【作者】 刘宝宏；

【导师】 卢昌崇；

【作者基本信息】 东北财经大学 ， 企业管理， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 本文对管理理论科学化的方法论基础提出了一些初步看法,其中对若干流行的观点进行了再讨论,但它似乎并没有什么特别创新之处,只是把与之相关的多学科——比如哲学、经济学、社会学、心理学、生物学,当然还有管理学——的研究成果,用自己的视角重新整理、叙述并整合在一个框架之内。尽管是第二章论证的结果,但为避免不必要的误解或理解困难,我们还是要在这里首先说明,本文所指的管理限定于“企业内基层员工的管理”。全文共分六章,各章内容概要如下：第1章：管理理论的科学性评判。通过简要梳理哲学领域对科学本质争论的沿革,文章认为科学的本质是一种具有可证伪性的社会共识,它与其他人类认知范畴相区别的两大特征是可证伪性(Flasifiability)与主体间性(Intersubjectivity)。据此判断,管理理论还处于“前科学”阶段,两大具体表现是“非证伪性”与“非主体间性”。文章认为,造成管理理论前科学性的原因可从科学共同体与方法论两个角度审视。从科学共同体角度看,参与管理理论研究的人员多样(主要包括专业研究人员、企业家(经理)、咨询服务机构与人员),研究动机不同、研究方法各异,学术交流平台不完善(比如学术期刊的发展)、学术规范不健全等,都使取得理论共识的难度增大。从方法论角度看,研究对象的界定、研究假设、研究方法等方面基础研究的薄弱以及分歧是导致理论“非证伪性”的重要原因。在简要分析了国内外学界对管理理论科学化持悲观态度的原因之后,文章分析了当前已有研究存在的问题,并认为管理理论的科学化可分为两大路径：一是科学社会学视角的路径,二是方法论视角的路径,从而为本研究提供了学理背景。第2章：管理研究的范围。管理研究边界的模糊不清与过于宽泛是导致管理理论难以科学化的原因之一。文章借鉴现代科学从“人的维度”、“物的维度”、“心的维度”三个角度展开的思想,把广义管理学划分为“人的管理”、“物的管理”与“心的管理”三个维度,并把对应于“人的管理”的管理学称为“狭义管理学”,对应于“物的管理”的管理学称为“管理科学”,对应于“心的管理”的管理学称为“管理伦理学”。在此分类基础之上,又按照利益相关者理论,把企业管理学划分为营销管理、战略管理、公共关系以及财务管理等多个子学科,并指出本文所说的管理限定于“企业内基层员工的管理”。同时,文章认为,尽管经济学、心理学、生理学、社会学、生物学等多种学科都是管理学的基础学科,但它们在管理理论发展中的作用却有很大差异,同时它们之间也往往形成学科间的主导——基础关系。最后,为实现管理理论科学化,管理理论应该“瘦身”。即从理论科学化以及研究范围的界定角度看,目前管理学派中有些学派的研究不属于管理研究领域；有些学派的研究则并非“管理学”的研究对象；有些学派虽然研究了“人的管理”,但却没有抓住问题核心,所提理论也有较大完善余地,所以,管理研究必须“有所为,有所不为”。第3章：人性假说的争议与融合。人性假说的争议不断是管理理论学派纷争的根源之一。文章主要就人性的“利己与利他”、“理性与情感”两个问题进行了论述。利他行为可分为亲缘利他、互惠利他、纯粹利他三种类型。由于前两者虽然在表现型上是利他的,但在基因型上却是自私的。所以,学界的争论主要围绕“纯粹利他行为何以发生”展开。文章梳理了纯粹利他行为的已有解释,比如群体选择理论、个体选择理论、强互惠或利他惩罚理论、合作剩余理论,认为人类行为的“基因——文化协同进化思想”尤其值得借鉴,并从中引申出人性的“自利性”、“可塑性”两个特征。理性与情感的争论实质上是围绕着“理性”的两层含义展开,即人类行为是否追求“极大化原则”?人类行为是否贯彻“一致性原则”?文章介绍了对“理性”进行批判的西蒙的有限理性学说、行为经济学中的理性,以及为“理性”辩护的弗里德曼的“似乎”理性、阿尔钦的“理性无关说”,并就汪丁丁近年来大力倡导的“情境理性”思想进行了简要介绍。基于对已有文献的梳理与评述,从中引申出人性的“有限理性”与“趋社会性”两个特征。第4章：管理的性质与制度结构。企业的显著特征是存在“权威”。对企业内为什么存在“权威”的争论,构成了企业理论发展的主线之一。文章梳理了科斯、阿尔钦、张五常、周其仁等人的企业理论,并提出“回到奈特”的研究视角,通过分析科斯等人“契约主义”学说存在的问题,解读奈特的企业理论,认为企业内之所以存在“权威”,首先是因为企业是“企业家的企业”。在此基础之上,引入张五常的“委托性考核”概念说明管理之必要。管理制度的结构性是契约不完全的结果。文章接受肖特对制度的定义,并把它分为“内在制度”(internal institutions)与“外在制度”(external institutions)两种类型。管理制度中的“正式制度”用来约束合约双方有明文规定的领域,而“企业文化”则用来约束合约不完全之处。管理依赖的制度类型不同则表现为不同的管理模式。如果管理主要依赖正式制度,则表现为权威管理,如果管理主要依赖企业文化,则表现为民主管理。文章认为,不同制度之间的选择主要取决于交易费用大小,而交易费用大小又与人力资本类型密切相关。最后,文章以“企业再造：一场原本可以避免的悲剧”为例说明,管理制度的变迁必须充分考虑正式制度与非正式制度的特征及其互补性。第5章：管理模式的选择。本章在对一个众所周知的管理现象——美日企业管理模式差异——分析的基础之上,提出了管理模式选择的一般逻辑,进而对若干影响较大的管理思潮进行了评判。美日企业管理模式是特定时期内在美日两国占主导地位的企业管理模式,并非一成不变的企业特征,两者的鲜明差异也并非“文化传统”决定。对美日企业管理模式差异的误读也反映了钱德勒命题——战略决定结构——的逻辑缺失。文章认为,管理模式选择的逻辑是,不同的市场环境导致企业选择不同的竞争战略,不同的竞争战略使企业采用不同的生产方式,不同的生产方式又使企业需要不同类型的人力资本,不同类型的人力资本导致了不同的管理模式。通过对美日企业管理模式的历史考察以及借用相关的研究数据,证实了本文提出的管理模式选择理论。在此基础之上,文章提出了“管理多样性”与“管理原则的科学性”两个观点,并对权变理论、情景依赖理论进行了简评,且重点指出,区分事实与价值,是管理理论科学化的重要一步。第6章：结语。在总结全文基础之上,作为对一种可能疑问或批评——文中大量应用经济学成果,这是否还是管理研究——的预先回应,文章简要回顾了经济学方法在管理研究中的应用,并对相关的若干问题作了简短讨论。就本论题的重要性与难度而言,显然不是一名博士生与一篇博士论文所能完成的任务。虽然因问学的“路径依赖性”,我倔强地坚持了下来。但我从来没奢望自己的研究能成为一家之说,我只是期望自此以后有越来越多的大家对此问题予以关注并投身其中。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation puts forward some views of the methodology foundation for scientification of management theory, some of which attack several well-known ideas. Although there is nothing particularly innovative, this dissertation places and integrates the research outcomes of many disciplines-such as philosophy, economics, sociology, psychology, biology, and MS of course-under one framework from a new perspective and with a new version. This dissertation is divided into six chapters, the main idea of each of which is as follows.Chapter One:Comments on scientificity of management theory. After briefly sorting the development of arguments from the philosophical circle against the essence of science, this dissertation argues that the essence of science is the socially accepted agreement which is characterized with flasifiablity, with flasfiability and intersubjectivity as two major differences from other perceptions. Judging from this, the two manifestations of MS as prescience are "nonflasifiablity" and "nonflasfiability". This dissertation claims the reasons for the prescience of MS can be explained from the perspectives of scientific community and methodology. From the perspective of scientific community, the theoretical agreement is dramatically achieved due to the variety of MS researchers (including professional researchers, entrepreneurs, consulting agencies and staff), research motivations and methodology, and the under developed academic platforms (for instance, the development of academic journals) and standards. From the perspective of methodology, the inadequacy and disagreements of basic research work among such things as the definition of study objects, assumptions and methodology explain the nonflasifiablity of MS. With an analysis on the reasons underlying the pessimistic attitude prevailing in the foreign academic field towards scientification of management theory, this dissertation analyses the problems in current existing research work, and argues that scientification of management theory can depend on two paths-the path of scientific community perspective and the path of methodology perspective-which are also the theory foundation of this dissertation. Chapter Two:the scope of management research. Clarifying the research scope of MS is the prerequisite for defining the basic subjects and their relationships for MS. Borrowing from modern science which studies from the perspectives the human, the objects and the minds, this dissertation divides MS in its broader sense into the management of human, the management of objects and the management of mind, and then refers to MS directed to the management of human as "Narrowed MS", MS directed to the management of objects as "Management Science", and MS directed to the management of mind as "Ethical MS". With this classification foundation in order, this dissertation then divides business MS into marketing management, strategic management, public management and financial management and other sub-disciplines according to stakeholders theory, and notes that the management studied in this dissertation is confined to "business rank and file management". Meanwhile, this dissertation argues that although they together are the basic subjects of MS, economics, psychology, physiology, socialology and biology play very different roles in the development of their respective fields and dominate among subjects-basic relationships. Finanally, in order to realize scientification, management theory should become "streamlined", that is, from the perspective of theory scientification and defined research scope, current research on part of some management schools does not belong to the range of management; or research objects of some other schools do not come within those of management; or some schools do not get to the heart of the matter and their theories still need improvements, although they studies the "management of human". Therefore, research on management must do something more import by leaving the others undone.Chapter Three:disputes and integration of the humanity hypothesis. The continuous dispute of humanity hypodissertation is one of the root causes of the disputes among schools of management theories. This dissertation mainly deals with "self-interestedness and altruism" and "sense and sensibility" of human natures. Altruism can be further divided into affinity altruism, mutual benefits altruism and pure altruism. The first two forms are essentially self-interest despite their seemingly pretense. Therefore, the disputes arising from the academic circle center round "the origin of pure altruism". This dissertation sorts the existing explanation for pure altruism, for example, collective choice theory, individual choice theory, strong reciprocity, residual interest theory, and argues that "genes-cultural evolutionary algorithms "of human behaviors is especially worth of reference, and "self-interestedness" and "convertibility" can therefore be extended.The dispute on sense and sensibility revolves round the two meanings of "rationality", that is, do human behaves according to optimality? This dissertation introduces bounded rationality by Herbent Simon, rationality in behavioral economics, "seemingly" rationality by Milton Friedman who defended rationality, irrelevance of rationality by Alchian, and situational rationality which is strongly advocated by Wang Dingding in recent years. Then, "limited rationality" and "prosociality" evolve from the sorting and comments on existing documented literature.Chapter Four:the nature and institutional structure of management. The obvious feature of enterprises is "authority". The arguments for the reason why authority exists in enterprises constitute the main line of the enterprise theory. Through analyzing the drawbacks of contract theory by Coase and others and interpreting enterprise theory by frank Hyneman Knight, this dissertation sorts the theories put forward by Alchian, Zhang Wuchang, and Zhou Qiren, etc., points out the research perspective of "returning to Knight", and argues that the primary reason for the existence of authority is that enterprises are "the enterprises of entrepreneurs", based on which the concept of "customized assessment" is elicited and the necessity of management is articulated.The institutional structure of management is the outcome of incomplete contracting. This dissertation approves the definition for institution by Andrew Schotter, and divides it into "internal institutions" and "external institutions". The "formal institutions" in management is used to restrict behaviors expressly stipulated in contracts whereas "corporate culture" is used to bind behaviors with imcomplete contracting. The fact the management depends on different institutions is manifested in the different management modes. Management presents authority management when mainly depending on formal institutions, or democratic management largely depends on corporate. This dissertation argues that the choice between different institutions depends on the size of transaction costs, which is closely related to human resources categories. Finally, this dissertation illustrates that the evolvement of management institutions must allow for the features and complementarity of both formal and informal institutions by taking as an example "enterprise reconstructuring"-a tragedy which could have been avoided.Chapter Five:the choice of management modes. This chapter puts forward a general reasoning for the choice of management institutions on the basis of an analysis of a well-known management phenomenon-the difference in management modes between American and Japanese enterprises, and then makes comments on several surges of influential management thoughts. American and Japanese modes of management are the respectively dominating modes in the two countries rather than the stereotypes of enterprises features. The obvious differences between them are not decided by "cultural traditions" too. The misunderstanding of them also reflects the logic absence of Chandler’s structure follows strategy-strategy decides on structure. This dissertation argues that the logic for choosing management modes should be as follows:different market situations lead to different competition strategies, which make enterprises adopt different modes of production. This in turn causes enterprises to require different types of human resources, which results in different modes of management. The historical examination on the management modes between American and Japanese enterprises and the statistics borrowed from other sources confirms the choice theory of management modes put forward by this dissertation. Based on this, this dissertation advances ideas on "management variety" and "scientificness of management principles", comments on contingency theory of management, situation dependence theory, and emphasizes that the distinction between facts and values is the basic step of scientification of management theory.Chapter Six:Conclusion. Based on a summary of the whole dissertation, this chapter briefly reviews the application of economics methodology in management research and discusses several related issues with a purpose of explaining the realistic implication of economics methodology for management research.As far as the importance and the difficulty of the topic are concerned, this dissertation is clearly beyond the ability of a PhD student and a doctoral dissertation. But I stubbornly persist on it. I never hope it could become a school of thought, but expect that many others could devote themselves in it.更多还原