Philosophy of Management

Systemic and Intersystemic Categories of Management Philosophy

It is impossible to envision ordinary managerial activity without constantly engaging with concepts such as "whole" and "part" of a system. However, there is more than enough direct illiteracy in their application, particularly within management.

Typically, "whole" and "part" are perceived as quantitative relationships. Yet, within the realm of a manager’s activities, establishing this relationship becomes one of the primary tasks: determining whether a given fact, phenomenon, or event constitutes a part of some whole and to what extent this part influences the whole (for example, considering an employee's role within a production system, or conversely, how a production object, as a whole, affects the worker and the nature of their legal relationship).

There are numerous situations in which a purely material possibility arises solely within the framework of a part. Choosing which part to focus on to resolve a problem most effectively is indeed a challenge for the manager. It is possible that a part can only be adequately mastered and managed through the whole. Therefore, one should adhere to the following philosophical approach regarding the relationship between part and whole.

The crux of the matter lies in the precise accounting of the place and role (energy) of the part in relation to the whole, as this is a crucial condition for the infallibility of managerial decisions. The concepts of "whole" and "part" cannot be reduced to the concept of a system, for integrity represents a higher degree of a system, a specific level at which systemic integrity is achieved.

Economic integrity is defined as a state where its parts interact in such a manner that sufficiently nourishes this integrity. Each of the parts of this integrity must maintain a level of balance that allows management to ensure the normal functioning of the whole through organizational means. Ultimately, a professional manager must perceive their activity as a part of the economic whole that reproduces this entirety.

Phenomena such as the overextension of a certain economic whole arise when a part ignores the possibilities and interests of the whole in management. Equally perilous is the situation where the whole disregards the opportunities and interests of its parts. Both scenarios stifle the development of both the part and the whole. For instance, the demand for wage increases is an issue that can only be addressed at the level of the whole.

The market, as an economic whole, and its fundamental components—demand and supply—can each, in their own way, overstress the system to a state that may lead to the disintegration or destruction of the economic whole. For example, overproduction of a product results in decreased demand, rendering your product uncompetitive, which may ultimately lead to bankruptcy.

Indeed, the essence of management lies in the whole as the ideal form of influence, but not at the expense of the part; rather, it is for the sake of the part, just as it is for the whole. Management, as the interest of the whole, seeks to create a new quality through the unity of parts and the whole—one that each part, in its autonomous mode, cannot achieve. In this regard, any healthy integration is progressive if it reflects the essence of the whole. The infallibility of managerial action, grounded on such a methodological foundation, is guaranteed, and in this lies the significance of management's existence. In this form, it fosters the development of both the whole and the part. By selecting, at each given stage, the managerial decisions that arise from their interdependence—serving as impulses for interaction between the whole and the parts—this interdependence can be effectively realized. Consequently, a systemic vision in management does not merely "skim the surface" of the actual interactions among parts but rather calculates primarily the potential of the parts as the main source of the formation and sustenance of the whole, while simultaneously assessing the socially significant outcomes resulting from the functioning of the whole, thereby creating conditions for its systemic self-development. However, it is essential to consider the moment of the whole's superiority, the developmental level of which typically differs in capacity from that of the part.

It must be emphasized that management activities in Ukraine need to shed intersystemic and dual-system characteristics, adopting a "normal" appearance typical of developed democratic countries. This transition would allow management to "leap over" the absence of traditional systemicity present in the current transitional period, thus enabling a more profound influence on the formation of a new state of the social system. The establishment of such a system in Ukraine would signify the affirmation of adequate managerial relations and practices. Moreover, Ukrainian managers must continuously and professionally identify the objects of their influence, fundamentally distinguishing the systemic-elemental aspects as manifestations of the relationship between essence and phenomenon, while consistently seeking the optimal mode of this relationship.

Ultimately, the level of professionalism and competence of a manager is determined by their ability to resolve contradictions within the object of management, utilizing their inherent energy in the interests of the endeavor. It is no secret that contradictions inherently involve subjects (people, relationships, objects, etc.). To utilize contradictions means for a manager not merely to "reconcile" them but to create conditions for their normal functioning within a specific organization or situation. Furthermore, every contradiction represents a clash of energies misdirected. Therefore, managerial "resolution" of contradictions is not simply their elimination; rather, it is a continuous source leveraged by the manager for the development of the elements within the object (the workforce, groups of people, situations, market relations, competitors, etc.). Harmony here does not entail the reconciliation of contradictions, let alone their eradication, but the creation of conditions for their healthy development.

As is well known, the real world evolves through the unity and struggle of opposites, by splitting the singular into disparate opposites, which serves as the primary source of their existence as a system of social relations. The principal manifestation of this quality emerges in such contradictions, with conflict being the extreme level of development.

Contradiction arises from the interaction of various aspects of an object or phenomenon, as well as among them. This distinction may be significant or insignificant. It also possesses an extreme level: it is an opposition that exists within a unified framework, the condition for the self-development of which is the unity of its opposing sides. Development can occur only on the condition of continual "removal" and "reproduction" of oppositions, as every object experiences a phase of self-negation.

The theoretical reproduction of contradictions within the philosophical category of anomie, in relation to management, serves as a means of clarifying their actual state and seeking managerial pathways for resolution. Therefore, it is crucial for management to ascertain the nature of the contradiction, which may manifest as internal or external, primary or secondary, antagonistic or amenable to compromise, and to devise a means of resolution that promotes the development of the object or phenomenon in which contradictions manifest. Here, it is necessary to consider the "needs" of the contradictions themselves and address them based on this consideration—either fully or partially, all at once or incrementally—recognizing that in management, through the choice of methods to resolve contradictions, the law of the unity and struggle of opposites becomes evident.

Ultimately, management itself has emerged as a means of resolving contradictions, but of a certain type. The first part of this assertion transforms management into an eternal phenomenon, as development and life are impossible without contradictions.

It indeed possesses an eternal nature, for contradictions continually arise from the differing interests of both objective and subjective nature. Thus, in its most general form, management manifests as the integration of interests, their mutual influence, interdependence, and satisfaction based on the mitigation or consideration of these differences. The ideal resolution of managerial contradictions presents itself in the form of harmonizing interests, which, however, does not erase their differences but creates conditions for their parallel resolution within a unified social entity, without encroaching upon the systemic properties of this entity. In this light, contradictions are significantly liberalized compared to previous perspectives that deemed resolution as obligatory destruction of one side of the contradiction, which could not coexist not only within the mechanism of that contradiction but also within the social system that birthed it. This approach fails to account for the developmental reserves available to the system, whose utilization can establish new foundational grounds for the development of the contradictions themselves.

In this process, the system maintains the necessary balance, reorganizing itself according to new foundational possibilities.

In this context, the question arises regarding the feasibility of such reorganization, particularly in situations where the old system fails to meet new challenges and tasks, highlighting the mismatch between production relations and the new level of productive forces. This encompasses all that we qualify as objective grounds for social upheaval. Setting aside the myriad factors that give rise to social cataclysms, it is crucial to note that its political aspect typically facilitates the restoration of disrupted equilibrium. A management crisis is thus labeled as such because it reorganizes management relations in accordance with new socio-economic and spiritual realities, rather than creating these relations from scratch. It is exceedingly difficult to establish something that lacks basic foundational elements through managerial means. Therefore, one should not assume that our reforms are fundamentally about creating a new model. This model, as a developmental level, already existed under conditions that were unnatural both for itself and for the overall trajectory of civilizational development, from which one can emerge through managerial reformative change using managerial tools. Our movement along the path of reform should not be absolutized, as the primary methods employed to alter the management system have relied solely on the method of public pressure on societal development, a phenomenon prompted by the overarching political laws governing the radicalization of social relations. In other words, transformational processes represent a classic case from the perspective of management science— a specific historical reality that must be studied as such, as an expression of the general law of organizational development.

Thus, the philosophy of production management, particularly the methodological support for managerial activity, serves as the scientific foundation for managers, creating guarantees for minimizing errors in managerial decisions. There are at least two avenues for integrating philosophy into production management: 1) the philosophical preparation of managers, meaning the integration of specialized and philosophical knowledge and training; 2) the application of philosophical knowledge and management methodology in the preparation of managerial decisions. Currently, such practices have not become the norm, which constitutes one of the main reasons for the inefficacy of managerial decisions. Consequently, it is of paramount importance to assimilate the philosophy of production management, which will help normalize this practice. The professional practice of future specialists in the field of economic management must consider knowledge of philosophical categories such as essence and phenomenon, necessity and contingency, reality, possibility and probability, form and content, quantity, quality and measure, causality and objective appropriateness, system and systematicity, whole and part, contradictions, unity, and the struggle of contradictions.