Philosophy studies activity as a universal mode of existence of a person and, accordingly, a person is defined as an acting being. Human activity covers both material and practical, and intellectual, spiritual operations; both external and internal processes; activity is the work of the mind as much as the work of the hand; the process of cognition in the same way as human behavior. In activity, a person reveals his special place in the world and asserts himself in it as a social being.

The specialists of each science that has reached a certain level of epistemological maturity carry out "reflection", formulating the general laws and patterns of this branch of knowledge, that is, they create an appropriate metascience. On the other hand, any

"mature" science becomes the subject of philosophical research. For example, it was in this way that the philosophy of physics appeared at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, and then system analysis. Cybernetics, in turn, very quickly became the subject of philosophical research - see, for example, both the "fathers" of cybernetics themselves and professional philosophers.

Actively developed throughout the 20th century management), and the authors of these works are, as a rule, 15 professional philosophers. In general, it can be stated that there is a need for an easier mutual positioning of philosophy and management. .

Consider Fig. 12, which presents various connections between the categories of philosophy and management, interpreted as broadly as possible, that is, including ontology, epistemology, logic, axiology, ethics, esthetics, etc. in philosophy; and considering management both as a science and as a form of practical activity. The three shaded in Fig. 12 areas.

Management philosophy(as a branch of philosophy). From a historical point of view, until a certain period of time, the study of management problems (as well as the subjects of most other modern sciences) was the prerogative of philosophy. Indeed, according to R. Descartes, "all philosophy is like a tree, the roots of which are metaphysics, the trunk is physics, and the branches emanating from this trunk are all other sciences."

• 14 Below we will sometimes call the science of management, following the tradition established in it, the theory of management. (realizing that the name is already the subject).
• 15 There are a few exceptions - for example, brilliant work.

Rights R.A. Mirzoyan, who believes that the historical and philosophical analysis gives grounds to conclude that it was the philosophers who were the first georegics of management. Confucius, Lao Tzu, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, N. Machiavelli, T. Hobbes, I. Kant, G. Hegel, K. Marx, M. Weber, A.A. Bogdanov - all these and many other philosophers created the basis for the emergence modern science management, to develop and improve management practices.

Rice. 12.

To date, specific problems of management have already ceased to be the subject of philosophical analysis proper, as philosophy, as "a form of social consciousness, the doctrine of the general principles of being and cognition, the relationship of man to the world; the science of the universal laws of the development of nature, society and thinking", studies GENERAL problems and patterns identified by specialists of certain specific sciences.

According to V.S. Diev, philosophy of management is "a system of generalizing judgments of a philosophical nature about the subject and methods of management, the place of management among other sciences and in the system of scientific knowledge as a whole, its cognitive and social role in modern society". That is, "philosophy of management" can be defined as the science of the meaning of management.

By analogy with the terms "philosophy of history", "philosophy of culture", "philosophy of law", etc., given in the definitions. can be determined management philosophy as a branch of philosophy associated with the comprehension, interpretation of management processes and management knowledge; exploring the essence and meaning of management. This meaning of the term "philosophy of management" (see the upper half of Fig. 12, circled by a dotted line) has its own rich internal structure and includes epistemological studies of the science of management, the study of logical, ontological, ethical and other foundations, both the science of management, as well as management practice.

The main objectives of research in management philosophy are:

• 1. Identification of the content of management as a branch of science and as a type of practical activity, analysis of their subject and place in the system of scientific knowledge;
• 2. Implementation of the worldview, methodological and logical-epistemological analysis of the main ideas, concepts, results, methods, functions and theories in the science of management;
• 3. Translation of the laws of philosophy to enrich the content of the laws of management;
• 4. Using the achievements of the theory and practice of management to enrich the content of the categories and laws of philosophy;
• 5. Substantiation of the possibility and conditions for using unified approaches to the problems of managing systems of various nature, creating a unified theory of management;
• 6. Methodological analysis of management in application to various areas of human activity and various classes of management objects;
• 7. Philosophical substantiation of the main directions of management theory and practice.
• 8. Systematization and classification of management doctrines;
• 9. Identification and systematization of axiological dominants in the science and practice of management;
• 10. Formation of an integrative conceptual apparatus of management science, including the terminology of all its theories.

Let us formulate a number of "questions" that determine promising areas of research in the philosophy of management (that is, questions that, from the point of view of specialists in management science, lie in the plane of management philosophy).

• What can the laws of philosophy and the general laws studied by it give to management theory and practice? Which of the modern directions of philosophical research can find and/or have already found application in the science of management (structuralism, nost-structuralism, hermeneutics, etc.)? What and how does the general scientific significance and interdependence of the terminology used affect?
• What is the epistemological specificity of the science of management? Are there common approaches to setting and solving managerial problems? What is the positioning of the management sciences in the system of sciences? What is the epistemological status of the researcher's position in the system of management theory/practice?
• How do such basic categories of philosophy as language, everyday consciousness, morality (ethics), law, philosophy, science, art, religion, political ideology, etc. correlate with the categories of management, activity, organization, decision-making? How does the last group of categories correlate with the categories of man, nature, society, production.
• What regularities (features) in the formation of the mega-science of management can be identified in the historical retrospective and at the present stage of its development? What is the relationship between management theory and practice (in historical retrospective and perspective)?
• How does philosophy as the "quintessence of culture" influence the formation of "organizational culture" in the theory and practice of management? How do the general, universal principles, patterns and features of the development of individual organizational, social, cultural entities correlate in the science/practice of management?

Cybernetics (as a branch of the science of management that studies its most general theoretical patterns). As noted by V.S. Diev, "... for most academic disciplines there are a number of questions that are attributed to their foundations and traditionally referred to as the philosophy of the corresponding science, management is no exception in this series" . To the foundations of the science of management, one can add the general laws of effective management, which are the subject of research in cybernetics.

Opinion R.A. Mirzoyan that “Cybernetics, as a scientific discipline, of course, has remained, but its claims to the role of some kind of comprehensive science of control have disappeared” is partly right. The fact is that in the mid-40s of the 20th century, cybernetics was born as the science of "control and communication in animals and machines" (see the title of the pioneering monograph), one might even say - as the science of GENERAL laws of control. The triumphant successes of cybernetics in the 50-60s of the 20th century - the emergence of technical, economic, biological and other cybernetics, their close ties with operations research, mathematical control theory, as well as the intensive implementation of results in the creation of new and modernization of existing technical and information systems - all this created the illusion of the universality of cybernetics and the inevitability of its further equally rapid progress. But in the early 1970s, development slowed down, the whole stream branched into many private ones and, finally, “lost in the details”: the number of scientific areas grew, each of them continued to develop, and general patterns were almost not revealed and not systematized. Under these conditions, oddly enough, philosophers remained bearers of the canonical cybernetic traditions, and specialists in control theory lost faith in the power of cybernetics.

But this cannot continue indefinitely. On the one hand, knowledge about the subject is vital for philosophers, and knowledge is already generalized. Indeed, as V.V. Ilyin, “Philosophy is a reflection of the second order; it is a georetization of other ways of spiritual production. The empirical basis of philosophy is specific reflections of various types of consciousness;

philosophy themagizes not reality in and of itself, but the processing and elaboration of reality in figurative and categorical forms. The feedback principle plays a fundamental role in the control mechanism. Where this principle is violated or absent altogether, the meaning and results of management are absent or distorted. In general form, this principle says: in any interaction, the source (the subject of information and control) and the receiver (the object of information and control) inevitably change places. Consequently, in the process of management in the economy there is a reverse influence of the object of management on its subject. Further, the principle of feedback assumes, as a necessary moment, the exchange of information, i.e., the informational impact of the control object on its subject is carried out. In society, this principle operates continuously, since the response actions of the controlled system affect the dynamics of management acts of the control system, which constantly takes into account incoming information. In this case, the subject and object of control for some time, as it were, change roles, that is, the subject of control becomes an object and vice versa. The director, managing the enterprise, is the subject of management. But acting on the basis of information received from subordinates, he already acts not only as a subject, but also as an object of control. In turn, the object of management, for example, the head of the department, receiving this or that management decision of the directorate, in the process of its execution acts as a subject of management. Thus, the subject and object of control perform a dual function - subject-object.

Making managerial decisions. The main task of the management structure is the development and execution of management decisions. Here the principle of optimality is important, which means that when developing a management decision, it is necessary to take into account the maximum possible options for its implementation and choose those that would most fully ensure the achievement of the goals set. Consequently, the managerial decision is developed by the subject with a focus on the object of management, taking into account his needs and interests, as well as his real capabilities and conditions for the transformation of these capabilities into the actual implementation of the decision. The adopted managerial decisions can claim to be reality to the extent that they are feasible in principle.

The nature of economic management in modern conditions imposes on the subject of management the requirement of increased responsibility for making management decisions, which is determined both by the scale of management influences and the complexity of the structural organization of the management object.

Management commands can be rigidly determined when the control action seeks to uniquely "program" the behavior of the "addressee", and, so to speak, softly determined when the management program assumes a relatively wide range of possible types and forms of behavior of control objects. However, hard and soft principles of management in their “pure” form are rarely found in history: management in the economic sphere, as a rule, combines both of these principles in one way or another. Most paradoxically, they are combined in systems in which the mechanism of "spontaneous control" is implemented, which is very clearly seen in the example of the market, where the "invisible hand" that A. Smith wrote about operates. On the one hand, this “hand” directs the free play of elemental forces, allowing the flexibility and pliability of the competing parties, and on the other, it dictates cruel and ruthless rules of the game, inexorable as fate. The market says imperiously: production should work for the consumer. According to G. Tarde, economists have already done a great service to social science by replacing the principles of war, which served as the key to history, with the idea of ​​competition - a special kind of war, not only softened, but reduced and multiplied at the same time. Finally, if we hold to this point of view, then at the basis of what economists call the competition of needs and the competition of producers, the competition of prices, etc., we must also see the competition of desires and confidences, even the competition of characters, minds and forms of cunning.

Subject and object of management. The whole set of social interactions can ultimately be considered as the interaction of the subject and the object of control. Both the subject and the object of control have a complex, multi-level structure. Social institutions, organizations (including public ones), and labor collectives, and individuals act as the subject of management. However, in the end, management decisions are actually made by real individuals who are invested with the appropriate power [As power, management acts in the form of either coercion (laws), or persuasion (propaganda), or recognition of authority (faith), or, as most often happens, in the form of a combination of both, and another, and the third.], suggesting a high measure of responsibility. Increased requirements are imposed on the subject of management: competence, the presence of a managerial (administrative) mindset, which, on the one hand, is prepared by the entire system of upbringing and educational means, and on the other hand, implies natural talent.

A necessary condition for the subject to make an effective management decision and exercise reasonable control over its implementation is, as already mentioned, high quality. information, its completeness, timeliness, efficiency of obtaining and processing. This condition requires the subject to have deep and comprehensive knowledge of significant properties, states, trends in the movement of the object controlled by him, the conditions for its existence, as well as faith (in the sense of confidence) and the desire for certain economic results. This is natural: a person, firstly, desires something, therefore, strives for something, and, secondly, one way or another is sure (convinced - clearly or vaguely, consciously or intuitively) of the realization of this desire and the means of it. implementation. This is the competence of the governing body or person.

The object of management, in whatever form and at whatever level it acts (whether it be an enterprise, an institution), is really and actually people: teams or individuals who are endowed (or not endowed) with intelligence, will, talent, and therefore are capable of (or unable to) make appropriate decisions and implement them. This reflects the fundamental regularity of all socio-economic processes: in order to be implemented, any of them must "humanize", that is, be embodied in the actions of specific people.

F. Schaeffer is a Christian theologian of the 20th century. - wrote the book "There are no small people", insisting on the significance of each person and any work. Of course, people holding different positions bear different responsibilities in this regard and must have different skills. The skills and responsibility of the entrepreneur increase as the number of his subordinates, the number of products produced by his enterprise, the amount of profit he receives or budget allocations increase. A higher degree of responsibility lies with those who make decisions and develop a strategy for the development of an enterprise, which have serious consequences for the fate of this enterprise and, therefore, for the fate of workers. For example, a chocolate factory worker who determines the consistency of a chocolate mass has a greater responsibility than someone who cleans chocolate containers. Therefore, all positions and professions are important and necessary, because the people who occupy them make their contribution to the common cause [See: Cheuning K., Ebi J.W., Roels Y.G. J. Business through the lens of faith. M., 1993. S. 67.].

In society, management is carried out not only by groups of people, but also by production technology, the location of economic zones, etc. However, the management of the latter is also always mediated by managerial interactions between people.

The subject and object of management, as noted above, are relative concepts. A person acting as a subject in one interaction acts as an object of control in another, and vice versa. And even within the same interaction, the subject is also controlled by the object, which in this case already acts as the subject of control. Therefore, effective management is possible only under the condition of reasonable control over both the decision itself and its implementation, not only from above, but also from below: an uncontrolled worker, as a rule, is morally decomposed; the same, however, happens with the leader [The principle of feedback, which characterizes social management in general terms, is nevertheless almost completely excluded under the conditions of rigid management systems, for which, so to speak, “paralysis” of the individual free will of the object of management is typical. This situation is typical for all administrative-bureaucratic methods of management.].

The feedback principle in relation to socio-economic management is expressed not only in performance and systematic control, but, most importantly, it involves the initiative, understanding, co-creation and even real creativity of those who act in this situation as an object of management.

“If someone knows what decision he must make in order to produce something good, or prevent something bad, but does not do this, then this is called cowardice; if it is great, then it is called timidity” [Spinoza B. Selected Works. M., 1957. T. 1. S. 129.]. The managerial plan is not only fulfilled “from and to”, but is creatively concretized and developed, turns into something more than the original plan, influencing the adjustment of the initial managerial position at other levels of managerial decisions. The reverse initiative implies the presence in the object of control not only of a certain amount of psychological principles, but also of a sense of responsibility for one's work, unity of the will and actions of the leader and the led. In essence, this reveals the meaning and content of the democratization of management, which is so necessary for its effective implementation, especially in the economic sphere of society, which is realized in the work of each specific enterprise and labor collective.
>
>
FOUNDATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY: content:

BASES OF GENERAL PHILOSOPHY:
TEACHING ABOUT BEING:
1. Being as an all-encompassing reality
2. Historical awareness of the category of being
3. Objective being and I-being
4. About metaphysics
5. Hierarchy of types of reality
6. Being as a problem
7. Matter
8. Movement
9. Space and time
10. Main categories of philosophy

MAN AND HIS BEING IN THE WORLD:
1. General concept of a person
2. About the multidimensionality of man
3. Man and mankind
4. Personality and I
5. The idea of ​​personal uniqueness

SOUL, CONSCIOUSNESS AND MIND:
1. General idea of ​​the soul
2. Soul and body
3. The soul and the problem of the unity of the spiritual-ideal and the material
4. What is consciousness
5. Consciousness, self-awareness and reflection
6. Consciousness and the realm of the unconscious
7. About the psyche of animals
8. About reason and reason, mind and wisdom
9. Consciousness, language, communication

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE:
1. The essence and meaning of knowledge