A frame for a period, and Korea’s two long stretches

A management paradigm, on this page, is a frame for understanding the many things that happen in the running of a firm in a particular period. It also gives people inside the firm a common ground on which to think of a strategy, so that settling a paradigm that fits the situation, inside and outside, comes before any single plan. After the Industrial Revolution, as the twentieth century opened and industrialisation rushed on, firms chose a paradigm of efficiency: output against input. That frame, the writer says, still marks a good deal of management, and it fits a relatively stable setting. The present environment, in the essay’s view, is no longer of that kind.

Korea, too, is placed in two long stretches: in the 1960s and 1970s, industrialisation on an authoritarian basis; in the 1980s and 1990s, a catching-up that rested on democratisation and globalisation. A later turn, the writer adds, is the faster globalisation that comes with information and communications technology. For an export-heavy Korean industry, survival is not only a matter of price, but of credit, customer service, social value, and ethics, and so a change of paradigm has to be watched with care. The periodisation that follows is taken from Kim Jin-gi, “Ways of inducing a shift in the corporate management paradigm,” Korea Youth Policy Institute, 2012.

Four generations, from a node to a process that runs outward

The first generation, 1900–1950, is node-centred static management, in five shorter stretches. In 1900–1910, Taylor’s motion study helped unit-task management take shape as a specialism. In 1911–1920, Fordism, joined to Taylorism, opened a mass-production system in earnest. In 1921–1930, as firms grew large, a bureaucratic organisation formed and organisation-management theory appeared. In 1931–1941, a reaction against scientific management settled a more human-centred practice, and human-relations theory was set down. In 1941–1950, quantitative techniques were brought into production, sales, and organisation, and mass production was established.

The second generation, 1951–1980, is link-centred dynamic management. In 1951–1960 the ground of management turned from production toward consumption, the idea of marketing appeared, and the core of an organisation was read as the person, or the employee. In 1961–1970 modern management took hold, a strategic view came in as a new idea, and a static concept of management became the dynamic one of strategy. In 1971–1980 the limits of a principle based on the division of labour — node-centred management — were recognised, and a search began for a way out.

The third generation, 1981–2000, looks for a rebuilding of process and a new paradigm. In 1981–1990, as American competitiveness fell, Western management was criticised, and people looked for the sources of Japanese strength and for a new frame. In 1991–2000 a range of innovations appeared — customer-centred management, quality management, core-competence management, outsourcing and downsizing, creative human-resource work — along with a redesign of organisations and a faster digitalisation of management, including an IT-based, firm-wide ERP system.

The fourth generation, 2001 to the “present” of the essay, is the arrival of e-business and a paradigm in which process extends beyond the firm. The word “present” is left with the essay.

Project Joyeeta, and a drinks firm that buys from the farm

Unilever’s Project Joyeeta is the first fourth-generation case. Housewives in Bangladesh who had lost their fields to floods were able to work as door-to-door sellers of the firm’s household goods. From 2003 to the end of 2008, the essay says, more than 2,000 such sellers were trained, and people whose income and way of life had improved also bought Unilever products. Additional sales in 2008 alone are given as 210 million euros, which the essay gives as about 32 billion won; the conversion is left as the essay states it. The work is read as creating shared value by “re-recognising a product and a market,” with a similar chance named at the bottom of the pyramid in countries where the gap between rich and poor is wide, including India, China, and Brazil: raise the purchasing power of people on the lower rungs, and a firm can meet a social responsibility and still make a profit.

Nestlé, as a drinks manufacturer on this page, runs projects that help farms. As the essay states the figures, it trades directly with about 540,000 farmers, has given technical guidance to 100,000 over the past ten years, and aims to support another 130,000 over the next ten. Those counts stay in the essay’s window. Training raises the quality of a crop and a farmer’s income; the firm, which depends on raw material, secures a steadier supply of a better product. Nestlé also invests, the writer says, in the long professional training of its own staff, so that people can find better work and a higher income. Successful shared value, in the firm’s reading as the page gives it, has to take in staff, residents, and the effect on a local community. For the writer, creating shared value has become the most important paradigm for a firm that wants to grow over a long stretch. The same Korean report, at fuller length, is on CampusDown.

Sources

1. Kim Jin-gi, “Ways of inducing a shift in the corporate management paradigm,” Korea Youth Policy Institute, 2012, as used in the Korean essay.
2. Four generations as the essay dates them: 1900–1950, 1951–1980, 1981–2000, and 2001 to the essay’s “present.”
3. Unilever, Project Joyeeta, Bangladesh, 2003–end of 2008: more than 2,000 door-to-door sellers; additional 2008 sales of 210 million euros, about 32 billion won in the essay’s conversion.
4. Nestlé, as the page states the figures: direct trade with about 540,000 farmers; technical guidance to 100,000 over the past ten years; a goal of 130,000 more over the next ten.

Last updated: 14 November 2026