서론 : 경영 패러다임 변화의 현상과 해석

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 Wealthof 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. Jonghoon Bae (2013) reviews bureaucracy from a new angle. He argues that bureaucratic production will continue to work as an efficient mechanism of mass production. In addition, he also argues that bureaucracy is a modern (not pre-modern) production mode distinct from the market. Hence,according to his arguments, all anti-bureaucratic practices derived from so-called ‘new management’schools of thought are misdirected, due to the misunderstanding of modern bureaucracy. He defines modern bureaucracy as the standardization of firm processes, and as a necessary corollary, the division of labor and specialization. First of all, he argues, Weber-Taylorian bureaucracy is not related to the centralization of decision making. In addition, he also argues that Weber-Taylorian bureaucracy continues to be effective and efficient even in fast-moving contexts such as new product development, and provides various theory-based arguments to support his view. The final paper in this special issue by Yoo and Kwun (2013) critically reviews recent perspectives on the crisis of capitalism at both the society and firm level. They argue that the alternatives to capitalism in existing literature have focused deeply on either macro or micro perspectives,with incomplete solutions as a result. Another issue raised by these authors is that alternative suggestions have sought an optimal, convergent solution to capitalism without providing sufficient explanation regarding the heterogeneity of corporate activities and goals. They suggest a new direction for the development of future management discourse based on the simultaneous consideration of both micro and macro dimensions, and the recognition of the complexity of the goals-meansoutcomes relationship in corporate activities. These five exciting new voices, in addressing today’s business challenges, seem to hum around some fundamental themes. The first is consideration of what it means to be new. The originalGreek meaning for new derives from two sources: ‘neos’ and ‘kainos’. ‘Neos’ means something newly emerged that has not existed before in terms of time and age, while ‘kainos’ means something distinct in its nature and features. We are reminded of this distinction when thinking about a new management paradigm, fundamentally moving on from the past. And surely the common criticism in each of the papers of previously unassailable schools of thought has thrown down a kind of gauntlet to old thinking: the time is now for the new. Neo-liberalism, market fundamentalism,utilitarianism, or logical positivism: whatever philosophical perspective one chooses, donning the cloak of a philosophical paradigm is an issue of faith and commitment. It seems a new faith is emerging. Institutional pluralism, where coexisting market and firm institutions cooperate for the benefit of society, will undoubtedly play an important role in the new management paradigm. The pluralist view spans many relational dimensions: the inter-institutional level (e.g., the relationships among the firm, market, and government), the intra-institutional level (e.g., the relationships among firms within the firm institution boundary), and the intra-firm level (e.g., the relationships of people or units within a single firm). In that vein, an epistemological understanding of actors and agency,with an emphasis on human qualities, is another important theme that will inform the new management paradigm. These fundamental themes bring us to our finale, a chorus of five new management paradigm principles: ideas of creation, accountability, benevolence, justice, and trust. A worthy close to our special edition, and a positive view to a new paradigm and humanity.