Philosophy of Management

The System and Systematicity as Categories of Management Philosophy

Causality and objective purposiveness must first be established in connection with their systematic or elementally systematic content. It is essential to recognize that managerial relations and managerial activities, as self-developing entities, are interconnected through correlative, spatial, and functional relationships that form a system. This system sustains the interconnection of its elements, functioning as a unified entity where each component fulfills its designated functions.

For a manager, it is vital to comprehend the complexity of the system, the degree of autonomy of its elements, whether they have the potential to function as a system on their own, or whether their independence is contingent upon other elements. Consequently, an analysis of the system necessitates knowledge of its structure and the functions of each element, taking into account their individualized existence. This understanding enables the elements of the system to engage in correlative relationships, meaning relationships that determine the transformation of the entire system in response to changes in one of its components. In management and other phenomena, manifestations of correlation include coordination, subordination, and functional connections. However, a fundamental property of the system is its alignment with developmental trajectories under given parameters based on the laws governing the operation and evolution of its structure in time and space at a defined rhythm.

In real managerial practice, this process occurs in various forms, the effectiveness of which is determined by the internal coherence of the system and its ability to connect with other systems.

The spatial relationships of the system encompass both internal and external aspects. The internal aspect pertains to the nature and mechanisms of interaction among its elements, particularly within the system of managerial relations and activities. The external aspect represents not merely the interconnection with other systems (economic, spiritual), but specifically that interconnection which is necessary and sufficient for the normal (stable, dynamic) functioning and development of managerial relations and activities.

Functional connections manifest in the self-organization of the system. Therefore, each function should be assessed in terms of its energy potential, its capacity to realize the system's potential within strictly defined parameters that are sufficient for the system, facilitating normal interaction among its elements while avoiding excessive strain or internal destruction—not only of the system as a whole but also of its individual components. Moreover, the notion that one should consider such elements of the system and the systems themselves in a historical context as objectively relevant to a particular developmental stage of the system of production relations does not weaken but rather strengthens this thesis. In any social system, especially in production, the established state of managerial relations and activities does not justify this state; it merely explains it. Real managerial structures encompass managerial relations on two levels, although these levels are primarily analytical, as any managerial relation constitutes a structure with its own elements and hierarchy. The managerial institutes and actors serve as the elements of the system of managerial relations.

Managerial relations, in a scientific sense, like any other relations, represent a certain abstraction from the real object, an abstraction that allows us to qualify them as a structure possessing the necessary parameters for such qualification. Managerial activity directly reflects and services these relations, deriving from them as its foundational source, thereby integrating into the system of managerial relations. Systemic correlative relations are present and expressed through functional and spatial connections, providing a basis to view managerial relations and activities as a systemic entity. This quality is easily discerned when analyzing the responses of the subjects of managerial relations to real processes occurring in all spheres of social life. It exhibits an autonomous character and may be more or less effective; in this regard, systematicity constitutes the mutual alteration of elements within a given state.

Furthermore, the autonomy of managerial relations and activities reflects their systematic nature, linking societal practice with the challenges it faces. Managerial relations and activities exist in a constant interdependence that is greatly complicated by the peculiarities of each element. It is important to note that managerial relations are characterized by a significant objective potential, whereas managerial activity is more subjective. Thus, their mutual correlation particularly necessitates modes of systemic existence such as coordination, subordination, and redistribution of functions. Adjusting the system through these connections to a specified state serves as an indicator of its effectiveness.

Managerial systematicity is a contradictory entity, arising from this very contradiction—a social disharmony that, in essence, generates managerial relations. Consequently, the objects influenced by management do not appear in a pure, “managerial” form; they invariably possess their own essence, functioning at the level of management. In this context, managerial systematicity represents a component of social systematicity that reflects and services it. However, such a state of managerial systematicity does not imply the absence of essential systemic qualities; rather, these qualities possess an autonomous nature, though this autonomy is sometimes perceived in societal consciousness as prevailing or decisive—especially since social practice often fully corroborates its real condition. Typically, it is in this capacity that managerial systematicity is studied.

To assert that managerial relations are systematic must come with certain caveats. These caveats primarily relate to the need for precise identification of the objective guarantees of managerial systematicity, as history contains ample instances where systems were characterized by artificially linked elements lacking a common source of vitality. One such entity is the market economic system, which gives rise to its systemic properties. Identifying these properties is insufficient; it is not merely the commonality of private ownership (as it does not unite) but the "kinship" of levels of overall development that generated its systemic characteristics. This level has undergone sharp changes favoring one or a group of countries. The kinship of ownership did not yield guaranteed systemic properties in the former socialist system precisely because it lacked objective universal civilizational integration, instead manifesting as a political construct where systematicity did not reveal itself.

Systematicity in institutional form represents a more autonomous phenomenon, yet only within the active, organizational framework. It constitutes the systematicity of organization, considered as a societal subsystem alongside social relations, which also acts as a subsystem in relation to society.

Institutional managerial systematicity refers to a system of functional connections in which the position and behavior of elements depend on primary (one, two, or three) vital components.

As for the systematicity of managerial activity, it exists not only as a reflection of systematicity in managerial relations and institutional systematicity, but also as the organization of its own activity based on several principles. These include forecasting, programming, planning, optimality, effectiveness, completeness and accuracy of utilized information, organic and continuous communication with the object of activity, collegiality, objectivity, specificity, essential links, functional competence, and so forth.

For managerial activity, systematicity signifies primarily a systemic perspective on issues, the ability to consistently rely on causal dependencies where all levels of systematicity manifest most fully: general production, managerial relations, structural, and finally, individual.

In the activities of contemporary Ukrainian managers, the formation of this systemic vision encounters challenges. Frequent balancing on the precipice of spontaneously arising problems, the incompleteness of programmatic support for activities, and a weak conceptual foundation for managerial decisions—including higher legal acts that contribute to the inequality in the process of establishing Ukrainian statehood—generate widespread dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the activities of the country's managerial body. Rationalizations such as "those who do nothing do not make mistakes" or references to a lack of experience cannot serve as justifications for managers, as this realm of activity should, in principle, be infallible, given that it concerns the fate of people.