과학, 인문학 그리고 경영학: 미국의 경영대학 발전사에서 얻는 교훈 (Science, the Humanities, and Management:Lessons from the History of American Business Schools)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국인사조직학회
· 수록지 정보 : 인사조직연구 / 23권 / 2호 / 61 ~ 92페이지
· 저자명 : 윤세준

초록

최근 한국의 기업들 사이에 ‘열풍’이라는 단어가 부족할 정도로 인문학에 대한 관심이 고조되고 있다. 민감한 경영학자들은 이 현상을 호기심 어린 눈으로 바라보겠지만 대부분의 경영학자들은 이를 무관심으로 대하고 있다. 한국의 기업들은 왜 갑자기 인문학에 관심을 보이는가? 이 현상은 다른 나라의 기업들에서도 발견되는 보편적 경향일까? 이러한 질문들에 대한 답을 찾기 위해 이 논문은 근대적 경영학이 발원한 미국으로 시각을 돌려 미국의 경영대학들이 인문학과 역사적으로 어떤 관계를 맺어왔는지, 그 과정에 영향을 미친 요소들은 무엇이었는지, 그리고 최근의 발전상은 어떤 것인지 등을 살펴보았다. 그 결과 19세기 말 경영학이 대학사회에 최초로 진입하던 시기에는 경영대학을 대학사회의 일원으로 위치시키는 문제, 즉 정당성 확보의 문제가 매우 중요했음을 알 수 있었다. 그래서 당시의 경영대학들은 기업 경영을 전문직(profession)으로 격상시킨다는 명분을 전면에 내세웠는데, 당시의 전문직이란 전문적 지식 이외에도 공익을 수호하는 책임의식과 윤리적 판단능력을 보유하는 직업군을 의미하였다. 따라서 최초의 경영대학들은 정체성 확보의 중요 방편으로서 인문학을 강조할 수밖에 없었다. 그러나 오래지 않아 경영대학에서 인문학이 점하는 위상은 점점 쇠퇴하였다. 특히 Carnegie 재단과 Ford 재단이 미국 경영학의 실태를 조사한 보고서들이 1959년에 나란히 출간되었는데, 이때를 기점으로 해서 경영학은 과학으로서의 정체성을 확보하는 작업에 몰두하였고 인문학적 요소의 상대적 중요성도 크게 감소하기 시작하였다. 그러나 과학으로서의 경영학은 그 후 50년이 넘는 기간 동안 그렇게 큰 성과를 산출하지 못했고, 경영학계는 유용한 지식을 축적하지 못했다. 그리하여 학계에는 현대경영학의 위기, 혹은 쓸모없음(irrelevance)을 지적하는 경영학자들이 적지 않고, 산업계에서도 경영학의 유용성을 의심하는 시각이 광범위하게 유포되어 있다. 이러한 시대적 상황에서 경영학의 위기를 극복하기 위해서는 인문학이 도입되어야 한다는 주장이 다시 등장하고 있는데, 현재 한국 기업들이 몰두하고 있는 인문학 열풍도 이런 흐름 중의 하나로 볼 수 있다. 그러나 그 실상을 자세히 들여다보면 많은 문제점들이 발견된다. 이 논문은 한국 기업들의 인문학 수용의 현 상태에 대한 진단, 바람직한 방향, 그리고 이를 위해 한국의 경영학계가 수행해야 할 과제들을 제안하는 것으로 마무리된다.

영어초록

During the last decade or so, many Korean firms have enthusiastically pursued the idea of using various disciplines of the humanities (i.e., philosophy, history, literature, and art) to boost corporate performance. For example, many firms are offering various in-house, humanities-related lectures to their employees, and in this milieu, outside training and education organizations and some humanities scholars are also busy seeking opportunities in this burgeoning market. So in Korean companies, especially large ones, corporate lectures that cover various humanities topics such as ancient history or the works and thoughts of great thinkers (e.g., Socrates, Goethe, Confucius, or Michelangelo) are very common. Books that try to bridge the humanities and business world, however clumsy and without elegance they may be, are also extremely popular among various ranks of Korean businessmen. As bizarre as they may seem, on a surface level these developments may well be viewed as the arrival of a new management paradigm in Korea. As a matter of fact, these developments, often dubbed ‘humanities fever’, are affecting all of Korean society, not just the business world.
However, most of the management scholars and educators in Korean business schools are silent on these curious developments. Given the long-standing coevolution of the business world and business schools, this silence is unusual and awaits plausible explanations. This paper thus raises the following questions: Why are Korean firms so fervently trying to embrace the humanities while management scholars pay little attention to them? Have Korean firms become humanized through these endeavors? And, can these developments be observed globally and thus signify some fundamental changes, or are they just peculiar to Korean companies? To satisfactorily answer these questions, this paper begins by examining the history of the early years of American business schools and trying to gauge the nature and transformation of the relationship that the humanities have maintained with the business world. Since American business schools are widely emulated in many parts of the world and Korea is no exception, it was expected that understanding how the humanities were assimilated by American business schools and the trajectory of that relationship over the years would provide insights and a frame of reference by which the developments in Korea can be comprehended.
The findings can be summarized as follows: First, the humanities played a very important role in the formative stages of American business schools. In particular, the establishment of business schools on university campuses was pioneered by such institutions as Wharton, Tuck and Harvard Business School, which actively mobilized the ‘professionalization of businessmen’ discourse as a rationale for their inclusion during a time when most university constituents were quite hostile about the idea. As the humanities were considered a necessary ingredient of the professionalization project, liberal arts education was heavily emphasized and, in the case of the Wharton School for example, historical approaches were deeply incorporated into the very core of business education. Second, the status of the humanities vis-à-vis science began to diminish rapidly as the business world became increasingly uncomfortable with humanitarian values and perspectives. Thus, business schools turned away from the humanities and began to emphasize the scientific aspects of managerial practices. This trend persisted during the first part of the 20th century and, in 1959, it culminated in Ford and Carnegie Foundation research reports on the state of business education. Since then, research in business schools has become a quasi-scientific activity and as a consequence management education has become detached from the real world. Third, more recently, many influential management scholars have begun to express their discontent with the current state of research and education in business schools. Most of their discontent centers on the fact that scientism now dominates almost all dimensions of American business schools, and these scholars in general recommend the reincorporation of the humanities as a remedy for this overdose of scientism.
All in all, it seems that a return to the humanities is imminent, and the humanities fever at Korean firms may well be located in this wider context. However, on closer scrutiny, the Korean humanization project appears to be quite off target. Despite the ostensible enthusiasm and flashy rhetoric, most of the firms heralding the humanities discourse seem to be floundering as to its actual implementation. In fact, it would not be a serious distortion to say that almost nothing very substantial has been done other than adopting some stylish rhetoric or superficial practices of doubtful effect. The paper ends by discussing implications and recommendations meant for the Korean business world and academicians, respectively.

참고자료

· 없음