Intra-firm feudalism and the risks of its digital amplification

Abstract

Ever changing environment brings to light the need to create the appropriate hierarchical management structure maintaining efficient and sustainable firm’s performance. The scholars become more focused on the importance of the non-formal rules determining the nature of the intra-firm relations. This article attempts to justify theoretically the applicability of the feudalism categories to the analysis of the hierarchical management structure in the modern industrial enterprise, as well as to define the ways to overcome the negative implications of the intra-firm feudalism. Methodologically, the research is based on the provisions of the A.A. Bogdanov’s general organizations science. The article justifies the in-house system of relationships, which, in fact, correlates with the fundamental characteristics of the feudal relationships. This system of non-formal relations affects the approved managerial decisions, determines the nature and goals of the structural units of the industrial enterprise. It is shown that the nature of these non-formal relationships shapes the long-term resilience of the firm. The article looks at how the in-house departments obtain the elements of quasi-feudal power by controlling the functional levels of the firm – physical (control over the main assets), distribution (control over the material, labor, and energy resources), economic (impact on the cash flows), and design and technological (impact on the strategic development and firm’s technologies). The main reason for the intra-firm feudalism is the difference in opinions among the top managers of the firms and its employees, which, in its turn, is caused by different assets circulation periods – the main means of manufacturing and labor. It is claimed that information asymmetry inherent to the hierarchical structure is the indispensable condition for the intra-firm feudalism. In-house feudalization amplifies when a particular employee and its department acquire specific capital, including experience, knowledge about the manufacturing technologies, ties with colleagues and outside subjects, etc. It is justified that economy digitalization changes the composition and the structure of the feudal lords’ powers, while the scales of intra-firm feudalism manifestations do not change. To counteract the firm’s feudalization, the article proposes measures, including dismissal of the feudal lords and destruction of feuds, delegation of the design and technological powers from the feudal lords to the personnel, blurring the feudal lords’ powers, changing the business conditions for feuds, changes of the hierarchical structure in the firm. It is noted that the intra-firm feudalism can be restrained by setting up a new intra-firm unit – General Council of Employees empowered with design and technological rights with the level inversely proportional to the intra-firm feudal lords’ power level. Therefore, higher level of powers given to the firm’s employees will restrain the powers of the intra-firm feudal lords. Further research is seen to be connected with the assessment of the hypothesis concerning the development of the intra-firm feudalism in particular industrial enterprises.

Keywords

employee, owner, industrial enterprise, seigneur, vassal, power, rights, duties, crisis, system, system, suprasystem, feudalism, feudal lord, intra-firm feudalism, principal, agent, institutes, digital economy

For citation

Anokhov I.V. Intra-firm feudalism and the risks of its digital amplification. Perm University Herald. Economy, 2020, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 344–368. DOI 10.17072/1994-9960-2020-3-344-368

References

1. Halperin Ch. Contemporary Russia as a feudal society: A new perspective on the post-soviet era. Studia slavica et balcanica petropolitana, 2015, no. 2, pp. 208–225.
2. Shlyapentokh V. Sovremennaya Rossiya kak feodal'noe obshchestvo. Novyi rakurs postsovetskoi epokhi [Modern Russia as a feudal society. New vision of Post-Soviet epoch]. Moscow, Stolitsa-print Publ., 2008. 328 p. (In Russian).
3. Vasil'ev L.S. Fenomen feodalizm (novyi vzglyad na staruyu problemu) [Phenomenon of feudalism (A new approach to an old-fashionable issue)]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost' [Social sciences and contemporary world], 2007, no. 6, pp. 148–161. (In Russian).
4. Feudalism in History. Ed. by R. Coulborn. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1956. хiv, 439 p.
5. Le Goff J. Tsivilizatsiya srednevekovogo Zapada [Civilization of medieval West]. Мoscow, Progress-Akademiya Publ., 1992. 376 p. (In Russian).
6. Khudokormov A.G. Ekonomicheskaya istoriya «klassicheskogo feodalizma» (na primere Frantsii) [The economic history of classical feudalism (By the example of France)]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ekonomika [Moscow University Economics Bulletin], 2015, no. 3, pp. 93–112. (In Russian).
7. Valdaitsev S.V. Innovatsii: asimmetriya interesov vladel'tsev i menedzhmenta firmy [Innovations: Asymmetries between of shareholders’ and managers’ interests]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Ekonomika [St Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies], 2012, no. 1, pp. 20–29. (In Russian).
8. Bogdanov A.A. Tektologii: (Vseobshchaya organizatsionnaya nauka): v 2 kn [Tectology: (General organizational science): in 2 volumes]. Moscow, Ekonomika Publ., 1989, vol. 2. 351 p. (In Russian).
9. Gloveli G.D. «Leninizm, “terminy tov. A. Bogdanova” i filosof Il'enkov kak apologet stalinskoi ekonomiki “razrusheniya ravnovesiya”» (Ch. I. Okonchanie) [Leninism, “Terms of tov. A. Bogdanov and philosopher Iilenkov as an apologist of the Stalin’s economy “Destruction of equilibrium’ (Part 1)]. Voprosy teoreticheskoi ekonomiki [Questions of Theoretical Economics], 2020, no. 2 (7), pp. 65–85. (In Russian). doi: 10.24411/2587-7666-2020-10204.
10. Veber M. Khozyaistvo i obshchestvo: ocherki ponimayushchei sotsiologii [Economy and society: Essays of understanding sociology]. Moscow, Izd. dom Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki Publ., 2016, vol. 1, Sotsiologiya [Sociology]. 445 p. (In Russian).
11. Kondrat'ev V.P. Ekonomicheskie teorii byurokratii [Economic theories of bureaucracies]. Srednerusskii vestnik obshchestvennykh nauk [Central Russia Journal of Social Sciences], 2019, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 156–173. (In Russian).
12. Niskanen W.A. А reassessment. In: Bureaucracy and Public Economics. 2-nd ed. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1996, pp. 269–283.
13. Castells M. Vlast' kommunikatsii [Communication power]. Moscow, Izd. dom Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki Publ., 2016. 564 p. (In Russian).
14. Kordonskii S. Rynki vlasti: Administrativnye rynki SSSR i Rossii [Markets of power: Administrative markets in the USSR and Russia]. Moscow, OGI Publ., 2006. 240 p. (In Russian).
15. Shapkin I.N. «Korporativnaya ekonomika». Istoki sovremennoi neokorporativnoi praktiki zapadnoevropeiskikh stran [“Corporate economy”. The origin of modern neo-corporatism practice in Western European countries]. Mir novoi ekonomiki [The World of New Economy], 2018, vol. 12, iss. 1, pp. 78–91. (In Russian). doi: 10.26794/2220-6469-2018-12-1-78-91.
16. Pantya Yu.M. Istoriya razvitiya problemy printsipala – agenta [History of principal-agent issue development]. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoi teorii [Russian Journal of Economic Theory], 2011, no. 4, pp. 212–215. (In Russian).
17. Udalov D.V. Institutsional'naya model' firmy «printsipal – agent» [An institutional model of principal-agent firm]. Ekonomika i upravlenie [Economy and Management], 2006, no. 2 (23), pp. 97–101. (In Russian).
18. Jan M.A. The complexity of exchange: Wheat markets, petty-commodity producers and the emergence of commercial capital in colonial Punjab. Journal of agrarian change, 2019, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 225–248. doi: 10.1111/joac.12302.
19. Zeschky M., Daiber M., Widenmayer B., Gassmann O. Coordination in global R&D organizations: An examination of the role of subsidiary mandate and modular product architectures in dispersed R&D organizations. Technovation, 2014, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 594–604. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.06.001.
20. Dang H.D. National culture and corporate rating migrations. Risks, 2018, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 130. doi: 10.3390/risks6040130.
21. Obydenov A.Yu. Strategicheskoe konkurentnoe preimushchestvo: resursno-institutsional'nyi vzglyad [Strategic competitive advantage: Resource and institutional approach]. Rossiiskii zhurnal menedzhmenta [Russian Management Journal], 2016, no. 14 (1), pp. 87–110. (In Russian). doi: 10.21638/spbu18.2016.104.
22. Anokhov I.V. Urovni kodirovaniya informatsii promyshlennogo predpriyatiya i predposylki ego vzaimodeistviya s postavshchikami i podryadchikami [Information coding levels in an industrial enterprise and prerequisites for its interaction with the suppliers and contractors]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Ser. «Ekonomika» [Perm University Herald. Economy], 2020, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 131–149. (In Russian). doi: 10.17072/1994-9960-2020-1-131-149.
23. Bogdanov A.A. Tektologii: (Vseobshchaya organizatsionnaya nauka): v 2 kn. [Tectology: (General organizational science): In 2 volumes]. In-t ekonomiki AN SSSR. Moscow, Ekonomika Publ., 1989, vol. 1. 304 p. (In Russian).
24. Pfeffer D. Vlast' i vliyanie: politika i upravlenie v organizatsiyakh [Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations]. Moscow, Vil'yams Publ., 2007. 512 p. (In Russian).
25. Bharadwaj A., El Sawy O.A., Pavlou P.A., Venkatraman N. Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 2013, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 471–482. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3.
26. Whyte J., Stasis A., Lindkvist C. Managing change in the delivery of complex projects: Configuration management, asset information and ‘big data’. International Journal of Project Management, 2016, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 339–351. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.006.
27. Horvath D., Szabo R. Driving forces and barriers of Industry 4.0: Do multinational and small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities? Technological forecasting and social change, 2019, vol. 146, pp. 119–132. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.021.
28. Segal M. How automation is changing work. Nature, 2018, no. 563, pp. 132–135. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07501-y.
29. Volkov O.I. Effektivnost' mekhanizatsii i avtomatizatsii proizvodstv v mashinostroenii [Efficiency of manufacturing mechanization and automation in machine engineering]. Moscow, Mashinostroenie Publ., 1968. 61 p. (In Russian).
30. Womack J., Jones D. Berezhlivoe proizvodstvo: Kak izbavit'sya ot poter' i dobit'sya protsvetaniya vashei kompanii [Lean thinking. Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation]. Moscow, Al'pina Biznes Buks Publ., 2008. 470 p. (In Russian).
31. Kolosovskii N.N. Osnovy ekonomicheskogo raionirovaniya [Fundamentals of economic regional zoning]. Moscow, Gospolitizdat Publ., 1958. 200 p. (In Russian).

Show full text