposu, w: „Kultura w czasach globalizacji”, IFiS PAN, Warszawa.
Burrell G., Dale K., (2002), Utopiary: utopias, gardens and organization, [w:] Parker M., Utopia
and Organization, Blackwell, Oxford.
Cyrzan H., (2004), O potrzebie utopii, Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, Uniwersytet Gdański,
Toruń.
Drucker P.F., (2003), Praktyka zarządzania, wyd. MT Biznes.
Fukuyama F., (1992), The End of History and the Last Man, Free Press, Nowy York.
Goffman E., (1975), Charakterystyka instytucji totalnych, w: Elementy teorii socjologicznych.
Materiały do dziejów współczesnej socjologii zachodniej, PWE, Warszawa.
Kołakowski L., (1999), Moje słuszne poglądy na wszystko, Wydawnictwo Znak, Kraków.
Kreitner R., (1992), Management, Boston, MA, Houghton-Miflin Company.
Le Chatelier H., (1972), Filozofia systemu Taylora [w:] Kurnal J., Twórcy naukowych podstaw
organizacji, Warszawa.
32
14. List P. Druckera odczytany przez V. Barabba z okazji 3 międzynarodowej Conference on Systems
Thinking in Management (ICSTM), University of Pennsylvania, May 19–24, 2004.
15. Marks K., Engels F., (2009), Manifest komunistyczny, wyd. Jirafa Roja.
16. Marks K., (1951), Kapitał - Krytyka ekonomii politycznej, Tom pierwszy, Księga I - Proces wytwarzania kapitału, Książka i Wiedza, Warszawa.
17. Morgan G., (1997), Obrazy organizacji, PWN, Warszawa.
18. Peters T.J., Waterman R.H. (JR.), (2000), In search of excellence, Medium, Lipiec 2000.
19. Peters T.J., Waterman R.H., (1982), In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run
Companies, Harper & Row, New York.
20. Pinnington A., (2001), Charles Handy: The Exemplary Guru, “Philosophy of Management. Formerly Reason in Practice”, vol. 1, nr 3.
21. Platon, (2001), Państwo, Prawa, wyd. ANTYK, Kęty.
22. Popper K., (2006), Społeczeństwo otwarte i jego wrogowie tom 1 i 2, PWN, Warszawa 2006.
23. Reedy P., (2002), Keeping the BlackFlag flying: anarchy, utopia and the politics of nostalgia [w:]
Parker M., Utopia and Organization, Blackwell, Oxford.
24. Senge P., (1993), The Fifth Discipline: the art and practice of learning organization, Century
Business, London.
25. Skinner F.B., (1978), Poza wolnością i godnością, PIW, Warszawa.
26. Słownik Języka Polskiego.
27. Sułkowski Ł., (2005), Epistemologia w naukach o zarządzaniu, PWE, Warszawa 2005.
28. Sułkowski Ł., (2004), Neopozytywistyczna mitologia w nauce o zarządzaniu, [w:] „Organizacja i
kierowanie”, nr 1 (115).
29. Sułkowski Ł., (2006), Nurt krytyczny w naukach o zarządzaniu, Współczesne Zarządzanie, Nr 1.
30. Sułkowski Ł., (2005), Utopia zarządzania, „Przegląd organizacji”, nr 11.
31. Szacki J., (1980), Spotkania z Utopią, Iskry, Warszawa.
32. Taylor C., (1985), Rationality, [w:] Philosophy and the Human Sciences, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
33. Walsh Ch., (1962), From Utopia to Nightmare, Londyn.
34. Weinberger J., (1976), Science and Rule in Bacon's Utopia: An Introduction to the Reading of the
New Atlantis", The American Political Science Review, Vol. 70, No. 3 (Sep.).
35. Willmott H., (2003), Renewing Strength: Corporate Culture Revisited, Management, Vol. 6, No. 3.
-
-
-
-
-
Utopie w zarządzaniu
Określenie „utopia” znalazło się w języku humanistyki w XVI w. za sprawą dzieła Tomasza Morusa. Jest ona jednocześnie ideałem, mrzonką, jak i projektem eksperymentu społecznego. Jednak istota myślenia utopijnego leży u podstaw funkcjonowania wszystkich wspólnot. Jest nieodłącznym elementem kondycji ludzkiej dążącej do budowy idealnej społeczności wysublimowanej ponad ułomności rzeczywistych wspólnot.
Co to ma wspólnego z zarządzaniem? Otóż, można postawić tezę, że nauki o zarządzaniu, budując swoją tożsamość, również sięgnęły do myślenia utopijnego, proponując explicite lub implicite wizję „lepszego świata” i pełni poznania po wdrożeniu ideałów naukowego
zarządzania.
Utopia to wiara w osiągnięcie stanu idealnego, doskonałego, ostatecznego i nieprzekraczalnego, w którym nie ma już nic do poprawienia. Zarządzanie wyrasta z ducha myśli modernistycznej opartej na wierze w pełnię racjonalności i postępu. Stąd u podstaw głównego
nurtu naukowego zarządzania wyrasta nowoczesna utopia racjonalnej, sprawiedliwej i postępowej organizacji jako źródła trwałego ładu społecznego. Wdrożenie wyrafinowanych idei
zarządzania jakością, strategią oraz kulturą organizacyjną miałoby prowadzić do stanu trwałej i dynamicznej doskonałości. Na poziomie makro byłby to produktywny i stabilny wolny
rynek wyposażony w mechanizmy selekcji lepszych rozwiązań. Na poziomie mikro stan
idealny byłby źródłem satysfakcji nie tylko dla zarządzających, właścicieli, ale również
klientów oraz pracowników i innych członków społeczeństwa (interesariuszy). Klamrą spi-
-
-
-
-
-
33
nającą owo status quo na poziomie mezo jest efektywna organizacja oparta na racjonalnych
i uniwersalnych zasadach naukowego zarządzania. Warunkiem osiągnięcia owej doskonałości jest planowanie i nadzór prowadzony przez światłych i odpowiedzialnych menedżerów,
których skojarzyć można z utopijnymi władcami – mędrcami.
Różni autorzy wskazują na inne wątki myślenia utopijnego w zarządzaniu. G. Burrell
i K. Dale zauważają, że u podstaw tworzenia ładu organizacyjnego leżą domyślne, uważane
za oczywiste zasady: ochrony grupy organizacyjnej, wytyczania granic organizacji, racjonalnej i harmonijnej kontroli oraz formalizacji wzorów organizowania. P. Reedy uważa, że guru
zarządzania często eksploatują motywy utopijne, odwołując się do wizji idealnej organizacji
prowadzącej do doskonałego ładu społecznego. Jako przykład opisywana jest koncepcja
„organizacji uczącej się” P. Senge stanowiąca podstawę „społeczeństwa zorientowanego na
wiedzę”.
Można zaproponować nieco inną analizę utopijnych wątków w zarządzaniu, z jednej
strony wykorzystującą myślenie alegoryczne, zaś z drugiej odwołującą się do podziału na
utopie społeczne i epistemologiczne. „Naukowe zarządzanie” już od swego zarania zawierało w sobie elementy utopii społecznej oraz utopii epistemologicznej. W sferze społecznej
była to wiara w zbudowanie dzięki zarządzaniu społeczeństwa doskonałego, racjonalnego i
szczęśliwego. W znaczeniu epistemologicznym była to neopozytywistyczne dążenie do odkrycia pełni prawdy i osiągnięcia pewności poznania organizacji i zarządzania.
Celem tego artykułu jest próba rekonstrukcji utopii zarządzania oraz wskazanie na ich
możliwe interpretacje w dyskursie organizacyjnym. Można zaproponować odczytanie utworów literackich należących do gatunku utopii, a jednocześnie odnalezienie motywów utopijnych w kilku klasycznych dziełach z zakresu nauk o zarządzaniu. Metoda przeprowadzenia
analizy wiąże w sposób konwencjonalny dzieło literackie z motywem interpretacyjnym oraz
dziełem zaczerpniętym z klasyki zarządzania. Źródła literackie to pięć słynnych utopii, począwszy od platońskiej, przez morusowską i baconowską, aż do Marksa i Skinnera. Do analizowanej „klasyki zarządzania” należą dzieła: Frederica Winslow Taylora - Scientific Management, Petera Druckera - The Practice of Management, Russella Ackhoff - Introduction to
Operations Research, Matsa Alvessona i Hugh Willmotta - Critical Management Studies
oraz Toma Petersa i Roberta Watermana - Poszukiwanie doskonałości w biznesie. Motywy
interpretacyjne to pięć problemów podejmowanych przez utopie i kluczowych dla zarządzania, a mianowicie:
- stosunek do kontroli i władzy społecznej oraz organizacyjnej,
- kwestia prostoty i harmonii zarządzania,
- wizja zarządzania jako nauki i racjonalności,
- koncepcja równości i sprawiedliwości organizacyjnej,
- znaczenie kultury organizacyjnej.
Wyłaniający się z analizy obraz problematyki zarządzania sugeruje myślenie o zbliżeniu
pola zainteresowań do nauk społecznych i humanistycznych oraz podjęcia zadania krytycznej autoanalizy istniejących koncepcji. Trudno również uwolnić się od wrażenia, że utopijne
myślenie ujawnia się w zarządzaniu poprzez tworzenie i recepcję idei guru zarządzania.
Okruchy utopijnych i mesjanistycznych motywów w naukach o zarządzaniu znaleźć można
w modach i pseudo-uniwersalnych receptach. Wydaje się, że uświadomienie sobie utopijności takiego podejścia będzie skłaniało do bardziej sceptycznego traktowania nowych koncepcji zarządzania.

FULL TEXT

Transkrypt

Podobne dokumenty

Beyond the Utopia/Dystopia dichotomy

Opis Kursu Wymagania Program

Prezentacja połączona z rekrutacją do firmy Elettric80 25 czerwca

FULL TEXT - International Journal of Contemporary Management

Treść - Annales. Etyka w życiu gospodarczym

as PDF - TELE POLSKA Holding SA