위기의 자본주의: 경영과 조직 이론에 관한 새로운 이해

The recent global economic recession has inspired revolutionary thinking regarding the fate of capitalism. Has neoliberal capitalism had its day? Will our system based so heavily on market competition and efficiency need to evolve, or has it already? Certainly today’s reality of persistent,pernicious poverty and inequality has added fuel to an already contentious macroeconomic discussion. On the microeconomic front, too, the last few years of corporate scandals have caused many to stop and ask, what are appropriate corporate behaviors, and how can they be encouraged? Should firms consider general social welfare in pursuit of shareholder value maximization? What management theories and practice are available to address the competing objectives of the firm in distressed global economic conditions? These two emerging areas of concern – one global, one firm level – taken together are the current crisis of capitalism. In response to these fundamental questions, each economic school has provided a wide array of responses and perspectives. In macro-economic circles, critical political economists argue that the fatal and unrecoverable pitfalls of capitalism necessitate an alternative economic system beyond both capitalism and communism(Hobsbawm, 2011). Evolutionary theorists echo this sentiment,suggesting that market-based capitalism should be replaced by a new system in which cooperation and adjustment between public and private sectors are key factors for public welfare(Kaletsky,2010). In counterpoint to these views, pluralist economic system thinkers, namely varieties of capitalism theorists, do not clearly suggest an alternative system to the current liberal-market economic systems(Hall & Gingerich, 2009; Hall & Soskice, 2001). In the wings of this debate, however,analysis of the effectiveness of coordinated-market economic systems(Whitley, 1999) and the sustainability of state-led economic systems(Schmidt, 2003) shed lights on how to overcome the limitations of liberal-market economic systems. In these, we find an energized, complex body of macroeconomic literature attempting to diagnose and solve our crisis of capitalism. From the micro-economic perspective, the debate between enlightened shareholder orientation and stakeholder theory has dominated recent discourse. On one hand, an enlightened shareholder orientation suggests overcoming the ills of capitalism by consolidating corporate social responsibilities in accordance with the principle of shareholders' value maximization(Jensen, 2001). On the other hand, stakeholder theory points out the limitations of shareholder value maximization and alternatively suggests the coordination of diverse stakeholders' interests to remedy capitalism’s maladies with respect to the firm(Freeman, Wicks, & Parmar, 2004). Stakeholder theory argues that by considering all stakeholders’ interests in corporate activities and management decisions, firms will improve their competitiveness and reputation, and promote sustainable growth. The shared-value approach is an extension to this view, and emphasizes the importance of cultivating shared values between corporations and society in addition to the consolidation of corporate social responsibility(Porter & Kramer, 2011). The shared values can help corporate profits and growth to thrive. The alternative suggestions above require corporate goals and theories to adapt to the ever changing business environments. These two different approaches in the literature – macro and micro economic – have relied on their own respective field views for support and validation, and therefore have not achieved a comprehensive framework for understanding and fixing the crisis of capitalism. The solutions in the literature are based on either macro-economic or micro-economic perspectives, and the practical implications drawn from their theories are thus somewhat myopic. Literature that discusses the ethical dimension of corporate activities in the micro economic sphere tends to take macrodimension outcomes for granted, while in reality the relationship between means and outcomes of corporate activities is not clear enough. At the same time, macro economic theorizing about the optimal system for achieving economic stability and public interests provides insufficient discussion on the heterogeneity of corporate activities and goals between corporations, between industries,and between societies. Neither approach is enough. We therefore suggest a comprehensive approach to understanding the crisis of capitalism and finding a new paradigm of management that embraces both the macro and micro economic perspectives. Based on our critique of the diverse arguments and alternative suggestions found in the literature,we propose a new framework that considers both economic dimensions simultaneously, and recognizes the complicated relationship between goals, means and outcomes of corporate activities. Our framework holds that diversity will reign in addressing the crisis of capitalism. Diverse economic systems will compete according to the political, cultural, and other institutional characteristics their societies, rather than one uniform system emerging. The means of corporate activities will not rely on a single criterion such as ethical standards, but on diverse criteria according to region,industry, and competitive profile. The goals of corporate activities, too, will target diverse values at once rather than corporate profits or public interests exclusively, and the proportion of corporate versus public values within a firm will likely vary according to the external environmental conditions in which the firm operates. We suggest evaluating the means and goals of corporate performance together and consistently, and emphasize a “bundle approach” of diverse means and multiple corporate purposes. This plural standpoint justifies a firm's idiosyncratic strategy according to the unique environments of the society and the industry in which the firm operates, and consequently promotes corporate autonomy and diversity even under globalization. Spanning these two spheres of the firm and the socio economic system, our framework emphasizes the role of trust and organizational flexibility. Trust formulates the relationship between actors and between organizations, and therefore will affect the quality of transactions in the whole system. Organizational flexibility promotes corporate adoption of and response to the demands of business environments, and consequently will increase corporate sustainability and facilitate the economic development of society as a whole. Thus, our integrated framework will help to clarify the crisis of capitalism and the new paradigm of management emerging in response. We do not anticipate a future where every organization conforms to a single organizational structure and their corporate strategies converge in a single theoretical direction, nor will every society adhere to a single form of capitalism. While we expect that corporate interests and public welfare will continue to dominate goals, means, and system discussions, the weight each firm and each society gives to each kind of value will vary. This variance will lead to the varieties of firms in their management and organizing principles, and will create various forms of economic systems, including a diversity of forms of capitalism.