IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/scn/mngsci/y2016i3p55-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Менеджмент и производительность: зарубежные подходы и проблема верификации // Management and Productivity: Foreign Conceptions and Verification Problem

Author

Listed:
  • E. Moreva L.

    (The Federal State Budgeted Educational Institution for Higher Education ‘Russian Foreign Trade Academy of the Ministry for Economic Development of the Russian Federation’)

  • Евгения Морева Львовна

    (Всероссийская академия внешней торговли Министерства экономического развития Российской Федерации)

Abstract

The article contains the critical analysis of foreign methods of management research treated as a productivity factor and elaborated on the basis of surveys. The evaluation of such approaches is relevant for Russia because of its low economic productivity with the causes of management’s role keeping unclear. The article shows the first of such researches operated in some foreign countries and economic sectors seemed to prove the link between management and productivity while later applied to various countries and sectors they didn’t achieve the goal. The survey methods impeded the credible determination of the investigated link, its mechanism and terms of constitution. To cope these problems the complementation of such instrument with the others compensating its inability to identify the casualty of the links, the information distortion due to the peculiarities of the cognition processes reflected in the surveys and its limitations under multiplicity and variability of the management and productivity interaction in various national and sectoral contexts was required. These means were the tried and tested historical research methods as well as the new ones elaborated basis systemic approach for so called soft theories. Their application with the survey method would result in the constitution of the efficient instrument not only for the operative and reliable determination of the link between management and productivity of various sectors and countries but for the respective economic policy elaborated and realized on such a basis. To cope with these problems the complementation of such instrument with the others compensating its inability to identify the casualty of the links, the information distortion due to the peculiarities of the cognition processes reflected in the surveys and its limitations under multiplicity and variability of the management and productivity interaction in various national and spectral contexts was required. These means were the tried and tested historical research methods as well as the new ones elaborated basis systemic approach for so called soft theories. Their application with the survey method would result in the constitution of the efficient instrument not only for the operative and reliable determination of the link between management and productivity of various sectors and countries but for the respective economic policy elaborated and realized on such a basis. Статья содержит критический анализ используемых за рубежом способов исследования менеджмента как фактора производительности экономики, разработанных на основе опросов. Оценка таких подходов чрезвычайно актуальна для современной России, так как в ее хозяйстве устойчиво сохраняется низкая производительность, а причины этого и роль менеджмента среди них не ясны. В статье показано, что если первые подобные исследования, проведенные в отдельных зарубежных странах и секторах, казалось, подтверждали и раскрывали связь менеджмента с производительностью, то в последствии применяемые ко все новым сферам и в разных государствах, они не достигали этой цели. Использование методов на основе опросов не позволяло достоверно определить структуру изучаемой связи, механизм ее реализации и условия формирования. Преодоление этих недостатков требовало дополнить данный инструментарий другими средствами, компенсирующими его неспособность выявить казуальную направленность связей; искажение информации из-за отраженной опросами специфики процессов познания рассматриваемых отношений, а также его ограниченность в условиях многообразия и вариативности взаимодействия менеджмента и производительности в разных национальных экономиках и их секторах. К таким средствам относились как уже известные и опробованные исторические методы исследования, так и новые способы, разрабатываемые на основе системного подхода для так называемых мягких теорий. Их применение вместе с методом опросов позволило бы создать эффективное средство не только для оперативного и достоверного определения связи менеджмента и производительности разных секторов и стран, но и для соответствующей экономической политики, разрабатываемой и реализуемой на этой основе.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Moreva L. & Евгения Морева Львовна, 2016. "Менеджмент и производительность: зарубежные подходы и проблема верификации // Management and Productivity: Foreign Conceptions and Verification Problem," Управленческие науки // Management Science, ФГОБУВО Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации // Financial University under The Government of Russian Federation, vol. 6(3), pages 55-66.
  • Handle: RePEc:scn:mngsci:y:2016:i:3:p:55-66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://managementscience.fa.ru/jour/article/viewFile/70/71.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chad Syverson, 2004. "Product Substitutability and Productivity Dispersion," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(2), pages 534-550, May.
    2. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen, 2007. "Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1351-1408.
    3. Nicholas Bloom & Renata Lemos & Raffaella Sadun & Daniela Scur & John Van Reenen, 2014. "The New Empirical Economics of Management," NBER Working Papers 20102, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefan Bender & Nicholas Bloom & David Card & John Van Reenen & Stefanie Wolter, 2018. "Management Practices, Workforce Selection, and Productivity," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(S1), pages 371-409.
    2. Baltrunaite, Audinga & Bovini, Giulia & Mocetti, Sauro, 2023. "Managerial talent and managerial practices: Are they complements?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    3. Theophilus Lartey & Diana Owusu Yirenkyi & Samuel Adomako & Albert Danso & Joseph Amankwah‐Amoah & Ashraful Alam, 2020. "Going green, going clean: Lean‐green sustainability strategy and firm growth," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 118-139, January.
    4. Florian Englmaier & Katharina Schüßler, 2015. "Complementarities of HRM Practices - A Case for Employing Multiple Methods and Integrating Multiple Fields," CESifo Working Paper Series 5249, CESifo.
    5. Aga,Gemechu A. & Campos,Francisco Moraes Leitao & Conconi,Adriana & Davies,Elwyn Adriaan Robin & Geginat,Carolin, 2021. "Are Firm Capabilities Holding Back Firms in Mozambique ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9724, The World Bank.
    6. Englmaier, Florian & Schüßler, Katharina, 2015. "Complementarities of HRM Practices," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 503, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    7. Yong Soo Keong & Partha Sen & Cao Jing, 2024. "An Inquiry into the North-South Management Gap in China," CESifo Working Paper Series 10952, CESifo.
    8. Steven Davis & Cheryl Grim & John Haltiwanger, 2008. "Productivity Dispersion and Input Prices: The Case of Electricity," Working Papers 08-33, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    9. Nicholas Bloom & Renata Lemos & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2020. "Healthy Business? Managerial Education and Management in Health Care," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(3), pages 506-517, July.
    10. Christopher Cornwell & Ian M. Schmutte & Daniela Scur, 2021. "Building a Productive Workforce: The Role of Structured Management Practices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7308-7321, December.
    11. Gelb, Alan & Meyer, Christian J. & Ramachandran, Vijaya, 2014. "Development as diffusion: Manufacturing productivity and sub-Saharan Africa's missing middle," WIDER Working Paper Series 042, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    12. Amitabh Chandra & Amy Finkelstein & Adam Sacarny & Chad Syverson, 2013. "Healthcare Exceptionalism? Productivity and Allocation in the U.S. Healthcare Sector," NBER Working Papers 19200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Alicia Gómez–Tello & Rosella Nicolini, 2017. "Immigration and productivity: a Spanish tale," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 167-183, April.
    14. Erik Brynjolfsson & Wang Jin & Kristina McElheran, 2021. "The power of prediction: predictive analytics, workplace complements, and business performance," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 56(4), pages 217-239, October.
    15. Boyd, Gale A. & Curtis, E. Mark, 2014. "Evidence of an “Energy-Management Gap” in U.S. manufacturing: Spillovers from firm management practices to energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 463-479.
    16. Xavier Vives, 2008. "Innovation And Competitive Pressure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 419-469, December.
    17. Arimoto, Yutaka & 有本, 寛 & Kurata, Masamitsu, 2017. "Adoption of Management Practices in the Public Sector of Bangladesh," Discussion Paper Series 654, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    18. Gilbert CETTE & Jimmy LOPEZ & Jacques MAIRESSE & Giuseppe NICOLETTI, 2020. "Economic Adjustment during the Great Recession: The Role of Managerial Quality," Working Papers 2020-26, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    19. Paolo Buccirossi & Lorenzo Ciari & Tomaso Duso & Giancarlo Spagnolo & Cristiana Vitale, 2013. "Competition Policy and Productivity Growth: An Empirical Assessment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1324-1336, October.
    20. Jacquelyn Pless, 2022. "To Starve or to Stoke? Understanding Whether Divestment versus Investment Can Steer (Green) Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, volume 2, pages 107-147, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:scn:mngsci:y:2016:i:3:p:55-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Алексей Скалабан (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://managementscience.elpub.ru .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.