Abstract A new management paradigm

Authorship: Infostore

Year: 2008 | Pages: 21

Price: 1

1. Management paradigms in the context of the stages of science development
2. Analysis of the new management organization paradigm in Russia

A new management paradigm.
Currently, many traditional marketing methods and techniques are largely losing their useful value for the growth of the company and especially as a means of winning the competition. At the same time, it is the victory over competitors that becomes the main factor of business efficiency.
The loss of importance of traditional marketing occurs for several reasons.
1.The number of free needs that can be quickly and effectively translated into specific products and services for which a relevant product offer can be created has decreased.
2. Increasing the degree of internationalization and globalization of the economy reduces the need to diversify goods according to individual needs, expand the range of goods and services, and link goods to certain market segments.
3. Market saturation leads to the fact that competitiveness comes to the fore, and marketing becomes primarily a weapon of competitive warfare.
Changes in the market situation were hardly accompanied by changes in marketing methods.
Thus, the purpose of this work is to analyze the new management paradigm.
To achieve this goal, you need to solve the following tasks::
1) consider management paradigms in the context of the stages of science development;
2) analyze the new paradigm of management organization in Russia.

1. Management paradigms in the context of the stages of science development
The change in the general scientific worldview was accompanied by a radical change in the normative structures of research, as well as the philosophical foundations of science. These periods can rightly be considered as global revolutions that can lead to a change in the type of scientific rationality. In recent decades, fundamental changes have been taking place in science, associated, according to V. S. Stepin, with the formation of the post-non-classical stage of its development. Without taking these changes into account, we risk (among other things) losing sight of fundamental changes in the understanding of rationality in the management and organizational sciences.
The three major stages of the development of science, each of which opens the global scientific revolution, can be described as three historical types of scientific rationality that have succeeded each other in the history of man-made civilization: classical (corresponding to classical science), non-classical and post-non-classical.
Each new type of scientific rationality is characterized by special foundations of science peculiar only to it, which allow us to identify and study the corresponding types of system objects in the world (simple, complex, self-developing). At the same time, the emergence of a new type of rationality and a new image of science should not be understood simplistically in the sense that each new stage leads to the complete disappearance of the ideas and methodological attitudes of the previous period; on the contrary, there is continuity between them.
Following V. S. Stepin, we can say that each stage is characterized by a special state of scientific activity aimed at the constant growth of objectively true knowledge. If we schematically represent this activity as a "subject-means-object" relationship (including in the understanding of the subject the value-target structures of activity, knowledge and skills of applying methods and means), then the described stages of the evolution of science, acting as different types of scientific rationality, are characterized by different depth of reflection in relation to the scientific activity itself.
The classical type of scientific rationality, focusing attention on the object, seeks to eliminate everything that relates to the subject, means and operations of its activity in the theoretical explanation and description. Such elimination is considered as a necessary condition for obtaining objectively true knowledge about the world. The goals and values of science, which determine research strategies and ways of fragmentation of the world, at this stage (as at all others) are determined by the dominant worldview and value orientations in culture. But classical science does not comprehend these determinations. Scientific research is considered as the knowledge of the laws of Nature that exist outside of man.
The traditional concept of management was born in the context of classical science, and it was limited to the "subject — object" paradigm.
The non-classical type of scientific rationality takes into account the relationship between knowledge about the object and the nature of the means and operations of the activity. The explication of these connections is considered as the conditions for an objectively true description and explanation of the world. But the connections between intra-scientific and social values and goals are still not the subject of scientific reflection, although they implicitly affect the nature of knowledge (determine what exactly and in what way we distinguish and comprehend in the world). The results of scientific research are superimposed on the understanding of the correlation of the explained characteristics of the object with the peculiarity of the means and operations of scientific activity.
In the context of non-classical science, the development of ideas about management is mainly associated with overcoming a number of limitations of the "subject — object"paradigm. Natural science traditions contain a number of hidden postulates.
The first postulate: "The theory of the object that the researcher has is not a product of the activity of the object itself."
This postulate fixes the dominant position of the researcher in relation to the object. The statement that "nature is not malicious" is one form of awareness of this postulate.
Postulate two: "An object does not depend on the fact of the existence of a theory that reflects this object."
The second postulate gives rise to the possibility of talking about the properties and laws inherent in things. They exist objectively and are only recorded by the researcher.
In accordance with these postulates, the relationship between the researcher and the object is described by the "subject — object"scheme. The same type of relations was laid in the methodological foundations of the construction of cybernetics. The fundamental limitation of the cybernetics approach was clearly manifested in attempts to model social systems, conflict interactions, communication processes, social and psychological phenomena, in which the behavior of the object turned out to be significantly dependent on relations with researchers, on the "model of the situation that the object built", on the goals of the object and the researcher and their mutual representations.
The contrast between the object and the researcher proved to be true only for objects "not endowed with a psyche". When the researcher is confronted by a" psychically endowed " object, the relationship between them turns into a relationship between two researchers, each of whom is an object in relation to the other. In such relations, there is clearly a violation of the "physical" postulates: the researcher becomes just one of the characters in a specific system of reflexive relations, and the objects are comparable to the researcher in perfection. It is fundamental to remove the opposition between "researcher" and"object of research". This creates the possibility of transition in management from the "subject – object" paradigm to the "subject-subject" paradigm.
As a result, new ideas about management appear: reflexive management, information management, management of active systems, etc.
The post-non-classical type of scientific rationality expands the field of reflection on activity. It takes into account the correlation of the obtained knowledge about the object not only with the features of the means and operations of the activity, but also with the value-target structures. Moreover, the connection of intra-scientific goals with extra-scientific, social values and goals is explicated, the problem of understanding the value-target orientations of the subject of scientific activity in their correlation with social goals and values is solved.
Based on the fact that the Foundation of the modern scientific picture of the world is universal evolutionism, including "the state of social life," Stepin draws attention to the amazing line "the modern scientific picture of the world not only the new mentality, which gradually formed in the depths of Western (man-made) culture in the late 20th century in connection with the understanding of contemporary global issues" and its matching "philosophical ideas, which grew on the basis of the identity of Russia and its Silver age, as well as philosophical and ideological views of traditional cultures of the East." Based on the principle of universal evolutionism, he emphasizes the need for communicative (dialogical) inclusion in the modern scientific picture of the world of the entire set of values of world cultural development. Only on this path, which is likened to the universal path, can we expect success with the construction of truly human-dimensional self-developing systems (let's take this as an obvious postulate) - as well as a genuine understanding of alternative ideas of Eastern cultures, in particular the idea of the connection between truth and morality.
This understanding of post-non-classical scientific rationality implies the introduction of a "polysubject environment" into the context of any scientific research. An environment that includes, along with various types of subjects, a set of values of world cultural development; an environment that is itself considered as a self-developing system. At the same time, the paradigm of management of post-non-classical science becomes the paradigm of "subject-polysubject environment".
It is fundamentally important to note that the management paradigm "subject-polysubject environment" is inextricably linked with the project paradigm. The project paradigm and the subject approach inextricably linked with it define a wide field of interdisciplinary research, the philosophical understanding of which is carried out in various schools and directions. A special role, in our opinion, was played by philosophical constructivism.
In recent years, the main features of the post-non-classical interpretation of the subject approach are beginning to be seen:
- subjects as the main system-forming factor;
- legalization of subjective realities through reflection;
As one of the first attempts to develop the problems of management in accordance with the paradigm of "subject — polysubject environment", we should mention the "theory of active systems".
- network organization of knowledge;
- mutual consistency of models as a criterion of scientific character;
- open communicative rationality;
- focus on dynamic research context configurators;
- interdisciplinary discourse.
Subjects as the main system-forming factor. According to the position of the creator of the post-non-classical paradigm Stepin, all attention today is paid to human-sized self-developing systems with their problem of including a person in the process of scientific research. A new picture of the world can not be represented by knowledge that is divorced from the cognizing and acting subjects, from their subjective realities, in isolation from which it is impossible to adequately interpret the knowledge they have received. Network communications are private subjective pictures of the world with a total post-nonclassical picture of the world.
Legalization of subjective realities through reflection. Each subject reflects the environment, himself and other subjects individually, interpreting it in his own way, translating it into his own reality. Reality is a form of representation of being by the subject. Reflection models reality, turning it into an imaginary reality. Only with the advent of subjects experiencing reality as a subjective form of representation of existence.
Network organization of knowledge. The first steps in this direction were made by physicists who found analogies in their models with the ideas of Eastern mystical traditions. Today, the humanities are also trying to take this path. The features of the post-non-classical paradigm are found in the transition from simplified systems to networks, from subjects to problems (areas of research), from unambiguous texts to multiple interpretations and playing with styles (an approach associated with the works of Yu.M. Lotman). Post-non-classical science is a state of knowledge in which various scientific theories (understood as models and subjective realities) form an interconnected network.
Mutual consistency of models as a criterion of scientific character. In post-non-classical science, a complete picture of the world is revealed only through the interconnectedness of scientific theories. To replace "verification" (O. Comte) and " falsification "(K. Popper) comes the principle of "web of concepts", a network approach. It is fundamentally important to note that the most important criterion for the coherence of scientific theories, in our opinion, will be determined by the coherence of the subjects generating, developing and promoting these theories.
Open communicative rationality. The egocentrism of scientific paradigms is replaced in post-non-classical science by the attitude to communication. The need to develop a new interdisciplinary (including philosophical) approach to understanding synergetically developing human-dimensional systems as a set of some integral communicative gestalts by their nature is of great ideological and practical importance. Awareness of the transcendental-empirical (Zh.Deleuze), the operational, cognitive, procedural nature of these gestalts and the new "philosophical openness" are obviously mutually conditioned, giving rise together to a new synergistic quality of "open communicative rationality". It becomes the main constitutive synergetic parameter of the order, through which a new picture of the world is built.

1. Burkov V. N., Kondratiev V. V., Tsyganov V. V., Cherkashin A.M. Theory of active systems and improvement of economic mechanism. - Moscow: Nauka, 1984. - 272 p.
2. Guseltsev M. S. Postnonclassical rationality in cultural psychology // Psychological journal. 2005, volume 26, No. 6. C. 5-15.
3. Deming E. Coming out of the crisis: A new paradigm of managing people, systems and processes / Edwards Deming; Trans. from English-M.: Alpina Business Books, 2007. - 370 p.
4. Capra F. The Tao of physics. Kiev: Sofia. Moscow: Helios Publishing House, 2002.
5. Kononov D. A., Kulba V. V., Shubin A. N. Information management: principles of modeling and areas of use //The proceedings of ISP RAS. So HHS. — M.: IPU Russian Academy of Sciences. 2004. S. 5-29.
6. Lefevre V. A. Conflicting structures. Moscow: Sov. radio, 1973. -158 p.
7. Novikov D. A., Chkhartishvili A. G. Reflexive games. - M.: SINTEG. 2003.
8. Problems of subjects in postnonclassical science / / Preprint edited by V. I. Arshinov and V. E. Lepsky-M.: Kogito-Center. 2007. - 176 p.
9. Pugacheva E. G. In search of the language of scientific communication and understanding. Interview with Professor G. Haken // Higher education in Russia. - No. 4-2003. - p. 96-100.
10. Pugacheva E. G., Solovyenko K. N. Self-organization of socio-economic systems. Training manual. Irkutsk: publishing house of bsuel, 2003. – 172 c.
11. Stepin V. S. Theoretical knowledge. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2003. - 744s.
12. Habermas Yu. Philosophical discourse on modernity. New York: Oxford University, 2003.
13. Charles Handy. On the other side of confidence. About the new world inside and around organizations. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002.
14. Sheldrake, J. Management Theory: from Taylorism to Japanization: trans. from English-St. Petersburg, 2001. - pp. 37-57.
15. Schultz D., Tannenbaum S., Pauterborn R. New marketing paradigm: integrated marketing communications. Moscow: INFRA-M, 2004.

Similar works

Abstract Management
2016 year 19 p.
Abstract The Pyramid of CSR by A. Kerrol
4 View
Abstract Management
2013 year 20 p.
Abstract Qualification characteristics of an office manager
12 View
Abstract Management
2014 year 15 p.
Abstract Management, option 27 kemtipp
12 View
Abstract Management
2014 year 21 p.
Abstract Differentiation and integration in the management system
4 View
Abstract Management
2014 year 13 p.
Abstract Management in the field of culture
5 View