【作者】 蔡钟明；

【导师】 倪峻；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 企业管理， 2006， 硕士

【副题名】对美国管理普遍性的质疑

【摘要】 本文从泰勒的科学管理入手，着重探讨了美国生产管理的基本特点：对科学一技术理性主义的偏好，更直率地说，就是对计量手段的挚爱。泰勒正是凭借可计量的手段使工厂的生产效率大幅提高，今天美国的工业工程、运营管理、企业再造、科学管理学派等理论和学派取得的成就都基于它的贡献。毫无疑义，计量手段一直是现代生产管理不可或缺的“核心手段”。 根据马科斯·韦伯对理性的理解，理性共分为三个层面：即科学-技术理性主义、形上学-伦理的理性主义以及实际的理性主义。从这三个层面的理性涵义来看，美国生产管理仅仅只是注重可计量的手段，执迷于科学-技术理性主义，它把理性的涵义理解的太过狭窄。而究其原因主要是在这三个理性涵义中，可计量手段无疑是最容易被理解，也最容易被操作，因此也是最具普遍性的。泰勒通过将这一手段用于原先毫不起眼的铁块、砖瓦和铁锹之上，取得令人瞠目结舌的效果。这样的方法和效果怎么不是放之四海而皆准的呢?也因此．它是最具科学性的。伊曼努尔·华勒斯坦把普遍性与科学紧密相联，他告诉我们，普遍主义是一种认识论，科学的目标就是寻找这些普遍性表述。正是美国民族拥有的这种普遍主义认识论，才导致了他们对可计量手段的挚爱——在他们看来这就是科学。 然而，通过美国、日本和法国三者的比较就会发现，科学-技术理性主义更确切地说是可计量的手段在日本和法国并不像在美国这么“出挑”。全面质量管理和目标管理的“遭遇”，“以人为本”的法国式生产管理无一不是说明了这一点。即使是美国管理中集代表性和效率性为一身、最注重计量手段的生产管理，其普遍性在这两个国家中也是十分有限的。如果生产管理如此，我们当然可以断言：美国的一般管理，其普遍性就更不充分，故可称其为非普遍的“普遍主义”。 本文希望对我国今后管理的引进有所帮助。改善目前我国过于关注美国管理这一现状，加强学习其他国家优秀的管理理论，并且在引进的过程中注重与我国的实际情况相结合，增强我国管理理论的自主创新意识。 本文的创新主要有以下几点： 一、一般常用的是两相对比，本文以美国为主线，并与日本进行侧向比较，与法国则是反向比较；更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper begins from Taylor’s Scientific Management and mainly discusses the essential features of U.S. production management: the preference to the science -technology rationality, frankly speaking, the sincere love to the measurement methods. Taylor largely enhances the production efficiency of the factory just by use of these methods. Today, the achievement of U.S.’s Industrial Engineering, the Operation Management, the Reengineering and the Management Science are all based on contribution of measurement. There is no doubt that the methods of measurement are always the "the core method" of modern production management.According to Max Weber’s understanding of rationality, rationality can be divided into three stratification planes: the science-technology rationalism, the metaphysics-the ethic rationalism as well as the actual rationalism. Looking from these three stratification planes of rationality implication, the U.S. production management merely pays attention to the measurement methods, relying on the science-technology rationalism. But its understanding of the rationality implication is too narrow. Just because the methods of measurement is easily understood, and also easily operated; therefore it is also the most universal, which is proved by the great success Taylor has made using the common bricks , tiles and the shovels. And it is also the most scientific one. Immanuel Wallerstein tells us that universalism is an epistemology, and the object of science is to search for these general statements. Just because of this universalism epistemology owned by U.S., U.S. begins to pay attention to the measurement methods, which they believe is the science.By comparing U.S. with Japan and France, we can find that the methods of measurement are less effective in Japan and France than in U.S., which is supported by the facts of Total Quality Management, Management by Objective and the special French management. So the U.S. production management is also less useless even though it is the most effective and efficient theory in U.S. management. And we can conclude that the U.S. general management hasn’t universality, so it can be called "non- universal Universalism".The object of this paper is to give some advice when importing other nation’s management theories. We must change the fact that we only focus on U.S., and learning from other nations is the best way to improve ourselves. At the same time, the imported theories must adapt to our society and our culture so that we can更多还原