기업과 시장의 구별짓기

• 영문명: The Firm, the Market, and a Distinction: Lessons from the Theory of the Firm
• 발행기관: 한국인사조직학회
• 저자명: 배종훈(Jonghoon Bae)
• 간행물 정보: 『인사조직연구』인사조직연구 제21권 제3호, 153~193쪽, 전체 41쪽
• 주제분류: 경제경영 > 경영학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2013.09.30

국문 초록

본 논문은 전통적 관료제를 자유주의적으로 재해석하고, 공감(共感)의 강박(强迫)이 지배적인 한국적 상황에서 여전히 효율적인 경영제도임을 논증한다. 기업 혹은 관료제에 대한 일상적 이해는 근대적 관료제 그 자체에 대한 오독(誤讀)의 결과이고, 근대적 관료제는 Weber(1968)와 Taylor(1911)에서 설파된 대로 여전히 효율적인 경영제도라고 주장한다. 특히, 관료제의 본질은 (1) 리바이어던(Leviathan)과 같은 의사결정권의 집중화와 무관하며, (2) 직무의 완벽한 사전 설계와도 무관하며, (3) 이방인에 대한 불확실성을 낮추기 위해 행위의 표준화를 꾀하는 즉 일하는 방식을 설계하는 데 있음을 보여주었다. 특히, (1) 도덕률에 근거한 행위의 규율을 합리적 계산의 자유주의적 전통으로 대체하려고 하는 한, (2) 잉여 소비를 가능케 하는 대량생산 기술을 포기하지 않는 한, 그리고 (3) 이방인과의 대규모 협업이 경제적 생산과 교환을 지탱하는 한, 근대적 관료제는 지속 가능한 생산의 형식임을 규명한다. 마지막으로 관료제는 시장과 구별되는 근대적 제도이며 서로 다른 경제의 문제를 풀어내기 때문에, 양자간의 공진화에 의해 근대성이 유지될 것임을 밝힌다.

영문 초록

This study proposes that bureaucratic production, a mode of modern, capitalistic production, continues to work in an efficient manner in a contemporary market. In particular, this study begins with the observation that the mis-understanding of modern bureaucracy underlies new management techniques aimed at renovating obsolete managerial practices and sheds a new light onto the essence of modern bureaucracy by opting for perspectives from Max Weber and Fredrick Taylor. Moreover, it suggests that bureaucracy is a modern production mode distinct from the market and that for the very reason, the modernity of a contemporary society will be sustainable to the extent that the two distinct modes of modern production, i.e., the market and the firm, co-exist and thus co-evolve. The critics of the Weber-Taylorian bureaucracy (WT bureaucracy henceforth) have been proposing so-called new management techniques to the corporate world, which chases constantly after ever-growing profits in the name of competitive advantage and value creation. They do so either by disregarding the bureaucracy as a pre-modern mode of organizing exchange (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Williamson, 1985), by lamenting it as the root of a pathological modernity (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939; Schumacher, 1979), or by diagnosing it as the inefficient execution of modern production (Hammer & Champy, 1993; Huselid, 1995). Despite the subtleties of their corrective measures, these new management techniques as presented so far have one thing in common: the enlarged autonomy of the individual as the modern self. Managerial practices that draw on theories such as self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) or positive psychology in general demonstrate this tendency clearly. Of course, communitarian approach, one of the widely accepted new management techniques, objects arguably the concept of independent, self-governed individuals that are detached from their society (Adler & Heckscher, 2006; MacIntyre, 1981). Yet, it is equally true that even the communitarian self, well situated in social and cultural accumulation of past economic practices, is the modern self that seeks to reconcile his or her liberty of choice to the living world of cumulative social practices, namely, the history of a community. Whether new techniques endorse libertarianism or communitarianism, they all invite the concept of the modern self to their solutions and presume that the WT bureaucracy is a place reserved for Leviathan to exercise his power without consent and that it is not sufficiently modernized. This study however suggests otherwise. The reasons are as follows. First, as Mintzberg (1983) clearly illustrates, the WT bureaucracy has nothing to do with the centralization of decision rights, as opposed to a mistaken view of a one-man ruling company, which is commonly found in economic writings such as transaction cost economics and organizational economics (Aghion & Tirole, 1997; Alchian & Demsetz, 1972; Hart, 1990) and which Weber (1968) himself characterized as charismatic authority, distinct from rational authority or bureaucratic control. You may have a bureaucracy with a decentralized or centralized decision-making process. Rather, the essence of the WT bureaucracy is the standardization of behavior through the design of formal documents that codify the best possible working knowledge for a task in question as chosen and evaluated by a specialist, i.e., a manager. This standardization of the process (and in some cases the input as is found in collegial bureaucracy) sets the ground for the division of labor between employees and the management, leaving the room for the gains of specialization, another source of the economic efficiency of the firm over the market contract. Second, unlike the criticism that the WT bureaucracy is too slow to adapt to contemporary, fast-changing modern economy, the WT bureaucracy remains to be effective and efficient even in the course of new pro

목차

<초록>

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 근대성의 두 가지 존재양식

Ⅲ. 평등한 시장과 불평등한 기업: 기업은 근대적인가?

Ⅳ. 신경영기법과 긍정심리학의 오류: 관료제의 효익은 소멸되었는가?

Ⅴ. 상상의 제도: 관료제는 지속 가능한가?

Ⅵ. 정치철학적 고찰: 계약과 설계로서의 기업

Ⅶ. 결론: 기업의 市場化 혹은 기업과 시장의 共進化

참고문헌

Abstract

키워드

관료제 자유주의 일의 설계 근대적 제도 Bureaucracy Liberalism Task Design and Modern Institution