Kritikai menedzsmentelméletek – irányzatok és törésvonalak (Critical Management Studies: Streams and Debates)

A tanulmány a kritikai menedzsmentelméletek (KME) területére nyújt bevezetést a Hidegh – Gelei – Primecz (2014) által a Vezetéstudomány hasábjain kezdeményezett cikksorozat részeként. A KME fogalmát a korábbi, szervezetelméleti paradigmákat ismertető tanulmányoktól eltérő módon, a mátrixokon át-/ túllépve lépcsőszerűen tárgyalja. Bemutatja, hogyan definiálhatjuk kritikai módon a menedzsmentet és a menedzsmentelméleteket, majd a KME meghatározása és három legfontosabb jellemzője (denaturalizáció, teljesítményelv-ellenesség, reflexivitás) következik. A cikk ismerteti a KME három legmarkánsabb irányzatát: a posztmodernizmust, a kritikai elméletet és a kritikai realizmust, valamint az irányzatok közötti főbb vitapontokba nyújt betekintést. ____ The article provides an introduction into Critical Management Studies (CMS) continuing the series of papers about CMS started by Hidegh – Gelei – Primecz (2014) on the pages of Budapest Management Review. CMS is defined here in a different way as in the previously published Hungarian articles which were based on the Burrell-Morgan matrix (1979). This study exceeds the boundaries of the matrix by introducing management and management studies as a critical field step by step. The definition of CMS is followed by the main features of the field: denaturalization, anti-performativity and reflexivity (Fournier – Grey, 2000). Finally, the paper discusses the three most prevailing streams of CMS: postmodernism, critical theory and critical realism by providing an insight into the main debates among them.

The 3 per cent Barcelona Target: A Critical Appraisal of the Failure of the Lisbon Strategy’s Knowledgebased Economy and Society Project

Ten years after the unanimous approval of the Lisbon Strategy at a special meeting of the European Council on 23-24 March 2000 in Lisbon, it will be inevitable for the European Council, the European Commission and the majority of the EU member states to face with its fi asco and to account for the reasons of their fundamental policy, governance and economic failures in 2010. The recent turbulence of the global economy offers some excuses for the underperformance of the main objectives of the Lisbon Strategy in the essential social and economic domains, like job creation, economic growth, and environmental sustainability. Negative growth rates, macroeconomic and fi nancial instability, the contraction of the internal and external markets of the European economy, drop in demand for capital investment, goods and services, sinking corporate revenues, depreciation of corporate assets, increasing private and public indebtedness, falling rate of employment, weakening social cohesion, widening social inequality, and so forth not only deprive the majority of the EU member states of fulfi lling the main objectives of the Lisbon Strategy but also drive them into worse social and economic conditions in many policy domains than they were in 2000.