The manager as a teacher: selected aspects of stimulation of scientific thinking
Реферат - Экономика
Другие рефераты по предмету Экономика
thermodynamically independent, although is dependent on its environment. Hence, this definition also defines not only a system itself, but some consequences of systemic nature as well. Adequate/comprehensive/ definition of the concept “system” is possibly, non-existent, because the concept “goal/purpose” has been underestimated. Any properties of systems are ultimately connected with the concept of goal/purpose because any system differs from other systems in the constancy of its actions, and the aspiration to keep this constancy is a distinctive feature of any system. Nowadays the goal/purpose is treated as one of the elements of behavior and conscious activity of an individual which characterizes anticipation/vision of comprehension of the result of activity and the way of its realization by means of certain ways and methods. The purpose/goal acts as the way of integration of various actions of an individual in some kind of sequence or system. So, the purpose is interpreted as purely human factor inherent only in human being. Theres nothing for it but to apply the concept of “purpose/goal” not only to psychological activity of an individual, but to the concept of “system”, because the basic distinctive feature of any system is it designation for some purpose/goal. Any system is always intended for something, is purposeful and serves some definite purpose/goal, and the goal is set not only before the individual, but before each system as well, regardless of its complexity. Nevertheless, none of definitions of a system does practically contain the concept of purpose/goal, although it is the aim, but not the signs of action, emergence factor or something else, which is a system forming factor. There are no systems without goal/purpose, and to achieve this purpose the group of elements consolidates in a system and operates. Purposefulness is defined by a question “What can this object do?” “The system is a complex of discretionary involved elements jointly contributing to the achievement of the predetermined benefit, which is assumed to be the core system forming factor”. One can only facilitate the achievement of specific goal, while the predetermined benefits can only be the goal. The only thing to be clarified now is who or what determines the usefulness of the result. In other words, who or what sets the goal before the system? The entire theory of systems is built on the basis of four axioms and four laws which are deduced from the axioms: axiom #1: a system always has one consistent/invariable general goal/purpose (the principle of system purposefulness, predestination); axiom #2: the goal for the systems is set from the outside (the principle of goal setting for the systems); axiom #3: to achieve the goal the system should operate in a certain mode (the principle of systems performance) law #1: the law of conservation (the principle of consistency of systems performance for the conservation of the consistency of goal/ purpose), law #2: the law of cause-and-effect limitations (the principle of determinism of systems performance), law #3: the law of hierarchies of goals/purposes (the principle of breakdown of goal/purpose into sub-goals/sub-purposes), law #4: the law of hierarchies of systems (the principle of distribution of sub-goals/sub-purposes between subsystems and the principle of subordination of subsystems); axiom №4: the result of systems performance exists independently from the systems themselves (the principle of independence of the performance result). Axiom #1: the principle of purposefulness. At first it is necessary to determine what meaning we attach to the concept “system”, as far as at first sight there are at least two groups of objects”: “systems” and “non-systems”. In which case the object presents a system? It is not likely that any object can be a system, although both systems and non-systems consist of a set of parts (components, elements, etc.). In some cases a heap of sand is a structure, but not a system, although it consists of a set of elements representing heterogeneity of density in space (grains of sand in conjunction with hollows). However, in other cases the same heap of sand can be a system. So, what is the difference then between the structure-system and the structure-non-system, since after all both do consist of elements? All objects can be divided into two big groups, if certain equal external influence is exerted upon them: those with consistent retaliatory actions and those with variable and unpredictable response action. Thus, if we change external influence we then again will get the same two groups, but their structure will change: other objects will now be characterized by the consistency of response actions under the influence of new factors, while those previously characterized by such constancy under the former influencing factors will have no such characteristics under the influence of new factors any more. Let us call the systems those objects consisting of a set of elements and characterized by the constancy/consistency of actions in response to certain external influences. Those not characterized by the constancy of response actions under the same influences may be called casual sets of elements with respect to these influences. Hence, the concept of “system” is relative depending on how the given group of elements reacts to the given certain external influence. The constancy and wordsity of reaction of the interacting group of elements in respect of certain external influence is the criterion of system. The constancy of actions in response to certain external influence is the goal/purpose of the given system. Hence, the goal/purpose stipulates direction of the systems performance. Any systems differ in constancy of performance/actions and differ from each other in purposefulness (predestination for something concrete). There is no system “in general”, but there are always concrete systems intended for some specific goals/purposes. Any object of our World differs from another only in purpose, predetermination for something. Different systems have different goals/purposes and they determine distinction between the systems. Hence, the opposite conclusion may be drawn: if there any system exists, it means it has a goal/purpose. We do not always understand the goals/purposes of either systems, but they (goals/purposes) are always present in any systems. We cannot tell, for example, what for is the atom of hydrogen needed, but we can not deny that it is necessary for the creation of polymeric organic chains or, for example, for the formation of a molecule of water. Anyway, if we need to construct a water molecule, we need to take, besides the atom of oxygen, two atoms of hydrogen instead of carbon or any other element. The system may be such group of elements only in which the result of their general interaction differs from the results of separate actions of each of these elements. The result may differ both qualitatively and quantitatively. The mass of the heap of sand is more than the mass of a separate grain of sand (quantitative difference). The room which walls are built of bricks has a property to limit space volume which is not the case with separate bricks (qualitative difference). Any system is always predetermined for some purpose, but it always has one and the same purpose. Haemoglobin as a system is always intended for the transfer of oxygen only, a car is intended for transportation and the juice extractor for squeezing of juice from fruit. One can use the juice extractor made of iron to hammer in a nail, but it is not the juice extractor systems purpose. This constancy of purpose obliges any systems to always operate to achieve one and the same goal predetermined for them.
The principle of goal-setting. A car is intended for transportation, a calculator for calculations, a lantern for illumination, etc. But the goal of transportation is needed not for the car but for someone or something external with respect to it. The car only needs its ability to implement the function in order to achieve this goal. The goal is to meet the need of something external in something, and this system only implements the goal while serving this external “something”. Hence, the goal for a system is set from the outside, and the only thing required from the system is the ability to implement this goal. This external “something” is another system or systems, because the World is tamped only with systems. Goal-setting always excludes independent choice of the goal by the system. The goal can be set to the system as the order/command and directive. There is a difference between these concepts. The order/command is a rigid instruction, it requires execution of just “IT” with the preset accuracy and only “IN THAT MANNER” and not in any other way, i.e. the system is not given the “right” to choose actions for the achievement of the goal and all its actions are strictly defined. Directive is a milder concept, whereby the “IT” is set only the given or approximate accuracy, but the right to choose actions is given to the system itself. Directive can be set only to systems with well developed management unit/control block which can make choice of necessary actions by itself. None of the systems does possess free will and can set the goal before itself; it comes to it from the outside. But are there any systems which are self-sufficient and set the goals before themselves? For example, we, the people, are sort of able of setting goals before ourselves and carry them out. Well then, are we the example of independent systems? But it is not as simple as it may seem. There is a dualism (dual nature) of one and the same concept of goal: the goal as the task for some system and the goal as an aspiration (desire) of this system to execute the goal set before it: the Goal is a task represe