The hilarity of one professor who is a fan of Steve Jobs

The hilarity of one professor who is a fan of Steve Jobs

Ishimatsu, a professor at the Graduate School of Economics in Japan, uses this notion as a weapon to malign others while arguing that "the personalities of top executives such as company presidents are irrelevant to management activities". If the personalities of company presidents and chief executives are "irrelevant to management actions", then the political administration of the despotic country is likewise unrelated to the personality of the top authorities of the country, and the decision-making process is based solely on the utilitarian calculation of the interests and profits of the machine of reason. The impression is looked like the thing that a company such as the political administration of a tyrannical state is determined solely on the basis of calculations of the utilitarian interests of the head of the machine of reason, an impression that is far, far removed from the historical reality and the reality of human nature.

In that Ishimatsu, which is inclined to the area of clear cost calculation such as accounting and settlement sheets, it seems that even management activities governed by the subjective personal psychology of the manager are made into the actions of a profit-and-loss calculation machine that seems to lack humanity and is bloodless, and at first glance, in the impression on the image, the personality of the corporate manager such as the CEO with real power is not the same as that of the CEO of the company. The personality of the manager has little relevance to activities related to products and finance, such as marketing and cost control, but if the work is interpersonal, such as business ethics, leadership and organisational management, the CEO's own psychological characteristics (personality-related) clearly tend to be a factor in a variety of ways. In other words, among the six dimensions of management activities as divided by Fayol, the originator of business management theory, the activities in the four dimensions of technology, commerce, finance and accounting, where the 'basic approach leans towards the management of tangible assets', certainly have a moderately unclear relationship with personality, but from the dimension of 'conservation activities', the influence of personality is becoming apparent for the first time (see Figure 1). The influence of personality on the 'conservation activities' dimension is first visible (e.g. whether or not the psychology of the members of the company is harmed or not), and in the interpersonal management activities of 'management activities' - how to plan, organise, coordinate, order and control - it goes without saying that they are clearly and obviously related to the manager's own psychological state and his or her own personality. The psychological state of the manager and the manager's own personality are deeply interrelated. Is it really "not" possible to control and produce causal and correlative influences on management activities among the symptoms and psychodynamics of personality disorders? Wouldn't that be insane? On the contrary, can a good personality have a causal or correlative relationship to the control and sensitisation of subordinates and to the choice of business ethics? Do we really have a perspective of lack even in such a reality study?

If a certain manager only conceals the true intention of his personality, and only considers things that are profitable for utilitarian profit-and-loss calculations, and then makes the enterprise act on such things with only a staging posture, then it is consistent with the imaginary image of the rationalism of classical economics with such imagination, but While not conforming to the state of everyday common sense, the theory (which is indeed everyday common sense for human nature) that "sensible thinking, which is not based on profit and loss calculations, is the overwhelming majority of decision-making (including clearly the decision-making of management activities)" as pointed out by the Novell Prize-winning economics psychologist Daniel Kahneman, is also a criticism. It is also the target of criticism by the theory (which should be the everyday common sense of human nature). In other words, it is not only the target of Daniel Kahneman's critique with the events he pointed out, but the assumption that the personality of the CEO is irrelevant to managerial activity is indeed a remarkable lack of reality and science that makes the psychological sensitivity of the CEO as a human being "unconnected to managerial activity". It is a fall into the conception of the CEO as a human being, which is "unconnected to managerial activity"!

If a manager only hides the true feelings of his personality, if he makes a company perform the pattern of business ethics based only on a clear profit-and-loss calculation of utilitarianism, can such a company really believe in the values of business ethics, can the business ethics of such a company really be maintained, that is the thought experiment that Ishimatsu should have performed. It would be a thought experiment that should be carried out 🤣.

Steve Jobsのファンである1人の教授の可笑しさ

日本経済大学大学院の教授1人である石松氏では，企業の社長やCEOなどトップマネジャーのパーソナリティを「経営行動との関係がない」物事にしながら，そんな観念を武器にして他人に意地悪な疑問視を掛けた。それは大変可笑しいではないか，会社は民主投票で皆様一緒にポリシーを決める組織ではない，もしCEO のパーソナリティは中々経営と関連なかったら，恰も専制の国の政治的な施政も同じく国のトップ権力者のパーソナリティと無関係で，理性の機械らしい頭の功利主義的な利害損得計算ばかりで施政を決定する，という史実と現実の人間性から大幅で桁はずれに離れた印象である。

会計や精算書などはっきりしたコスト計算の領域に傾けたあの石松では，経営者の主観的個人心理から支配された経営活動をも，人間性に欠けて血が通わなさそうな損得計算の機械の行動にするみたいではないか，一見してイメージ上の印象においては，実権のCEOというような企業の経営者のパーソナリティが，マーケティングやコスト管理など製品や財務に関連した活動と関連性は薄いが，企業倫理やリーダーシップ，組織管理など対人的に仕事ならば，CEO自分自身の心理的特性（パーソナリティ関連）が明らかに様々な要因に成りがちではないか。つまり，経営管理論の元祖であるFayolで分けられた経営活動６つの次元で，技術・商業・財務・会計という「基本的なアプローチは有形な財産の管理に傾いた」４つの次元の活動は，確かにパーソナリティと関連性は中々不明瞭であるけど，「保全活動」その次元からパーソナリティの影響は初めて兆しが見えてきて（例えば企業メンバーの心理を勝手に傷つけるかそうではないか），どのように計画化，組織化，調整，命令，統制をするか「管理活動」という対人関係の経営活動では，言うまでもないほどで明らかに経営者自分自身の心理状態，そして経営者自分自身のパーソナリティと深く関連している。パーソナリティ障害の症候や心理力動のうちに，本当に経営活動へコントロールして因果や相関の影響を出せることが「ない」であるか？？それは非常識ではないか？逆に良いパーソナリティが，部下への統制や感得および企業倫理の選択に対して因果や相関の関係を持てないか？本当にそんな現実検討でも欠如の視点を持つのか。

もしある経営者は，自分のパーソナリティの本音を隠すばかり，功利主義的な損得計算にとって採算が取れる物事を考えてから，演出の姿勢ばかりで企業をそんな物事での行動に出演させたりすることならば，そんな想像を持つ古典派経済学の合理主義の空想的なイメージに一致するが，日常の常識である状態と合わないながら，ノベル経済学賞に輝いた心理学者Daniel Kahnemanが指摘した「損得精算によらない感性的な思考こそ，意思決定の（経営活動の意思決定をも明確に含めた）圧倒的な大部分である」という理論（実に人間性への日常的な常識であるべき）が批判する的にも当たる。つまり，Daniel Kahnemanの指摘した事象を使った批評の的だけではなく，CEOのパーソナリティを経営活動と関連しないものだと想定することは，実に人間としてのCEOの心理的感性面を「経営活動と繋がらない」ものにする，という顕著で現実検討と科学性に欠如の観念に落ちたと言える！

もしある経営者は，自分のパーソナリティの本音を隠すばかり，功利主義的なはっきりした損得計算ばかりに基づいて企業を企業倫理の模様を出演させるなら，そんな企業は本当に企業倫理の価値観を信じられるかどうか，そんな企業の企業倫理は本当に維持できるのか，それはあの石松が行うべきの思考実験であろう🤣