Основи системізації організаційного менеджменту
Organizational management is the weakest element in the evolution of the modern civilization. It creates a lot of problems at all levels of its hierarchy that have not been solved for a long time. Overcoming these problems requires streamlining, improving and enhancing the instrumental methodologica...
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2020 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
The National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute"
2020
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/214561 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | System research and information technologies |
| Завантажити файл: |  |
Institution
System research and information technologies| _version_ | 1867334407581335552 |
|---|---|
| author | Drogobytskij, Ivan N. |
| author_facet | Drogobytskij, Ivan N. |
| author_institution_txt_mv | [
{
"author": "Ivan N. Drogobytskij",
"institution": "Financial University, Moscow"
}
] |
| author_sort | Drogobytskij, Ivan N. |
| baseUrl_str | http://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/oai |
| collection | OJS |
| datestamp_date | 2021-01-19T12:18:25Z |
| description | Organizational management is the weakest element in the evolution of the modern civilization. It creates a lot of problems at all levels of its hierarchy that have not been solved for a long time. Overcoming these problems requires streamlining, improving and enhancing the instrumental methodological arsenal of organizational management, creating a system and thus guaranteeing results and efficiency of its practical use. In this article, we make an attempt to formulate the ideas and content for further studies. Integrating them in the systemizing stream, i.e. building/restoring the systematic character of organizational management, this article addresses its basics, such as definitions, fundamental principles, the style difference and system typology that should create main landmarks in the field of a new scientific approach to an interested reader. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.20535/SRIT.2308-8893.2020.3.04 |
| first_indexed | 2025-07-17T10:26:49Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
I.N. Drogobytskij, 2020
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2020, № 3 51
TIДC
ПРОБЛЕМИ ПРИЙНЯТТЯ РІШЕНЬ ТА
УПРАВЛІННЯ В ЕКОНОМІЧНИХ, ТЕХНІЧНИХ,
ЕКОЛОГІЧНИХ І СОЦІАЛЬНИХ СИСТЕМАХ
UDC 303.732.4
DOI: 10.20535/SRIT.2308-8893.2020.3.04
SYSTEMATICITY OF ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
I.N. DROGOBYTSKIJ
Abstract. Organizational management is the weakest element in the evolution of the
modern civilization. It creates a lot of problems at all levels of its hierarchy that have
not been solved for a long time. Overcoming these problems requires streamlining,
improving and enhancing the instrumental methodological arsenal of organizational
management, creating a system and thus guaranteeing results and efficiency of its
practical use. In this article, we make an attempt to formulate the ideas and content
for further studies. Integrating them in the systemizing stream, i.e. building/restoring
the systematic character of organizational management, this article addresses its ba-
sics, such as definitions, fundamental principles, the style difference and system ty-
pology that should create main landmarks in the field of a new scientific approach to
an interested reader.
Keywords: system, management, administration, science, art, skills, vocation, style
of management, systematic management typology.
INTRODUCTION
Imperfection of modern management is registered by many scientific, commercial
and political authorities. It penetrates the whole modern social structure and is
visible at all its levels. So, at a mega level, the level of human civilization, this
imperfection leads to a multitude of unsolved civilizational problems — poverty,
starvation, inequality, narcotic addiction, environmental problems, that we egois-
tically delegate to the next generations to solve.
At a macro level, the level of individual countries, imperfection of manage-
ment has a national touch that in every single case leads to a series of specific (na-
tional) problems. In Russia, for instance, it is the resource-based national economy,
challenging transition to the innovative trajectory, imbalance in the industry struc-
ture, low labor efficiency, horrendous social segregation, extreme bureaucratiza-
tion, all those are on the agenda for a long time and no solution is found.
The registered problems are transitioned to a meso level, the level of indi-
vidual industries and economic regions, get multiplied and intensified there and
lead to uneven and unbalanced growth of many industry-based and regional sys-
tems, their structural incompleteness and instability, limited internal options for
enhanced reproductive performance and many other problems calling for immedi-
ate solutions.
I.N. Drogobytskij
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2020, № 3 52
At a micro level, the level of business enterprises, such imperfection of or-
ganizational management is most notably shown as a imbalance of their internal
operational mechanisms, uncoordinated interaction with other entities that leads
to violation of their integrity, suppression of reproductive processes and growth of
social tension between staff, managers and owners. Besides, the dominance of
autocratic leadership style is a reason for highly subjective managerial decisions,
it leads to deconsolidation of workforce and doesn’t help employees to seamlessly
combine their mental abilities and their roles in the reproduction process [13].
Still, the most notable impact that the imperfection of organizational
management has is registered with the last participant of economic activities —
individual — that is positioned at a nano level and completes the economic
hierarchy. Individual is under a constant pressure of both their own problems
(discontent with the workplace, job conditions, financial remuneration, growing
qualification requirements) and the problems of all the higher economic levels.
Targeted actions towards individuals should take into consideration their current
mental state [6] and their established behavioral patterns. Besides, the following
pattern should be regarded: the lower the individual is at the socioeconomic
ranking, the more difficult it is to make him or her change their behavior. So, the
uncertainty of organizational management at each level of economic hierarchy is
the essential trait of the current situation.
As it is known, any appearing/existing problem is a direct consequence of
non-consistency (inadequate consistency) in the researched field [8, p. 12].
Hence, to alter the negative tendencies in the organizational management
dynamics, we need to add (restore) its consistency, i.e. systematize it. We need to
move to a new, higher level of consistency, give life to a fading system of
organizational management and provide its further self-development, self-
sustainment and self-education.
SYSTEM DEFINITION OF ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Before moving directly to consistency of organizational management, let’s start
with its definition — what does “organizational management” consist of? The
semantic analysis of this phrase instantly leads us to a following conclusion. As
“management” means “administration”, the word “organizational” should obvi-
ously mean the area of applying these administrative activities, or creating a spe-
cial environment where purposeful managerial decisions will be made, taken and
implemented. As for the first option, the adjective is associated with organization
as an economic system classified as an object, for the second — with organization
as an economic system classified as an environment. So, the phrase “organiza-
tional management” refers to a special type of professional activity aimed at
managing economic systems where the key role belongs to people. In that case
the concepts of organizational management and organizational administration can
be considered synonyms and used simultaneously [14].
Still, to systemize the management science and for practical purposes it is
necessary to have a clear definition of their subject. As it was already mentioned,
the concepts of “management” and “administration” used to define human in-
fluence on development of enterprises, production processes, innovative projects,
organized markets, creative communities, professional organizations — every-
thing that covers the variety of organizational systems — are quite obvious and
Systematicity of organizational management
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2020, № 3 53
don’t require further explanations. It is a reality for practicing managers, so they
don’t bother about definitions while creating new regulations and processes or
giving verbal directions to staff members. But for scientists that study the theory
and/or methodology of organizational management, the absence of a clear defini-
tion for the researched subject causes major problems. When the definition is ab-
sent, all regulations, requirements and recommendations don’t always have a
solid theoretical basis and more often remind theoretical fantasies than scientific
results. In order to find a generally acceptable definition for organizational
management we will try to define and analyze its main features that reflect the
subject of this purposeful type of human activity.
Firstly, organizational management is an information process aimed to re-
duce entropy of the managed system. Entropy is the feature of a system that
describes the degree of its order and inner organization: the higher is the level of
organization the lower is the entropy and vice versa. With no management ap-
plied, the entropy is increasing, the system loses its structure and order, turns into
chaos. Organizational management prevents the system from degrading and shifting
to ambiguity. Fig. 1 shows the classic contour of organizational management. All
arrows represent information flows. I.e. procurement, transformation, analysis and
usage of information are inherently connected to management through all its life
cycle. Information is both the “daily bread” for organizational management (flows
S(t), Spl(t) and ∆S(t)) and its final accord (flow u(t+1)). Therefore, organizational
management doesn’t just consume information but also produces it.
Secondly, administrative activity is a manifestation of the manager’s/team’s
conscious desire to make a certain impact on the managed system, object, process,
project or background. Herewith they choose the most efficient (in their percep-
tion) instrument from a wide range of available administrative methods — issue
an order or an instruction, give verbal
directions, negotiate a contract for certain works or initiate a whole prear-
ranged action plan. Hence, management is a fruit of human brain. Emotions and
instincts that definitely accompany the processes of making, taking and imple-
menting administrative decisions are of a marginal significance.
Thirdly, the nature of organizational management is energetic. The ability of
a manager to influence the managed system can’t be explained other than by its
energy influence. Thus, if a person moves an item from one place to another, they
u(t+1)
Management
Subject
–
ΔS=Spl(t)–S(t)
S(t)Management
Body Spl(t)
Fig. 1. Classic organizational management contour: )(tS pl — planned system status at
the time point t; S(t) — actual system status at the time point t ; S — difference
between the planned and the actual system status; )1( tu — administrative impact on
the system at the next )1( t adsministrative step
I.N. Drogobytskij
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2020, № 3 54
perform a work; if they give a direction to another person to move the item —
they already perform a managerial activity. Administrative impact in this case is
similar to an actuated electric relay switch. Its momentum is energetically low but
leads to much more significant energetic results.
Despite not knowing yet the nature of managerial energy and the ways to
measure it, we still use it since long, in a rather efficient way. The energetic im-
peratives discussed on the pages of scientific publications — will, authority, en-
forcement and influence — are nothing else but certain types of managerial
energy [1, 7, 9]. Successful implementation of any managerial decision requires a
certain amount of each energy type and a proper combination of them. The ability
to concentrate a required amount of a case-specific managerial energy in a proper
place and at a proper time is the sign of high-level managerial skills that deserve
encouragement.
Fourthly, organizational management is a goal-oriented process. The goal of
the managed system is some kind of a beacon that a manager uses to organize and
drive other people’s efforts in order to continuously move towards that goal and
finally reach it. Management with no specific goal results in fruitless wandering
of the managed system in space and time, capable solely to fulfill the wannabe
manager’s maniacal ambitions. Lucius Annaeus Seneca has said once a great
phrase about this: “...When a man does not know what harbor he is making for, no
wind is the right wind”.
Those features of management — information, conscious, energetic and tar-
geting — are nothing else but signs of consistency. Looking at the seemingly con-
tinuous managerial process U from the point of the systems theory, we can see its
elements (managerial impacts) ui that are applied not randomly but in a very spe-
cific order
iuuuU ,,, 11 .
More so, each managerial impact is a symbiosis of three acts
321
,, iiii uuuu , ,,2,1 i
where
1i
u is an act of making a managerial decision;
2i
u is an act of taking a managerial decision;
3i
u is an act of implementing a managerial decision.
Such conscious, sequence-aligned and goal-oriented synergy of elements is
the most valid evidence of consistency [8]. Hence, managerial activity is
systematic, and this fact allows us to use the whole lot of the powerful system
methodology for its analysis. First, it can be used to restore the consistency of
organizational management at a certain enterprise in case it was lost.
The above-mentioned concepts related to organizational management are
quite enough to synthesize its new, system definition. It can be formulated as fol-
lows: organizational management is a cognitive, informational and energy impact
applied to the system and its immediate surroundings that pursues the goal to resolve
the problems preventing its harmonious functioning and dynamic development.
This definition explains that the goal of organizational management is to dis-
cover, configure, find solutions and directly eliminate problems arising on the
way of a functioning and dynamically developing economic system. Furthermore,
Systematicity of organizational management
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2020, № 3 55
a functioning system is associated with expanded production of goods and ser-
vices in accordance with its mission (intended purpose) while development relates
to modifying the inner structure of the system to make it better fulfill its mission
and reach assigned strategic goals.
No management is needed where no problems are registered, and no prob-
lems are registered when there is no dynamic development (life). So, to manage is
to set and clear a mission-life path in space and time for the managed system to
follow. Metaphorically speaking, managers in economic systems perform the
same functions as sweepers in curling, ice-breaking ships in winter navigation or
evangelists in religion. They should neutralize all inner troubles and outer turmoil
and provide comfortable conditions for the managed system, allowing it to func-
tion and develop. Such interpretation of organizational management explains why
management goes far beyond the physical boundaries of managed systems.
Organizational management is currently very popular. Each year new forces
are getting involved, managerial scope and complexity are growing, number of
educational institutions that produce managers for the national economy is in-
creasing. In order to provide the required methodological support for the latter,
many manuals, study guides, audio and video tutorials are produced. Being issued
by various authors that belong to different scientific traditions, those educational
materials sometimes contradict each other and blur the current situation instead of
clarifying it.
The point is, scientific world hasn’t reached the consensus yet about the na-
ture of organizational management. Some regard management as an art of finding
the right way to develop the managed system at the competitive market, others
interpret it as an act of force that makes the system strictly follow (function and
develop) a fixed path in space and time, while some connect it to the self-
regulation and self-development of the system, mediated by its managers. De-
pending on the author’s preferences about the nature of management, we get a
varying content that cannot be brought to a common standard. This is the reason
why knowledge in management is not codified, certified or measured, as it is in
engineering, medicine or military science. Teaching in management still uses
more qualitative references — authoritative, intuitive, balanced — than quantita-
tive. So, the first step in systematizing organizational management is to structure
and zone its domain.
FUNDAMENTALS OF ZONING IN ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Systematizing of organization management is a multifaceted process of adding
(restoring) consistency to the methods and instruments used in making, taking and
implementing managerial decisions. While doing so, we should take into con-
sideration the natural identity of managerial activities. Following the Henry
Mintzberg theory [15, p. 143), I dare assume that this identity is based on four
fundamental cornerstones — craft, science, art and vocation. The weight of each
cornerstone in different management entities, whether it is a team or a standalone
manager, is very individual, and it gives a distinctive charm to their managerial
activity. Such differences can be taken as a basis for structuring the management
domain.
Craft is present in those areas of human activity where production or
management knowledge is not subject to formalization and thus are unalienable
I.N. Drogobytskij
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2020, № 3 56
from its bearer. Transition of knowledge, skills and experience in such areas is
possible only when master-teacher and apprentice-student work in tandem. It ap-
pears that all kinds of professional activities in various historical periods have
witnessed the crafting stage in passing knowledge, skills and experience. The
crafting period ended only when the required knowledge got described by algo-
rithms, standards and procedures in instructions, regulations, manuals and guides,
when professional trainings got concentrated in special educational institutions,
from trade schools to universities.
In management this transition from craftsmanship to professionalism isn’t
complete yet. While in manufacturing, military art and construction the human-
kind has already switched to professional management trainings, the same kind of
trainings in culture, sports, medicine, governmental and municipal administration
has started in the current millennium, while the politics, science and art still train
their managers and administrators through craftsmanship methods. Even the do-
mains of human activity where management trainings have been set to profes-
sional footing, “craftsmen” are still present, which is not legislatively permitted in
the other areas. For example, it is hard to imagine a person with no professional
background that would legitimately practice as a doctor or a lawyer.
Science in any domain is associated with systematization, development and
practical application of knowledge obtained while researching its subject. Hu-
mankind has been trying to understand the scientific nature of management during
the whole period of its history [14]. During the last 100 years these attempts have
acquired a specific purposefulness and materialized in a whole range of theoreti-
cal concepts, including the Frederick Taylor theory of scientific management, the
Chester Barnard theory of organization, the George Mayo and Fritz Roethlisber-
ger theory of human relationships, the Herbert Simon informational paradigm of
management, the Michael Porter concept of strategic management, The Thomas
Peters, Robert Waterman, Edgar Schein and Jeffrey Pfeffer theory of organiza-
tional culture, the integrational concept of management by Peter Draker, Peter
Senge, Coimbatore Prahalad, Gary Hamel, George Stalk, James Evans and Zi-
novy Shulman, the Ichak Adizes style theory of management, the concept of be-
havioral economy by Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tverski, Richard Tyler and others
[1, 5, 10, 16]. Such an impressive list of theoretical concepts in management is
another proof that this domain lacks of a generally acknowledged scientific theory
for its main subject — organizational management.
The absence of the general theory of management partially explains poor
condition of its practical part. Practicing managers that make, take and implement
specific managerial decisions can rely on anything: theoretical concepts of
management that are traditional for their company or call to them, main
commandments of their religion, utilitarian philosophy, their own intuition, their
current mood etc. As a result, organizational management is often chaotic, with
incoherent actions and absence of inner logic in administrative decisions.
Art plays a huge role in modern management; it is associated with inspira-
tion caused by the manager’s rising spiritual and physical energy. In turn, the art
of management is built on intuition that is perceived as a solution of a certain ad-
ministrative task through subconscious analysis of the current situation, with no
understanding of its inner logics and/or insufficient information and/or absence of
a standard search-for-solution pattern. Strong concentration, aggregation of all
available information, high level of knowledge and expertise in the activity field
of the managed entity form the triad of necessary conditions required for the
Systematicity of organizational management
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2020, № 3 57
search of an intuitive (creative) solution for any administrative task. Sufficient
conditions arise from the manager’s higher nervous activity as a result of a
heightened attention level, activated memory, broadened perception and new level
of consciousness, all referring to the field of psychology.
Intuitive management requires a high amount of knowledge in behavioural
science, human relationships, management ethics as well as ability to adapt this
knowledge to the context. Professional expertise in the field of the managed entity
is a must for a person in the managerial position, and the higher the level of ex-
pertise is, the better. Surely, intuitive management is referred as one of the new
types of human activity that lack of standard, formal algorithms of making and
taking administrative decisions, or one of the areas where such formalization is
basically impossible. Still, that doesn’t mean that traditional areas where such al-
gorithms exist and constantly develop, give no place for intuitive management. In
this case we should talk only about the balance of formal and intuitive, traditional
and creative, old and new, craft and art [7]. Wishing to make new steps in order to
improve the practical aspects of management, we have to not only address famil-
iar patterns and standard procedures but also perceive the hidden reality, making
scientific hypotheses and showing creative initiative.
Vocation in management is often considered as a desire to perform as
a manager. In my earnest belief, inner motivation to manage is just a necessary
condition of vocation. True vocation, along with the desire, should also include
sufficient conditions, namely specific abilities and required (at least basic) level
of knowledge.
Vocation-driven managers are always suitable for their position. Trying to
fulfill their ambitions, on the one hand, and justify the credit of confidence from
staff members/entity/executive who has appointed them to the position, on the
other hand, they have a creative view on their responsibilities, they experiment
and, at the end, achieve visible success. Such managers are usually not afraid to
take responsibility, are able to set balanced relationships between staff members,
create an enabling environment and, of course, are well regarded by both their
colleagues and external stakeholders.
It is not uncommon that in situations of extreme gravity the managing posi-
tion goes to a professional with huge expertise but no desire to manage. Such
members of management team are called “necessity managers” [19]. They usually
combine the managing responsibilities with the work they have done before being
promoted (for example, university president keeps teaching students and being the
head of department, director of a medical center keeps treating patients, film di-
rector keeps acting and performs one of the leading parts along with directing a
show or a movie). Considering the fact that management is not a job that can be
done without sincere desire, such “necessity managers” do not stay long in their
positions. They “bear the weight” of managing till they find someone suitable to
replace them and convince staff members/entity/executive who has appointed
them, of their choice, or eventually they stop being “necessity managers” and
fully dedicate themselves to management.
The worst case is when the managerial position goes to a person with “re-
duced” vocation — they have motivation to manage but lack of abilities and
knowledge — not unusual in the Russian practice. This self-assured know-
nothing is not just unable to provide further development of the managed system
but even can’t support its existing level of operations. The arrival of such
manager is usually the sign of a system starting to fade.
I.N. Drogobytskij
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2020, № 3 58
MANAGEMENT STYLISTICS
It is reasonable to suggest that the four basic elements of management, mentioned
above, somehow define the stylistic focus of organizational management in each
single case. They, so to speak, create a certain stylistic circuit that encompasses
every existing and described, as well as unknown and undescribed styles (man-
ners) of practical management. Below you can find one of the options to organize
such circuit.
Consecutive analysis of different style dominants, set in pairings, makes us
assume that they all create certain continuous multitudes where one style feature
slips into another: “science – art”, “science – craft”, “science – vocation”, “art –
craft”, “art – vocation”, “vocation – craft”. Combining these continuous se-
quences, we get a certain closed area (circle), or better say, sphere that cuts the
space of organizational management from unorganized surroundings (Fig. 2).
Each corner — “craft”, “science”, “art”, “vocation” — is associated with a certain
gravity force that tends to give its style tinge to the style of management, typical
for the manager caught in the organizational management force field. So, the cor-
ners in the mentioned diagram refer to “pure” organizational management styles
that are almost never present in real life, while the whole closed space is dis-
tributed between existing practical styles of management in accordance with their
preference for one or another corner. Therefore, we can define 13 style variations
of management.
This diagram has a clear sectoral structure. The base of each sector is formed
by a curve with the center in the corner that refers to one of four fundamental
Analytic Searching
Creative
Artful
Amateur Authoritarian
Conven-
tional
Innovative
Intellectual
Orange
Ambitious
Intuitive
Balanced Art
Vocation
Craft
Science
Fig. 2. Style space of organizational management
Systematicity of organizational management
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2020, № 3 59
elements of management — craft, science, art or vocation. All four sectors end in
the same point (or, better say, same area) that is associated with the balanced or
systematic style of organizational management. Each basic corner at the border of
the organized management space is adjoined by two style variations of manage-
ment, while another one, together with the cross-functional balanced variation of
management, marks the smooth transition of its style feature to the opposite sector.
So, the “science” corner is closely bordered on the analytical style where the
science methods are primarily used to define current achievements, development
trends in the managed entity that generally don’t cross the border of existing tradi-
tions and experience, and on the searching style where, along with the science
methods, there is a clear inclination to intuitive elements that work as indicators
of creative approach that gravitates towards arts. Transition to the opposite sector
is made through the intellectual style of management based on the mental model
of managerial activities [6], the model that reflects individual features of making,
taking and implementing managerial decisions.
The “art” corner is closely bordered on the creative and artful styles of
management. In creative management art works as an instrument for searching
unconventional, unorthodox approaches to management that still have a scientific
base and a practical application in other domains of human activity. The artful
style of management implies synthesis and implementation of managerial deci-
sions “from scratch”. It doesn’t suppose any inherent scientific ground for these
decisions. Such ground may appear later as a result of a theoretical conceptualiza-
tion of the managerial decision made by a talented creative person with the voca-
tion. The intuitive style of management is a derivative of creative and artful and
serves as a first step of transitioning to the opposite sector, it tends to fit the deci-
sions already made, to the Procrustean bed of the traditional (craft) approach.
The “vocation” corner is bordered on authoritarian and amateur styles of
management. The authoritarian style is defined by a highly centralized executive
team, disregard of staff opinions, strict discipline, rejection of subordinates’ initia-
tives. The amateur style of management is bordered with the artful style but it
doesn’t require from the manager to have a mandatory methodological back-
ground and a solid knowledge base. This style is included in the general style dia-
gram to reflect the existence of people who serve as managers without any profes-
sional managerial education. The ambitious style of management takes an
intermediate position at the “vocation – science” axis. It is typical for high-tech
enterprises. Ambitious leaders that rarely disclose their thoughts, so their subordi-
nates frequently have to guess what exactly they have to do usually lead them.
The “craft” corner is bordered with the conventional and the innovative
styles of management. The conventional style of organizational management is
typical for many traditional areas of business. The etymology of the word speaks
for itself: making, taking and implementing managerial decisions is performed in
accordance with existing conventions and doesn’t suppose creative break-
throughs. It is not by chance that this style of management stands close to the au-
thoritarian style that is considered the standard of management. The innovative
style of management is effected within the borders of the traditional pattern of
making, taking and implementing managerial decisions but allows (and stimu-
lates) improvisation targeted to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of
management. As every managerial decision is based on three acts (making, taking
I.N. Drogobytskij
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2020, № 3 60
and implementing the decision), the abilities of the innovative style of manage-
ment are almost unlimited. The Orange style of management takes the intermedi-
ate position at the “craft – art” axis and defines the highest level of conventional
and innovative styles. It unconventionally interprets the conventional pattern,
using both scientific approaches and elements of creativity (art).
The central position of the diagram is taken by the balanced, or systematic
style of management that seamlessly combines all four fundamental basics —
craft, science, art and vocation. In managerial activities it should be associated
with the ideal reference that all managers must strive to achieve. It requires a
radical revision of study plans to provide such managers for the national economy.
A decent place should be given to new courses — management psychology,
management culture, theory of organizational systems, theory of practice etc. —
many of those are to be created yet [7, p. 134].
Unfortunately, in real life we have to deal with a highly unbalanced
management. Some cases show total predomination of a certain element, and the
management gravitates towards degenerative styles that can affect the managed
entity in a negative way: a degenerative science style can lead to excess mercan-
tilism; a degenerative art style — to narcissism (self-admiration); pure vocation
can degenerate into “absolute monarchy” while pure craft — to conservatism,
when the manager refuses to go beyond their personal managerial experience.
Even a combination of just two elements leads to a troubled management. Science
and art without craft and vocation lead to distracted style of management, out of
synch from reality. Science and craft without art and vocation mean withered
(spiritless) style of management. Craft and vocation without art and science can
lead to the fading style of management, while a combination of art and vocation
without science and craft creates the adventurous style of management that can
bring disasters and terminate the business at any moment.
Success is available only in case of a more or less balanced management,
based on all four management dominants. In this regard, it is strongly recom-
mended to evaluate the balance of organizational management, performed by each
manager and the managerial team as a whole [12].
SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
As it is known, axiomatics and content of organizational management are defined
by the management body and the management subject. Consistency levels of or-
ganizational management are discerned depending on their structuredness, or-
ganization and systematization.
Management body is an agglomeration of all components of the managed
system that require managerial actions: elements, their interconnections, outbound
connections, factors that influence the system and its surroundings, technological
processes, financial flows etc. All mentioned components must be bound in a
general operated agglomeration or connected to the managed domain. Certain
moments from the list can move the boundaries of the domain far beyond the bor-
ders of the managed system. If the elements are not connected, at least partially,
or their connection is not holistic, we are dealing with a non-systematic domain of
various levels of non-consistency.
Systematicity of organizational management
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2020, № 3 61
Management subject is usually formed by a group of people who have been
delegated the authority to make, take and implement managerial decisions for the
managed system. There are various levels of the management entity consistency,
depending on how their executive authorities for certain elements of the managed
domain are distributed, the way they interact with each other while making,
taking and implementing managerial decisions, and the frequency of applying for
external services. The highest level of consistency is attributed to the complemen-
tary management team able to be flexible and adaptable to the changes in activi-
ties and growth of the managed system. Not hard to guess that the main responsi-
bility for the consistency of the management subject goes to the organizational
structure [5, 15]. This is where each member of the management team gets their
specific area of management, their authorities, instruments of coercion and
influence, as well as determines relationships with other team members.
Certain system types of management are defined, depending on the level of
consistency in the management subject and the management entity. The Table
presents a basic typology of organizational management consistency that can be
significantly extended in both directions if needed.
Basic Typology of Organizational Management Consistency
Management Entity
Management Subject
Non-systematic Systematic
Non-systematic Manual management Institutional management
Systematic Strategic management System management
If a non-systematic Subject is managed by a non-systematic subject, we can
see manual management. For every specific problem arising throughout the func-
tioning and development of the system, an individual decision is made by one of
the members of the disconnected management team who can yet be affiliated to a
certain group of people. Should the same problem arising again, the team member
and the decision can be completely different.
If a well-structured and systematically organized subject takes the decision
for a problem arising in a non-systematic management entity, we are dealing with
institutional management. That means that decision-making is delegated to a cer-
tain member of the management team, and they take it in accordance with exist-
ing rules, regulations, traditions and other institutions shared with other partici-
pants of the management process. There is a strict navigation of problems in the
management subject (team), defined by the manager authorities appointed
through the distribution of rights and duties within the management team.
If a problem arises in a well-structured management subject but the manage-
rial decision leading to its elimination or reduction of its negative influence on the
managed system and/or its surroundings is made by a not completely structured
management team (management entity), based on the principles, rules and pat-
terns traditional for their strategy of growth, we witness strategic management. It
is not hard to guess that the detailed strategy for the foreseeable future is a result
of the properly structured and systematized management entity.
I.N. Drogobytskij
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2020, № 3 62
Finally, if a problem arises in a systematized subject and an integral manage-
ment team “packed” in a flexible organizational structure takes the decision, we
can see systematic (balanced) management. In that case the decision-making per-
son (DMP) has credible resources to consider all nuances of the current condition
of the system, predict desired values of managed parameters for the foreseeable
future and find the solution that will allow it to function and develop harmoniously
at the current stage.
In order to implement system management it is essential to ensure that re-
viewing and systematization of the management subject, on the one hand, and
creation and system structuring of the management team, on the other hand, are
effected concurrently and stay harmoniously united throughout the whole life cy-
cle of the managed system. The practical implementation of this rule requires its
further elaboration to a certain set of rules (principles) that should be taken in
consideration while adding consistency to the management subject and manage-
ment entity. We will briefly mention its key moments.
Organizational management subject should be planned very thoroughly, con-
sequently drawing its parts with consideration to every element, connection, fac-
tor, technological process, financial flow, social aspect that will be subjected to
management afterwards. At this stage it becomes obvious that some parts need to
be expanded (broadened), others, to the contrary, are to be reduced and made
more compact, while some will need to be built from the scratch. As a result of
connecting all parts into an integral entity, we get the expected systematic man-
agement subject that will become the scene for the management entity’s activities
in the foreseeable future.
Depending of the entity that requires management, we need to create a team
of managers and build an adequate organizational management structure. We
should take into consideration not only professional requirements for the managers
that will be responsible for this or that element (subsystem) of the management
subject but also the desired style of management that depends on the subsystem
type and on the management subject. Such two-dimensional specifics of the man-
agement team members (their profiles and management styles) allows us to create
a holistic, functional team where the weaknesses of some members are compen-
sated by the strengths of others, and their joint efforts are goal-oriented and sys-
tematic [7, 9].
With the task of matching the management subject area and the management
team’s powers of authority, timelines of their life cycles are to be taken into con-
sideration. If the management team’s (management entity’s) life cycle is signifi-
cantly shorter than the management subject (managed system) life cycle, there is a
risk of time-servers who will care only about their own interests at the expense of
the managed system and its surroundings. In that case management designers
should implement strict formalized procedures for recruiting, arranging and rotat-
ing executives. If the management team’s life cycle is significantly longer than
the life cycle of the managed system — a typical situation for project and process
systems [11, 12, 13], then we should think about properly using the highly quali-
fied executives after the life cycle of the system is over.
Systematization of the management subject and the management entity cul-
minates into the system synthesis, or coherent integration of those essential com-
ponents of organizational management into a holistic management system. De-
Systematicity of organizational management
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2020, № 3 63
pending on its system type, on the one hand, and predominant trends in its super-
system, on the other hand, a general prognosis for the management system is
made for the foreseeable future, principles (rules) of interaction with external en-
vironment are formulated, strategic vision perspectives are defined.
The objects with the system management have a real opportunity to delegate
management activities to external, highly professional companies that focus on
remote services. Remote system management supports long-term consistency,
balance and integrity of the managed system, allowing it to switch from total
monitoring and control of the area to discrete management that implies sampling
analysis of key parameters and managerial actions in certain control points. In the
interim the distantly controlled system is left to its own devices that allows it to
fully deploy its inner reserves of self-education, self-improvement and self-
development.
CONCLUSION
The main reason of numerous unsolvable problems that accompany the develop-
ment of the modern civilization is the non-consistency of organizational manage-
ment. To overcome it, we need to systematize methodology, instruments, tech-
nologies and processes that are used in making, taking and implementing
managerial decisions. Our humble attempts to draw a picture of the future sys-
tematization, made in this article, convince us that it is a very hard and bold scien-
tific task that requires many intellectual, material and financial resources. Still,
the studies on the systematization of organizational management are to be started
immediately, so that we could find faster the ways to solve unsolvable tasks.
REFERENCES
1. I. Adizes, The Ideal Executive: Why You Cannot Be One and What to Do About It.
Moscow, 2007, 263 p. (in Russian).
2. A.V. Buhvalov and V.S. Kat'kalo, “From the Origins of Researches in Management
to New Paradigms: Analysis of Innovative Companies”, Russian Journal of Man-
agement, no. 6 (4), pp. 49–60, 2012 (in Russian).
3. V.A. Dresvyanikov, “The Concept of Intellectual Management”, Management in
Russia and Abroad, no. 1, pp. 100–105, 2014 (in Russian).
4. K.S. Drogobyckaya and I.N. Drogobyckij, Architectural Models of Economic Sys-
tems. Moscow, 2014, 301 p. (in Russian).
5. A.I. Drogobyckij, Corporate Management in the Knowledge Economy. Moscow,
2008, 150 p. (in Russian).
6. I.N. Drogobyckij, “Menthal Models in Economy”, Economics Science in Modern
Russia, no. 1 (84), pp. 7–14, 2019.
7. I.N. Drogobyckij, System Сybernation in Organizational Management. Moscow,
2016, 333 p. (in Russian).
8. I.N. Drogobyckij, System Analysis in Economics. Moscow, 2017, 423 p. (in Russian).
9. V.M. Zotov, Intellectual Property Managing System in Hi-Tech Holding Groups.
Moscow, 2018, 159 p. (in Russian).
10. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Moscow, 2016, 653 p. (in Russian).
11. G.B. Kleiner, “New Theory of Economic Systems and Its Practical Application”,
Journal of Russian Academy of Science, no. 9, pp. 89–100, 2011 (in Russian).
I.N. Drogobytskij
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2020, № 3 64
12. G.B. Kleiner and M.A. Rybachuk, Systematically Balanced Economy. Moscow,
2017, 320 p. (in Russian).
13. G.B. Kleiner, “System Paradigm and System Management”, Russian Journal of
Management, no. 6 (3), pp. 27–50, 2008 (in Russian).
14. I.I. Mazur, V.D. Shapiro, and N.G. Olderogge, General History of Management.
Moscow, 2018, 888 p. (in Russian).
15. H. Mintzberg, Managing. Moscow, 2011, 288 p. (in Russian).
16. R. Thaler, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Mos-
cow, 2018, 240 p. (in Russian).
17. M. Buckingham, “What Great Managers Do”, Harward business rewiew, no. 83(3),
pp. 70–79, 2005 (in English).
18. P. Goleman, “Leadership that Gets Results”, Harward business rewiew, March–
April, pp. 78–90, 2000 (in English).
19. T. Watson, “How Do Managers Think”, Management learning, no. 27 (3), pp.78–90,
1996 (in English).
Received 19.10.2020
INFORMATION ON THE ARTICLE
Ivan N. Drogobytskij, ORCID: 0000-0002-9982-0361,Financial University, Moscow, e-
mail: dinind@mail.ru
ОСНОВИ СИСТЕМІЗАЦІЇ ОРГАНІЗАЦІЙНОГО МЕНЕДЖМЕНТУ / І.М. Дрогобицький
Анотація. Організаційний менеджмент є найслабшою ланкою в розвитку су-
часної цивілізації, що породжує низку проблем на всіх рівнях її ієрархії. Для їх
вирішення необхідно впорядкувати, удосконалити і розширити наявний ін-
струментально-методичний арсенал організаційного менеджменту, надати йо-
му системного характеру, забезпечивши результативність та ефективність його
практичного використання. Зроблено спробу окреслити перелік і зміст очіку-
ваних робіт. Інтегруючи їх з метою системізації, тобто процесу надан-
ня/відновлення системності організаційного менеджменту, розглянуто вихідні
положення цього процесу – визначення, фундаментальні основи, різноманіт-
ність стилів та системна типологія – які покликані зорієнтувати зацікавленого
читача предметною галуззю нового наукового напряму.
Ключові слова: система, менеджмент, управління, наука, мистецтво, ремесло,
покликання, стиль управління.
ОСНОВЫ СИСТЕМИЗАЦИИ ОРГАНИЗАЦИОННОГО МЕНЕДЖМЕНТА / И.Н. Дро-
гобыцкий
Аннотация. Организационный менеджмент является самым слабым звеном
в развитии современной цивилизации, что порождает множество проблем на
всех уровнях её иерархии. Для их решения необходимо упорядочить, совер-
шенствовать и расширить имеющийся инструментально-методологический ар-
сенал организационного менеджмента, придать ему системный характер, обес-
печив тем самым результативность и эффективность его практического
применения. Предпринята попытка очертить состав и содержание предстоя-
щих работ. Интегрируя их с целью системизации т.е. процесса прида-
ния/восстановления системности организационному менеджменту, рассмотре-
ны его исходные предпосылки – определение, фундаментальные основы,
стилевое разнообразие и системная типология – которые призваны сориен-
тировать заинтересованного читателя в предметной области нового науч-
ного направления.
Ключевые слова: система, менеджмент, управление, наука, искусство, ремес-
ло, призвание, стиль управления, системная типология управления.
Systematicity of organizational management
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2020, № 3 65
REFERENCES
1. I. Adizes, The Ideal Executive: Why You Cannot Be One and What to Do About It.
Moscow, 2007, 263 p. (in Russian).
2. A.V. Buhvalov and V.S. Kat'kalo, “From the Origins of Researches in Management
to New Paradigms: Analysis of Innovative Companies”, Russian Journal of Man-
agement, no. 6 (4), pp. 49–60, 2012 (in Russian).
3. V.A. Dresvyanikov, “The Concept of Intellectual Management”, Management in
Russia and Abroad, no. 1, pp. 100–105, 2014 (in Russian).
4. K.S. Drogobyckaya and I.N. Drogobyckij, Architectural Models of Economic Sys-
tems. Moscow, 2014, 301 p. (in Russian).
5. A.I. Drogobyckij, Corporate Management in the Knowledge Economy. Moscow,
2008, 150 p. (in Russian).
6. I.N. Drogobyckij, “Menthal Models in Economy”, Economics Science in Modern
Russia, no. 1 (84), pp. 7–14, 2019.
7. I.N. Drogobyckij, System Сybernation in Organizational Management. Moscow,
2016, 333 p. (in Russian).
8. I.N. Drogobyckij, System Analysis in Economics. Moscow, 2017, 423 p. (in Russian).
9. V.M. Zotov, Intellectual Property Managing System in Hi-Tech Holding Groups.
Moscow, 2018, 159 p. (in Russian).
10. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Moscow, 2016, 653 p. (in Russian).
11. G.B. Kleiner, “New Theory of Economic Systems and Its Practical Application”,
Journal of Russian Academy of Science, no. 9, pp. 89–100, 2011 (in Russian).
12. G.B. Kleiner and M.A. Rybachuk, Systematically Balanced Economy. Moscow,
2017, 320 p. (in Russian).
13. G.B. Kleiner, “System Paradigm and System Management”, Russian Journal of
Management, no. 6 (3), pp. 27–50, 2008 (in Russian).
14. I.I. Mazur, V.D. Shapiro, and N.G. Olderogge, General History of Management.
Moscow, 2018, 888 p. (in Russian).
15. H. Mintzberg, Managing. Moscow, 2011, 288 p. (in Russian).
16. R. Thaler, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Mos-
cow, 2018, 240 p. (in Russian).
17. M. Buckingham, “What Great Managers Do”, Harward business rewiew, no. 83(3),
pp. 70–79, 2005 (in English).
18. P. Goleman, “Leadership that Gets Results”, Harward business rewiew, March–
April, pp. 78–90, 2000 (in English).
19. T. Watson, “How Do Managers Think”, Management learning, no. 27 (3), pp.78–90,
1996 (in English).
|
| id | journaliasakpiua-article-214561 |
| institution | System research and information technologies |
| keywords_txt_mv | keywords |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-07-17T10:26:49Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | The National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute" |
| record_format | ojs |
| resource_txt_mv | journaliasakpiua/8f/8114255ec3596a8e3ef0685b6affb28f.pdf |
| spelling | journaliasakpiua-article-2145612021-01-19T12:18:25Z Systematicity of organizational management Основы системизации организационного менеджмента Основи системізації організаційного менеджменту Drogobytskij, Ivan N. system management administration science art skills vocation style of management systematic management typology система менеджмент управління наука мистецтво ремесло покликання стиль управління система менеджмент управление наука искусство ремесло призвание стиль управления системная типология управления Organizational management is the weakest element in the evolution of the modern civilization. It creates a lot of problems at all levels of its hierarchy that have not been solved for a long time. Overcoming these problems requires streamlining, improving and enhancing the instrumental methodological arsenal of organizational management, creating a system and thus guaranteeing results and efficiency of its practical use. In this article, we make an attempt to formulate the ideas and content for further studies. Integrating them in the systemizing stream, i.e. building/restoring the systematic character of organizational management, this article addresses its basics, such as definitions, fundamental principles, the style difference and system typology that should create main landmarks in the field of a new scientific approach to an interested reader. Организационный менеджмент является самым слабым звеном в развитии современной цивилизации, что порождает множество проблем на всех уровнях её иерархии. Для их решения необходимо упорядочить, совершенствовать и расширить имеющийся инструментально-методологический арсенал организационного менеджмента, придать ему системный характер, обеспечив тем самым результативность и эффективность его практического применения. Предпринята попытка очертить состав и содержание предстоящих работ. Интегрируя их с целью системизации т.е. процесса придания/восстановления системности организационному менеджменту, рассмотрены его исходные предпосылки – определение, фундаментальные основы, стилевое разнообразие и системная типология – которые призваны сориентировать заинтересованного читателя в предметной области нового научного направления. Організаційний менеджмент є найслабшою ланкою в розвитку сучасної цивілізації, що породжує низку проблем на всіх рівнях її ієрархії. Для їх вирішення необхідно впорядкувати, удосконалити і розширити наявний інструментально-методичний арсенал організаційного менеджменту, надати йому системного характеру, забезпечивши результативність та ефективність його практичного використання. Зроблено спробу окреслити перелік і зміст очікуваних робіт. Інтегруючи їх з метою системізації, тобто процесу надання/відновлення системності організаційного менеджменту, розглянуто вихідні положення цього процесу – визначення, фундаментальні основи, різноманітність стилів та системна типологія – які покликані зорієнтувати зацікавленого читача предметною галуззю нового наукового напряму. The National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute" 2020-12-07 Article Article application/pdf https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/214561 10.20535/SRIT.2308-8893.2020.3.04 System research and information technologies; No. 3 (2020); 51-65 Системные исследования и информационные технологии; № 3 (2020); 51-65 Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології; № 3 (2020); 51-65 2308-8893 1681-6048 en https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/214561/223563 Copyright (c) 2021 System research and information technologies |
| spellingShingle | система менеджмент управління наука мистецтво ремесло покликання стиль управління Drogobytskij, Ivan N. Основи системізації організаційного менеджменту |
| title | Основи системізації організаційного менеджменту |
| title_alt | Systematicity of organizational management Основы системизации организационного менеджмента |
| title_full | Основи системізації організаційного менеджменту |
| title_fullStr | Основи системізації організаційного менеджменту |
| title_full_unstemmed | Основи системізації організаційного менеджменту |
| title_short | Основи системізації організаційного менеджменту |
| title_sort | основи системізації організаційного менеджменту |
| topic | система менеджмент управління наука мистецтво ремесло покликання стиль управління |
| topic_facet | system management administration science art skills vocation style of management systematic management typology система менеджмент управління наука мистецтво ремесло покликання стиль управління система менеджмент управление наука искусство ремесло призвание стиль управления системная типология управления |
| url | https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/214561 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT drogobytskijivann systematicityoforganizationalmanagement AT drogobytskijivann osnovysistemizaciiorganizacionnogomenedžmenta AT drogobytskijivann osnovisistemízacííorganízacíjnogomenedžmentu |