Pole tekstowe: for 
Pole tekstowe: MANAGEMENT              ALL
science -  education - consulting
 

Pole tekstowe: Full version
 
Pole tekstowe: Sometimes, what counts is unaccountable, and what is accountable doesn’t count.
(A. Einstein).
1. The key issue of scientific organization and management in the 1990s was related to the value concept, that is “Value Based Management” (VBM)[1].  The problem of “value” has been covered by a wide range and variety of concepts, methods and research tools in a purpose of evaluating organizational value - value created for shareholders.  Nevertheless, this reflection of an undoubtedly axiological nature, has not yet resolved all fundamental issues related to the process of organizational value creation in the wider perspective of stakeholders’ needs.
For ages, human cognitive reflection, in general, has been taking into consideration two research questions: 1) the world’s functionality and 2) the meaning of the world’s existence. In the first case, we deal with the “how?” type questions – this is the process of discovering the mechanisms, functionality the phenomenon studied, their rules, relations or models.  In the second case, we deal with a totally different cognitive perspective; we do not ask: “how it works?”, but rather “why?”, “what’s the sense of it all”, “whom or what does it serve?” or “what value does it have for humans?”[2].  The genesis of that restless research of the “what sense does it have?” type, we can discover in the biblical symbolism of “the cognitive tree of good and evil”.  A human by its nature cannot release himself from that cognitive, meaningful perspective. Today, we don’t have any doubts that to fully understand, very often extremely complex phenomenon of contemporary organization and management, we need to perform scientific reflection, which undertakes questions such as: “what sense does it have?” type, and not only for: “how it works?”[3] type.
In fact, for a human being who is seeking truth about the real world around him, questions of “meaning” are as much, and very often even more important than the first, as basic one.  For ages, these two different cognitive perspectives had two parallel, very often integrated paths of knowledge development. In certain period in history Cartesius performed ontological division. In the name of clarification and expressiveness[4], he divided knowledge, into “science” and “metaphysics”.  Cartesius wanted to achieve, that in the area of exactness and expressiveness all scientific disciplines would become similar to mathematics.  Thus, mathematics derives its cognition advantage from only quantitative characteristics.  He strived to achieve the point, where all scientific speculations are based on quantitative measures”[5].  That’s why, as W. Tatarkiewicz states: “for Cartesius the ideal was to derive characteristics of all objects from shape and movement, and all nature to weight out only in geometric and mechanistic perspective”[6]. The so called, qualitative perspective (question of meaning) has lost its exact (scientific) foundation for Natural Science representatives. Consequently, in the above- mentioned ontological division, “value” has become a part of axiological reflection understood in two different ways: in Philosophy, mainly as an issue of an ethical, normative nature (Moral Philosophy), and in Economics as a financial factor (price, cost, utility), i.e. Value Theory. 
Without going deeper into a strictly theoretical dispute[7] (Value Philosophy, Value Theory, sociological axio-normative system), as much as into differentiation of an ontological nature, we interpret a notion of “value” in modern science as: 1) “Objects, reality, situations, which people appreciate and take the effort to achieve them.  They are stable and define what is right, what is desirable”[8] – cultural/sociological perspective[9]; 2) “Goods satisfying human needs achieved in the process of human economic activities”[10] – economic perspective; 3) “A term of an objectively performed relationship, in which the essence of the matter is in relation to humanity, or any of its characteristic.  Value is an essence of the matter, which valuation is fixed in humanity”[11] – human perspective. 
In spite of the multi-faceted and interdisciplinary[12] character, “value” as a term, generally, can be ontologically divided  into two axiological perspectives: 1) value in quantitative perspective (economic approach) and 2) value in qualitative perspective (cultural approach). In both situations we take into consideration value, nevertheless, there are two different ontological, epistemological and methodological approaches.
[1] References: J.M. McTaggart, P.W. Kontes, M.C. Mankins, The Value Imperative; T. Copeland, T. Kleer, J. Murrin, Valuation. Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies, (1994); A.J. Slywotzky, Value Migration. How to Think Ahead of the Competition (1995); Ch. Coates, The Total Manager. Break Out of Your Department and Manage the Whole Business (1995); Price Waterhouse, In Search of Shareholder Value (1996); D. Wheeler, M. Sillanpää, The Stakeholder Corporation.  A blueprint for maximizing stakeholder value (1997); A. Black, P. Wright, J.E. Bachman, In Search of Shareholder Value (1997); S. Marthur, A. Kenyon, Creating Value (1997); J. Knight, Value Based Management (1998); A. Herman, A. Szablewski, Zarządzanie wartością firmy (1999).
[2] Reference: J. Goćkowski, S. Marmuszewski (red.), Nauka. Tożsamość i tradycja, Kraków 1995, p. 17.
[3] Qualitative character of being has its universal extent, transcendental, which is proofed in such transcendentials as truth, right and beauty. Source: M.A. Krąpiec, Człowiek. Kultura. Uniwersytet, Lublin 1982, p. 122.
[4] Reference: W. Tatarkiewicz, Historia filozofii, part 2, Warszawa 1997, p. 47.
[5] As above.
[6] As above.
[7] W. Cichoń, Wartości, człowiek, wychowanie. Zarys problematyki aksjologiczno-wychowawczej, Kraków 1996, p. 13-14.
[8] L. Zbiegień-Maciąg, Kultura w organizacji. Identyfikacja kultury znanych firm, Warszawa 1999, p. 48.
[9] Reference: P. Sztompka, Socjologia. Analiza społeczeństwa, Kraków 2002, p. 258-259.
[10] Reference: R. Milewski, in: R. Milewski (red.), Podstawy ekonomii, Warszawa 2002, p. 20.
[11] A. Chmielecki, Rzeczy i wartości. Humanistyczne podstawy edukacji ekonomicznej, Warszawa 1999, p. 167.
[12] Reference: Typy, hierarchia i systemy wartości, w: L.J. Krzyżanowski, O podstawach kierowania organizacjami inaczej, Warszawa 1999, p. 206-218.
 
Pole tekstowe: !
Pole tekstowe: back
Pole tekstowe: !
Pole tekstowe: Marian Krupa, The Value Concept in Contemporary Organization and Management.              4th International PhD Conference, University of Miscolc, Hungary  –  2003.