서론 : 경영 패러다임 변화의 현상과 해석

• 영문명: Introduction : The Phenomenon and Interpretation of the New Management Paradigm
• 발행기관: 한국인사조직학회
• 저자명: 배종석(Johngseok Bae)
• 간행물 정보: 『인사조직연구』인사조직연구 제21권 제3호, 1~34쪽, 전체 34쪽
• 주제분류: 경제경영 > 경영학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2013.09.30

국문 초록

본 논문의 목적은 ‘경영 패러다임’ 특별세션에 투고된 논문들에 대한 서론적 도입을 제공하고 안내자의 역할을 하는 데 있다. 즉, 본 논문은 개별 논문들의 통합적 이해를 위한 관련이슈의 도출과 향후 연구방향의 개진을 위한 다양한 논의거리들을 제공하고자 한다. 특별세션에 게재된 논문들을 이해하기 위해 본 도입논문이 취한 첫 번째 방식은 연역적 접근인데, 이 방식은 논문들을 논의할 통합주제를 선정하여 그 주제에 따라서 해당논문들을 논의하는 접근이다. 여러 논문에 공통적으로 등장하는 다섯 개의 통합주제를 선정하여 논의하였는데, 그것들은 (1) 새로움에 대한 이해, (2) 철학적 기반, (3) 제도적 다원주의, (4) 행위자에 대한 인식론, 그리고 (5) 기업경영의 규범원리 등이다. 본 도입논문이 취한 두 번째 접근은 귀납적 방식이다. 이 접근방식은 개별 논문들을 요약한 후, 그 논문들이 다루는 주제에 맞는 이슈들을 중심으로 개별적 논의를 하는 방식이다. 개별논문들에 대한 요약을 한 후에 (1) 다섯 편의 논문을 본질담론으로 규정하여 설명하였고, (2) 분석의 초점을 제도와 원리로 구분하고, 분석의 범위를 제도간 관계와 제도내 관계로 구분하여 논문들을 분류하였으며, (3) 모든 논문들이 매우 긴 역사적 기원들을 가지고 있다는 점을 설명한 후, 마지막으로 (4) 개별논문과 관련된 추후 논의거리와 질문을 제시하였다. 결론에서는 경영 패러다임을 평가할 수 있는 다섯 가지 기준을 제시한 후, 특별세션에 게재된 논문들을 읽을 때 참조할 수 있는 특별세션의 서론적 성격의 결론을 제시하였는데, 그 기준들은 (1) 본질적 구조의 다차원성, (2) 포괄적 체계라는 목적과의 연계성, (3) 내적 일관성, (4) 현실 설명력, 그리고 (5) 윤리적 정당성 등이다.

영문 초록

This special issue on the new management paradigm has been prepared for several reasons. First, the scope of business discourse and management research has grown. Korean companies and management theorists have turned their consideration to new topics that would previously been considered the sole purvey of humanities. Such subjects would have been laughed out of the auditorium of serious business rhetoric not that long ago, yet today few would question the vital importance of happiness, social value, responsibility, and community in a thorough discussion of business management. At the same time, larger world events have triggered a wave of criticism and doubt regarding the dominant systems of thought across the social sciences theoretical spectrum: neo-liberalism, utilitarianism, logical positivism, and shareholder capitalism. Finally, many business management researchers are beginning to challenge the predominance of a scientific approach to management that is not grounded in business reality. Though academics commonly acknowledge these independent trends, few have ventured to provide holistic interpretive insights into the new management paradigm. Therein lies the impetus for this special issue. Here we present five new viewpoints attempting to cohere and reflect a new management paradigm, and attempt to crystallize the common strands in their inquiries. These common themes include: contextual understanding of the term ‘new’; a critical review on dominant thought; an evaluation of institutional pluralism; epistemological understanding of actors; and guiding principles for the management of the firm. Chung and Jang (2013) first argue that the global financial crisis is mainly about the crisis of liberal market economies (LMEs) rather than coordinated market economies (CMEs). They take an evolutionary perspective and hold that capitalism can find its own way to survive, but advise that firms should pursue justice and win-win relationships among various partners in a new capitalism, interestingly referencing their themes from Adam Smith’s prequel to The Wealth of Nations, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. They conclude that negative externality, the most well-known reason for market failure, should be voluntarily internalized to overcome the current crisis of capitalism. Jang and Cho (2013) explore the changing trends in modern management paradigms and discourses which have created a complex discourse of differing value systems. Two driving forces are the expanding universal norms of 'development and justice' and the increasing actorhood of various organizations. They argue that universal norms are based upon competing values (e.g., rationality and efficiency on the one hand versus responsibility and sustainability on the other), which in turn are jointly required and simultaneously pursued by various social actors. In addition, these social actors (e.g., individuals, organizations, and nation-states) have gained increased actorhood in modern times and have thus gained higher levels of authority, autonomy, and responsibility. Jung (2013) differentiates a utopian meta-paradigm, the management paradigm, and management discourses from one another. He suggests two ideal types of meta-paradigms, with fundamentally different organizing principles and underlying assumptions: (1) a technocratic utopian meta-paradigm and (2) a romantic utopian meta-paradigm. He frames current management paradigms according to this duality, observing a technocratic management paradigm and a humanistic management paradigm. Finally, he argues that each management paradigm has various management discourses. For example, the technocratic meta-paradigm began with scientific management theory; and the humanistic management paradigm emerged from the human relations movement. He identifies current management theories and discourse as belonging to the humanistic management paradigm, with more fully realized contents compared with its early markers.

목차

<초록>

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 논의를 위한 통합주제

Ⅲ. 관점과 해석: 개별논문의 요약과 논의

Ⅳ. 결론

참고문헌

Abstract

키워드

경영 패러다임 철학적 기반 인문학 제도적 다원주의 규범원리 본질적 구조의 다차원성 내적 일관성 윤리적 정당성 객관적 이성 주관적 이성 Management Paradigm Philosophical Base Humanities Institutional Pluralism Normative Principles Multidimensionality of the Essential Structure Neo-liberalism Utilitarianism Logical Positivism