Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:51:04.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking the Organizational Weapon: The Soviet System in a Systems Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Paul Cocks
Paul Cocks
Affiliation:
Harvard and Stanford
Get access

Abstract

There is growing realization in the U.S.S.R. that the “contemporary scientific and technological revolution” is as much a managerial and cultural revolution as a scientific and industrial revolution. The key task is to develop not only modern technical hardware, but also an effective and distinctive software appropriate for the times. Accordingly, Soviet authorities have begun to think seriously, really for the first time, about organization and the structural requirements of progress. As organizations become more complex, the area of organizational design gains importance. Because it focuses attention on interrelationships, interdependencies, and integration, the “systems approach” has emerged as a way of coping with advancing complexity. The real significance of the U.S.S.R.'s belated awakening to the modern systems age is the discovery that the Soviet system is, in fact, not a “system.” Lacking both the power and the technique to deal with contemporary issues, Soviet leaders are busy forging new organizational weapons. Despite their increasing efforts to use modern systems terminology and technology to enhance integrative capabilities, conditions militate against any radical systems engineering.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , January 1980 , pp. 228 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 XXIV s”ezd KPSS: Stenograpcheskii otchet [Stenographic Report of the XXIV Congress of the CPSU] (Moscow: Politizdat 1971), I, 82; XXV s”ezd KPSS: Steno-graficheskji otchet [Stenographic Report of the XXV Congress of the CPSU] (Moscow: Politizdat 1976), II, 237. All translations from the original Russian are by the author.

2 Hoffmann, , “Soviet Views of The Scientific-Technological Revolution,'” World Politics, xxx (July 1978), 615–45, at 617CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Pravda, June 13, 1970.

4 Gvishiani, , Organization and Management: A Sociological Analysis of Western Theories (Moscow: Progress Publishers 1972), 172Google Scholar.

5 Sovetskaia Belorussiia, February 5, 1976.

6 XXIV s”ezd KPSS (fn. 1), I, 179–80.

7 P. Danilovtsev and Yu. Kanygin, Ot laboratorii do zavoda [From Laboratory to Plant] (Novosibirsk: Nauka 1971), 40.

8 Milner, Boris Z., “Organization of the Management of Production,” Social Sciences (Moscow), vii, No. 3 (1976), 48Google Scholar. See also Nikolai S. Kalita and German I. Mantsurov, Sotsialisticheskie proizvodstvennye oV'edineniia [Socialist Production Associations] (Moscow: Ekonomika 1972), 3–4.

9 Georgy Arbatov, “Proektirovanie organizatsii krupnykh proizvodstvenno-khoziaist-vennykh kompleksov i upravleniia imi,” [Designing the Organization and Management of Large-scale Economic Production Complexes], Planovoe khoziaistvo, No. 5 (May 1975), 26. For a discussion of the deficiencies in designing computer information systerns, especially the failure to link their introduction to organization and decision processes, see Boris Z. Milner, “Kak sproektirovat' organizatsiiu?” [How Should an Organization Be Designed?], Izvestiia, May 13, 1973.

10 Jowitt, , “An Organizational Approach to the Study of Political Culture in Marxist-Leninist Systems,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 68 (September 1974), 1171–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jowitt, , “Inclusion and Mobilization in European Leninist Regimes,” World Politics, xxviii (October 1975), 69–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 For a more general discussion of these issues, see Cocks, , “Retooling the Directed Society: Administrative Modernization and Developed Socialism,” in Triska, Jan F. and Cocks, Paul M., eds., Political Development in Eastern Europe (New York: Praeger 1977), 53–92Google Scholar; also, Fleron's introduction to Fleron, Frederic J., ed., Technology and Communist Culture: The Socio-Cultural Impact of Technology under Socialism (New York: Praeger 1977), 1–67Google Scholar.

12 Boris Z. Milner, ed., Organizatsionnye struktury upravleniia proizvodstvom [Organizational Structures for Managing Production] (Moscow: Ekonomika 1975), 5.

13 Milner (fn. 9).

14 Boris V. Gubin and Nikolai G. Kalinin, Organizatsiia upravleniia promyshlen-nostiu v usloviia\h dvu\h- i tre\hzvennoi sistemy [The Organization of Industrial Management in Conditions of a Two- and Three-Link System] (Moscow: Ekonomika 1977), 5; E. P. Torkanovskii, “Programmno-tselevoe upravlenie” [Programmed-Goals Management], Sovetskpe gosudarstvo i pravo, No. 3 (March 1978), 30.

15 Milner (fn. 12), 5.

16 Ibid., 4; see also Arbatov (fn. 9), 21.

17 Pravda, March 16, 1974.

18 Milner, Boris Z., “Formirovanie organizatsionnykh struktur upravleniia” [Forming Organizational Structures of Management], Ekonomilfa i organizatsiia promyshlennogo proizvodstva, No. 6 (November-December 1975), 4–5Google Scholar.

19 See Milner (fn. 12), 5, 6, 16–17, 37.

20 Popov, Gavriil Kh., ed., Organizatsiia protsessov upravleniia [Organization of Management Processes] (Moscow: Ekonomika 1975), 31, 44–45Google Scholar.

21 Milner (fn. 18), 8; Milner (fn. 12), 7.

22 Ibid., 7, 8, 16, 108; Milner (fn. 18), 8–9. The kind of new structure he has explicitly in mind is the “matrix organization” which we discuss below.

23 For general discussion of the evolution of organizational design in the West, see Newman, Derek, Organization Design: An Analytical Approach to the Structuring of Organizations (London: E. Arrold 1973)Google Scholar; Galbraith, Jay R., “Matrix Organizational Design: How to Combine Functional and Project Forms,” Business Horizons, xiv (February 1971), 29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lorange, Peter and Vancil, Richard F., Strategic Planning Systems (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall 1977)Google Scholar; Dalton, Gene W., Lawrence, Paul R., and Lorsch, Jay W., Organizational Structure and Design (Homewood, Ill.: R. D. Irwin 1970)Google Scholar; Kast, Fremont E. and Rosenzweig, James E., Organization and Management: A Systems Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill 1970)Google Scholar; Cleland, David I. and King, William R., Systems Analysis and Project Management (New York: McGraw-Hill 1975)Google Scholar; Davis, Stanley M. and Lawrence, Paul R., Matrix (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley 1977)Google Scholar.

24 Milner (fn. 12), 108, 110.

25 Taksir, Kim I., Nauchno-proizvodstvennye ob”edineniia [Science-Production Associations] (Moscow: Nauka 1977), 85Google Scholar.

26 Knight, Kenneth, ed., Matrix Management (New York: PBI-Petrocelli Books, 1977). 1Google Scholar.

27 Taksir (fn. 25), 81–82.

28 Gavrilov, Evgenii I., Ekonomika i eflektivnostnauchno-tekhnicheskogo progressa [Economics and Effectiveness of Scientific-Technical Progress] (Minsk: Vyshaia shkola 1975), 280Google Scholar. Also on the advantages of the matrix structure, see Drogichinskii, Nikolai E., ed., Sovershenstvovanie mekhanizma khoziaistvovaniia v usloviiakh razvitogo sotsializma [Improving the Management Mechanism in Conditions of Developed Socialism] (Moscow: Ekonomika 1975), 169–70Google Scholar.

29 Kreisberg, Mikhail M., S Sh A: Sistemnyi podkhod v upravlenii [The USA: The Systems Approach to Management] (Moscow: Nauka 1974), 192Google Scholar.

30 Milner (fn. 12), 108, 117.

31 Dzherman M. Gvishiani, “The Scientific and Technological Revolution and Scientific Problems,” Social Sciences, 1 (January-March 1972), 55–56.

32 See Taksir (fn. 25), 80–93; Milner (fn. 12), 110–15, 121; Kushlin, Valerii I., Uskprenie vnedreniia nauchnykh dostizhenii v proizvodstvo [Accelerating the Introduction of Scientific Achievements into Production] (Moscow: Ekonomika 1977), 133–36Google Scholar; Gvishiani, Dzherman M., ed., Voprosy teorii i praktiki upravleniia i organizatsii nauki [Questions of Theory and Practice in the Management and Organization of Science] (Moscow: Nauka 1975), 14–17Google Scholar.

33 See A. G. Vel'sh, “Effektivnost” upravleniia povysilas',” [The Effectiveness of Management Has Risen], Ekonomika i organizatsiia promyshlennogo proizvodstva, No. 6 (November-December 1975), 36–37. V. S. Rapoport, who favors more extensive study of matrix organization and American experience with these types of management designs, also observes, “Uralelektrotiazhmash shows how difficult is the transition to new management structures, how high are the psychological barriers.” See his comments in EKO, No. 2 (March-April 1978), 165.

34 Brezhnev, Leonid I., Ob osnovnykh voprosakh ekonomicheskoi politiki KPSS na sovremennotn etape: rechi i dokjady [On Fundamental Questions of Economic Policy of the CPSU at the Contemporary Stage: Speeches and Reports] (Moscow: Politizdat 1975), II. 355–56Google Scholar.

35 Pravda, February 25, 1976.

36 G. Ivanov and G. Yakovlev, “Pod novoi vyveskoi” [Under a New Nameplate], Pravda, March 26, 1978.

37 ibid.

38 Gubin and Kalinin (fn. 14), 35.

39 Vain, A. S., “Formy organizatsii promyshlennosti,” [Forms of Industrial Organization], lzvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR, seriia ekonomicheskaia, No. 5 (1977), 61–62Google Scholar.

40 Ibid., 59–60, 62.

41 See Popov, Gavriil Kh., Effekoivnoe upravlenie [Effective Management] (Moscow: Ekonomika 1976), 35Google Scholar.

42 See Rusinov, Fedor M., “Organizatsionnye problemy upravleniia sotsialisticheskim proizvodstvom” [Organizational Problems of Managing Socialist Production], in Afanas'ev, Viktor G., ed., Nauchnoe upravlenie obshchestvom [Scientific Management of Society], IX (Moscow: Mysl' 1975), 163–75Google Scholar.

43 Dmitrii Pravdin, “Osobennosti formirovaniia nauki upravleniia sotsialisticheskoi ekonomikoi” [Particular Features of Forming a Science of Management for Socialist Economy], Voprosy ekpnomitki, No. 1 (January 1978), 59. For background information, see Miller, Robert F., “The New Science of Administration in the USSR,” Administrative Science Quarterly, xviii (September 1971), 247–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Trapeznikov, Vadim A., “Upravlenie naukoi kak organizatsionnoi sistemi” [The Management of Science as an Organizational System], in Gvishiani, Dzherman M., ed., Osnovnye printsipy i obshchie problemy upravleniia naukoi [Fundamental Principles and General Problems of the Management of Science] (Moscow: Nauka 1973), 25Google Scholar.

45 Ivan Syroezhin, “O kompleksnoi organizatsii sovershenstvovaniia upravleniia proizvodstvom [On the Integrated Organization of Improving Management of Production], in G. Kh. Popov, ed., Problemy organizatsii sovershenstvovaniia upravleniia sotsidisticheskim proizvodstvom [Problems of Organization in Improving the Management of Socialist Production] (Moscow: Izd-vo Moskovskogo Universiteta 1975), 33.

46 E. N. Bliokov, “Model' sistemy ‘nauka-proizvodtsvo’ i reshenie zadach planomernoi organizatsii nauchno-tekhnicheskogo i ekonomicheskogo razvitiia” [A Model of the “Science-Production” System and Solution to the Tasks of the Planned Organization of Scientific, Technical and Economic Development], Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR, seriia ekonomicheskaia, No. 2 (1978), 58.

47 Popov (fn. 45), 51, 55fn.

48 See Gubin and Kalinin (fn. 14), 121–23.

49 Ibid., 37–38.

50 See ibid., 179–80; Piskotin, Mikhail I., Nauchnye osnovy gosudarstvennogo upravle-niia v SSSR [Scientific Principles of State Administration in the U.S.S.R.] (Moscow: Nauka 1968), 134–35Google Scholar; Popov, G. Kh., Problemy teorii upravleniia [Problems of Management Theory] (Moscow: Ekonomika 1970), 173Google Scholar; Atamanchuk, G. V., Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie: Problemy metodologii pravovogo issledovaniia [State Administration: Problems of Methodology in Legal Research] (Moscow: Iuridicheskaia Literatura 1975), 198–200Google Scholar; Afanas'ev, Viktor G., Gvishiani, D. M., Lisitsyn, V. N., and Popov, G. Kh., eds., Upravlenie sotsicalisticheskim proizvodstvom: Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Management of Socialist Production: Questions of Theory and Practice] (Moscow: Ekonomika 1975), 637–51Google Scholar; Popov (fn. 45), 10; Popov (fn. 41), 141–42.

51 Its specific function, Kosygin said, “is to examine and resolve current questions of economic construction and to exercise systematic control over the fulfillment of the state plan and budget.” In his report on the new law on the USSR Council of Ministers, Kosygin also noted that questions dealing with interbranch problems and programs were absorbing more and more of the Council's attention. See Pravda, July 6, 1978.

52 Popov (fn. 45), 146.

53 Pravda, October 3, 1978.

54 Ibid., September 2, 1978.

55 Berliner, Joseph S., The Innovation Decision in Soviet Industry (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press 1976), 146Google Scholar.

56 Boris Z. Milner, “Sovershenstvovanie organizatsionnykh struktur upravleniia” [Improving Organizational Structures of Management], in Sovremennye metody uprav-leniia narodnym khoziaistvom [Modern Methods of Managing the National Economy], II (Vilnius: Litovskii Nauchno-IssledovatePskii Institute Nauchno-Tekhnicheskoi Infor-matsii i Tekhniko-Ekonomicheskikh Issledovanii 1974), 22.

57 V. I. Berlozertsev, “Soedinenie nauchno-tekhnicheskoi revoliutsii s preimushchest-vami sotsializma” [Combining the Scientific and Technological Revolution with the Advantages of Socialism], in Problemy soedineniia dostizhenii nauchno-teckhnicheskpi revoliutsii s preimushchestvami sotsializma [Problems of Combining the Achievements of the Scientific and Technological Revolution with the Advantages of Socialism] (Voronezh: Izd-vo Voronezhkogo Universiteta 1974), 11–12.

58 For an insightful discussion of the general problems of adaptation and change, see Kaufman, Herbert, The Limits of Organizational Change (University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press 1971)Google Scholar. For a look at the Soviet experience from what is predominantly a perspective of adaptation, see Ryavek, Karl W., ed., Soviet Society and the Communist Party (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press 1978)Google Scholar.

59 See, for example, the seminal articles by Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Soviet Political System: Transformation or Degeneration?” Problems of Communism, xv (January-February 1966), 1–15, and Hough, Jerry F., ‘The Soviet System: Petrification or Pluralism?” Problems of Communism, xxi (March-April 1972), 25–45Google Scholar.

60 For an excellent discussion of systems concepts and applications, though in a different context, see Haas, Ernst B., “Is There A Hole in the Whole? Knowledge, Technology, Interdependence, and the Construction of International Regimes,” International Organization, xxix (Summer 1975), 827–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Mikhail P. Ring, a leading expert on science policy, writes: “The solution of interbranch, interregional, and national economic, scientific, and engineering problems determines on the whole the development of science and technology in the epoch of the STR.” See “Problemnoe upravlenie v nauke: pravovye aspekty” [Problem-oriented Management in Science: Legal Aspects], Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR, No. 7 (July 1976), 12–13. Professor Popov, Dean of the Economics Faculty at Moscow University, similarly notes, “Today virtually all questions of any importance—above all, the key problems of scientific and technical progress—have become interbranch in nature. That is why improvement of the mechanism of interbranch coordination is one of the core problems of management.” See Popov, “Kakova nadezhnost' stykov?” [How Reliable Are the Interfaces?], Pravda, July 27, 1976.

62 G. Pospelov, “Sistemnyi podkhod” [The Systems Approach], Izvestiia, March 21, 1974.

63 Ring, “Problemnoe upravlnie v nauke” [Problem-oriented Management in Science], Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR, No. 8 (August 1976), 34–35. In the past, scientific leaders of national priority programs were often powerful individuals who wielded considerable authority: Igor Kurchatov in nuclear industry, S. P. Korolev in the space program, and Trofim Lysenko in agriculture, were all strong “project managers” in their respective areas. As one knowledgeable observer writes, they “were able to force some ministers to resign if they found them inefficient in the management of the ‘state-important’ scientific programs.” See Medvedev, Zhores, Soviet Science (New York: Norton 1978), 130–31Google Scholar. In general, though, this kind of broad systems-management capability has been lacking in Soviet civilian-oriented research and development programs.