위기의 자본주의: 경영과 조직 이론에 관한 새로운 이해 (Capitalism in Crisis: New Thoughts on Management and Organization Theories)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국인사조직학회
· 수록지 정보 : 인사조직연구 / 21권 / 3호 / 195 ~ 227페이지
· 저자명 : 유태영, 권석균

초록

최근의 금융위기와 이에 따른 경기침체는 자본주의 체제에 대한 위기의식과, 기업의이익만을 고려하는 경영활동에 대한 비판을 불러왔다. 이에 대하여, 거시적 관점에서 비판적정치경제학, 자본주의 4.0, 다원적 자본주의 이론, 그리고 미시적 관점에서 이해관계자이론, 사회책임 경영, 공유가치 경영 등의 여러 대안이론이 제시되었다. 대안이론에 따라그 중요성이 다르기는 하지만, 공공부문과 민간의 공조의 필요성과 상호관련성을 강조하고기업의 목적과 기능을 확장하여 신자유주의 관점을 극복하려는 입장이 공통적으로 나타난다.
하지만 거시와 미시의 이론적 주안점에 차이가 있어 자본주의의 위기현상을 전체적으로이해하고 통합적인 대안을 제시하는데 일정한 한계가 있다. 특히 기업의 사적이익과 사회의공공이익 간의 괴리를 극복하는 방법에서 각각의 경직된 논리에 의존하고 있다.
이에 대안이론들의 공통점과 차이점을 비판적 관점에서 분석하고, 나아가서 이들논거를 통합, 보완하여 새로운 자본주의와 경영의 원리를 모색하였다. 기존 대안이론들에서 논점의 차이를 불러일으키고 있는 미시-거시의 차원과 경제적 행위의 수단과 결과간의 갭에 주목하여 기존 대안이론들을 재분석 하고, 미시적 수준에서 기업의 행동원리(수단)와 목적을 구분하여 거시적 수준의 자본주의 체제 논의와 연계시켜 새로운 대안의논거를 마련하였다.
구체적으로, 수단 측면에서 다양한 행위기준이 국가경제와 시장환경에 따라 다양하게선택될 수 있고 결과 측면에서는 다양한 목적 가치들이 기업행동을 유인하는 목표로채택될 수 있다고 보았다. 이러한 행위기준의 복합성과 목적가치의 다양성은 보편주의와특수주의의 통합적 입장을 견지하고 있다. 기존의 대안이론들이 수단과 목적 간에밀접한 연계성을 가정하고 있는데 반해 본고에서는 이들간에 느슨한 연계성이 요구된다는 점에 주목하였다. 그리하여 기업의 목적과 행위의 원리 및 조직운영이 실제 다양한양식(varieties of firms)으로 실현될 것이며, 경제 체제 역시 여러 가지 형식으로 다원화(extended varieties of capitalism)되어 나타날 것이다.

영어초록

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.

참고자료

· 없음