The role and Meaning of Managerial Decision in Different Management Schools

The unity of conceptual apparatus in all management schools is an essential element for a progressive development of the science. The paper describes the aspect of dividing most resonant theorists of management into schools and the searching for a managerial decision idea in each of those schools. The aim of the work is to develop a generally accepted holistic view of the managerial decision through the analysis of the heritage of the classic theory of management. The research is of a theoretical and general nature, the authors use general scientific methods, including the historical method, analysis and synthesis, methods of analogy and generalization. Here you can find the approach based on the identification of a paradigm including the historical method, analysis and synthesis, methods of analogy and generalization. For the first time, schools of management have been compared from the point of view of their understanding of the essence of management decisions. The paper pays equal attention to the representatives of both world and domestic management theory. The conclusion is about the lack of a common understanding of management decisions shared by all schools. It also revealed the need to formulate its universal idea. As a study result, the sixth school has been added to the five schools identified in management theory. There has been formulated a paradigm for each one including a comparison of schools with respect to their views on a managerial decision. Also, there was compiled a table reflecting ideas about managerial essence and significance in management schools. The results of this research can be useful and relevant both for scientists, involved in management decision-making, and management practitioners who want to reasonably approach the problems and goals facing the organization. The perspective of further research lies in development of a definition that allows to get the most holistic picture of the managerial decision. The complexity of proposing that new definition lies in the need to consider all the achievements of all predecessors and it’s associated with the risk of initial rejection of the innovation by the scientific community.

1. Grezneva O. Scientific schools: Principles of classification. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2004;(5):42–48. (In Russ.).

2. Taylor F.W. The principles of scientific management. New York, London: Harper & Brothers Publ.; 1911. 156 p. (Russ. ed.: Taylor F.W. Printsipy nauchnogo menedzhmenta. Moscow: Kontrolling; 1991. 104 p.).

3. Fayol H. Administration industrielle et générale. Paris: H. Dunod et E. Pinat; 1917. 174 p. (Russ. ed.: Fayol H. Obshchee i promyshlennoe upravlenie. Moscow: Kontrolling; 1992. 112 p.).

4. Emerson H. The twelve principles of efficiency. New York: The Engineering Magazine Co.; 1924. 423 p. (Russ. ed.: Emerson H. Dvenadtsat’ printsipov proizvoditel’nosti. Moscow: Tekhnika upravleniya; 1931. 213 p.).

5. Vitke N.A. Management organization and industrial development (essays on the sociology of the scientific organization of labor and management). 2nd ed. Moscow: People’s Commissariat of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection; 1925. 250 с. (In Russ.).

6. Drezen E. Guidelines for organizing the administrative apparatus of Soviet institutions. Moscow: People’s Commissariat of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection; 1927. 424 с. (In Russ.).

7. Gvishiani D.M. Organization and management. Sociological analysis of bourgeois theories. Мoscow: Nauka; 1970. 382 с. (In Russ.).

8. Follett M.P. The new state: Group organization the solution of popular government. New York, London: Longmans, Green and Co.; 1918. 373 p.

9. Follett M.P. Creative experience. New York, London: Longmans, Green and Co.; 1924. 303 p.

10. Rubinstein M. F., Firstenberg I. R. The minding organization: Bring the future to the present and turn creative ideas into business solutions. New York, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1999. 224 p. (Russ. ed.: Rubinstein M. F., Firstenberg I. R. Intellektual’naya organizatsiya. Privnesi budushchee v nastoyashchee i prevrati tvorcheskie idei v biznes-resheniya. Moscow: Infra-M; 2003. 192 p.).

11. Warner M., ed. The IEBM handbook of management thinking. London: Thomson Learning; 2000. 816 p. (International Encyclopedia of Business & Management). (Russ. ed.: Warner M., ed. Klassiki menedzhmenta: Entsiklopediya. St. Petersburg: Piter; 2001. 1168 p.).

12. Buchanan L., O’Connell A. A brief history of decision making. Harvard Business Review. 2006;84(1):32–41.

13. Miller D.W., Starr M.K. Executive decision and operations research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1960. 446 p.

14. Simon H.A. Models of man: Social and rational-mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1956. 204 p.

15. Gryadovoi D.I. Theory and practice of managerial decision-making: Innovative aspects. Moscow: Moscow Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, Shchit-M; 2002. 316 p. (In Russ.).

16. Etzioni A. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1964. 120 p.

17. Dubin R. Stability of human organizations. In: Haire M., ed. Modern organization theory. Huntington, NY: Krieger; 1959:218–253.

18. Senge P. M. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, London: Doubleday Business; 1994. 448 p. (Russ. ed.: Senge P. Pyataya distsiplina: iskusstvo i praktika obuchayushcheysya organizatsii. Moscow: Olymp-Business; 1999. 406 p.).

19. Greenwood W.T. Decision theory and information systems: An introduction to management decision making. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co.; 1969. 818 p.

20. Robinson J., Downie J., Winsten C.B. The present position of econometrics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General). 1960;123(3):274–296. DOI: 10.2307/2342469

21. Kozlova O.V., ed. The theory of socialist production management. Moscow: Ekonomika; 1983. 432 с. (In Russ.).

22. Mil’ner B.Z., Gaponenko A. L., Orlova T. M. Management in the 21st century: New development trends. Gosudarstvennaya sluzhba = Public Administration. 2009;(1):39–44. (In Russ.).

23. Mueller R.K. The Managementality gap. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics. 1969;5(1):57–64. DOI: 10.1109/TSSC.1969.300245

24. Adamiecki K. On organizational science: Selected works. Transl. from Polish. Moscow: Ekonomika; 1972. 191 с. (In Russ.).

25. Koller T., Goedhart M., Wessels D. Valuation: Measuring and managing the value of companies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2015. 848 p.

26. Dolan S. L., Garcia S. Managing by values: Cultural redesign for strategic organizational change at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Journal of Management Development. 2002;21(2):101–117. DOI: 10.1108/02621710210417411

27. Serebryakova G.V. Development of value paradigm in management. Upravlenie. 2016;4(2):38–43. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.12737/20822

28. Nezamaikin I.V. Research of approaches to identifying the value system in corporations. Vestnik Universiteta (Gosudarstvennyi universitet upravleniya). 2013;(8):148–152. (In Russ.).

29. Mandrusova A.I., Temnyshov I.A. The concept of training specialists in management organization based on the functional model of management decision. Ekonomika obrazovaniya = Economics of Education. 2019;(1):39– 47. (In Russ.).

30. Salikhov F. N. Concept and essence of management decisions. Ekonomika i upravlenie: analiz tendentsii i perspektiv razvitiya. 2014;(17):112–115. (In Russ.).