Смотреть недозволенное (1932) в Full HD качестве ОНЛАЙН
By the last synthetic formula of an operational principle we realize a generalization of the managerial model of time and space. Here we take into account some specific rules to use stable, mobile and variable space units.
The right place and moment for various activities are established in different ways in distinct managerial approaches. Our time itself generates a whole vision about the new and perpetually changing physical or virtual environments generated by the computer and internet culture.
Principles of actual set up of a change, with an unmediated efficacy: This set of principles, chosen to obtain or to grow the effectiveness degree of social action, is applicable in any kind of social action but it is intended to substantiate mainly social management.
From the specified perspective, we can note the following remarks. The activity of change management changes induced by the crisis included — has common components with any other management activities; — is, itself, a complex activity; — is a meta-activity, because subordinates various types of other activities. Changes do not have to be forced; they can complicate the situation by generating new problems and then they can aggravate the given situation.
A higher effectiveness of change management as any kind of managing activity can be marked if the importance of a principle-based education is observed. Here, we pay attention not only to the organizational principles, but to some other kinds of principles as well. Our attitude can be then affiliated to the so called principism, which is, however, mainly a moral trend in thinking.
Another specification becomes useful here, because the common sense tends to reduce all sorts of principles to moral principles.
The latter constituates the fund of principles that supports all other types of principles and legitimates them from the viewpoint of the perspective of the most important values by which action is directed. In this sense, all principles are moral because of their moral basis, but, in fact, they illustrate a general concealing attitude: How to Make Changes. Is to induce necessary changes only a practical problem, or can we create and then others can study the Science of change?
Change is the most natural and the most general phenomenon. To state the permanence of change is, then, natural too. But nature makes only necessary changes, namely, those with the maximal probability of success. Certainly, nature has exercised changes from the beginning of the time, while we have to make changes in unprecedented and unique, uncertain or even risky situations.
If in nature change means any simple form of movement, society is a complex and evolving system, where each change can be a real experiment. This new level of complexity is sometimes addressed even by scolars dealing with physical sciences like me. Prigogine, who shows [7, pp. In this case, the future is hard to be predicted because of the multitude of changes which become possible.
Under these conditions, we have to make realistic changes, because these kinds of changes are also feasable. Changes must be measurable, i. What does a realistic change mean? A study-based change, a change prepared by a description of the situation that we have to change, and a change for which we have already established the likely efficacy both objective and subjective efficacy. Then, similar to nature, we have to know if the projected action deserves the effort or, in other words, we have to apply the very principle of nature, the principle of minimal effort.
In social and economic terms we have the efficacy balance: But nature also behaves according to the principle of podigiousity and even of prodigality of resources, coordinated with the other principle, the principle of trial-and-error, all these in her effort to ensure continuity of life, particularly. Efficacy of social action also depends on unconditioned commitment to a goal, determination and sacrifice, as it is related to chance, opportunity and mainly to initiative.
If we take as fundaments the above formulated ideas, it becomes clear enough that: A fundamental aspect related to the realism of change is a right understanding and settling of the goal of action. An adequate evaluation of the complexity of purpose, and then a qualified identification and implementation of the set of motivations for a change — a motivation management — are important ingredients of a successful change. Then we have to consider and to solve, to represent and to communicate problems such as: From a prospective and thoughtful perspective, the main purpose of social change is the public good, but this one is identified in very different ways, in each economic theory or political programme; yet sometimes even pragmatic thinkers determine it as being happiness.
French authors name this future desirable state as the joy of living in society when the English speaking ones, as satisfaction with life that can be analysed by some specific social indicators. A diversity, not only linguistic one but even one of approaches, becomes obvious when we find out that happiness is designed by philosophy, promised by politics and allowed by economy.
From this latter, deeply practical viewpoint, some present scholars in social sciences  outline that any economic model is bathing in a general vision which includes a representation of the joy to live in society.
The most important request of change management is, in our vision, to generate, to manage, to finalize, to measure and to continue a successful change. Change does not have to be made for the sake of change; in such a situation each social actor and even individual may understand what he wants and can act as he considers; consequently, the success will be a temporary one — a motivated success — and will end in inefficacy.
Undesirable subjective attitudes such as the lack of willingness to assume the responsability, development of burocracy in its wrong sense often manifested in unfear interpersonal relations at work , can also appear. Change can generate incertitudes as it may be imposed by incertitudes. In both situations, it has to be introduced and managed in a way that enables people to cope successfully with the results of change.
Not only understanding, accord, but involvement in cooperation in the whole process of change are needed. A change managing team has to be established if the change is urgent, to fix the time limits in which it is opportune, the risks of an intempestive application of change, the proper rhytm, and the likelihood or even the imminence of a disaster that may occur by generating or by impeding a change.
In many cases a postponing of change is decided in order to see if time can solve the problem we have. But, generally, inactivity in social context is not the right solution, mainly because incertitude is a permanent feature of the social system and environment.
In the discussed case, a definitory feature of the social existence is extended to the social activity too. At the same time, even if rush changes may produce short-term legitimacy, it reduces responsibility. They can also generate unforeseen difficulties that will request supplementary efforts and can determine counter-effective results.
A manager has to distinguish between changes imposed by systemic constrains and changes required by contextual or environmental issues, that may be induced by relations with other systems but can become necessary as consequences of some theories or of some insti tutionally established obligations.
Besides some other influential present theories that technocrats tend to accreditate the lack of alternatives even in the case of the decision-expert, the main implication of this technocratic attitude here is the idea of a single possible way to be followed in such a complex and mobile social environment as the present one. For this reason it is important to outline that a change can: Generally,when changes cannot be assimilated, managed or beared by a system, because of their multitude and rapidity, they can lead both community and individuals to arbitrary decisions, to abuses in the managing activities and even to anomy in its more or less severe forms.
A classical crisis situation occurs when the lack of effectiveness is generalized and disfunctionalities appear in many or all social fields. By contrast, the present global crisis was generated, in our opinion, among other deep causes — some of them already outlined by us — by a super-efficacy, obtained in a few areas of activities, namely, computing, banking and real estate affairs.
We have to add here a necessary specification: To put it clearly , from the perspective of our subject-matter, an artificial or even false efficacy lies on the basis of the present major crisis. The scale of crises comprises, in our days, economic, social, political and moral crises. The economic crises are, in their turn, energetic crises, production, consumption or financial crises.
These economic crises are generated by some deeper ones, like crises of labor or crises of education. They have then as consequences some other crises, like the ecological ones. In order to explain the large number and the enormous variety of contemporary crises, a lot of theories were produced; a notable one is that the main cause of this system of crises is a bigger and stronger one, a managerial crisis.
This explanation should be good enough, at a first sight, for it is, in fact, contrary to a few actual trends and evolutions, as it is precisely the above illustrated huge development and diversification of management fields. Our own explanation of the present accumulation and cascade of crises is one which regards an even profounder level of social structure, motion and activity, i.
The way in which values of various sorts such as economic, juridical, moral and political are produced determines the quality, efficacy and finality of social action. All these fundamental features of individual or collaborative work can be absent if not directed by a set of suitable values. Only in the fast situation in which the entire activity is substantiated by generally practiced values, the produced goods become cultural assets, not only wares, and can allow a life that deserves to be lived and which may have happiness as a permanent, not only as a final goal.
Maybe the main expression of the present cultural crisis that generates all the above mentioned types of crises is the project-crisis. Our civilization gathered together a huge amount of means technical or intellectual , aquired numberless facilities and created new real and virtual environments, as well as an impressive quantity of various goods, but what is the purpose?
We can add that some subsystems of the social system are now well managed, mainly by the reminded technical means, but the social realm as a whole and its future seems to be hazy and hazardous.
An analytical study of distinct crises that succeded in the last 50 years is made in our previous work on social models , where several less general explanations and a few tables and even ten concrete examples are furnished and analysed. Under the present conditions, besides the above outlined specific causes of crises, the latter general causes are in action without interruption, and among these general causes we can name the low, or by contrast, too high effectiveness of the action.
Thus we have sequences of action or even entire domains of activity, where effectiveness is proved to be pseudo-effectiveness, low efficacy is a lasting one, and uneffectiveness gets at counter-efficacy. In such a context we can analyse as final examples, different organizational and social structures and activities like those in banking, auctions or selling and maybe mainly governing activities.
Other, particularly high-tech activities, are super-efficient but often with grave, random, risk and even menace generating effects. Counter-efficacy may be not only a result of the lack of performance in one or more fields of activity, but also the final result and expression of many and continuous social backwards and overlooking, as the accumulation of wrong decisions or indecisions. The result is that we are really experimenting now phenomena such as de-structuring of institutional structures and de-regulation of social activities.
Maybe the last and most spectacular consequences of such an unreflecting strategy or lack of strategy are: We are living in a negative variant of what a few important social scientists proposed as positive solutions 30 years ago. Because we were not able to hear in time their voices as well as we have no eyes to see the main future social trends now.
The social innovation, in its various forms, is also taken into account as a factor in the management of the system change or crisis management. Change management and crisis management require then innovation-critical competences, that suppose: A model of the future directs each individual or social project; science offers the methods of creating, and technology — the means of simulating these models.
The future society which will be, probably, a knowledge society, will be characterized by a new technical infrastructure, an information structure and by specialized e-activities such as e-work, e-business, e-commerce and even e-government or e-learning.
Knowledge society will be characterized by an institutional structure which allows the efficient use of knowledge, an educational system which prepares the population for knowledge use and generation, by a flexible and dynamic spiritual hyper-structure, able to nourish and support any kind of creation, including the creation of an efficient innovation system.
New business models are developed in information society that precedes knowledge society. Generally, business development is partly scientific, and partly subjective, based on the feelings and wishes of the business owners or markets. There are so many ways to develop a business which achieve growth and improvement, and among these there is rarely just one single best solution.
Success in business by efficacy is difficult to analyze, and hard to apply as a replicable process. Planning, implementing and managing change in a fast-changing environment is increasingly the situation in which most organizations are working. Dynamic environments, such as described above, require not only dynamic, flexible and continuous planning and programming, but well trained staff sharing culture organization, prepared for effective optimising organizational response to market opportunities and threats, especially for a successful change management.
Long-term planning is a sound strategic vision, not a specific detailed plan, because the latter is impossible to predict reliably. An entire crisis intervention strategy is sometimes elaborated , and some specific crisis intervention skills are recommended and described, for a very large scale of individual or social crises, such as crises that occur by violent behavior in institutions or at home, by pesonal loss or suicide tentatives, by abuses in schools and other abuses against children or against other categories such as the present day so mediatized, commented and politically exploited sexual assaults.
The most valuable findings in this area are the presented crisis intervention models, some of them very technically described [4, pp. Systemic change and effectiveness If a system of activities proves to be inefficient, a change becomes necessary; if all the subsystems of any society are devoid of efficacy, a systemic change is inevitable.