The Scientific and Philosophical Understanding of Socio-Cultural Essence of Management

: Introduction. Every science, with its abstract-logical method, in the process of formation inevitably reaches the limits of knowledge of its research subject. The means of expanding these boundaries is the philosophy of science. As for management, it is the philosophy of management as its Meta science. According to the author’s article, the management philosophy, in addition to expanding the boundaries of knowledge, will cope with the eclectic danger that threatens management today as a science. However, the philosophy of management in fact has not yet developed. Purpose and methods. The purpose of the article is to develop scientific and philosophical approaches to understanding the socio-cultural essence of management. The methodological basis of the study is the dialectical principle of cognition, systemic, historical and philosophical approaches to the study of organizational phenomena and processes in society. Results. Basic scientific concepts and philosophical ideas of management have been analyzed. The content of the scientific approach (sub science of management) on understanding the management nature as a socio-cultural phenomenon has been revealed and the limitations of cognitive possibilities of this approach are shown. The essence of the philosophical approach (meta science of management) to understanding the management nature has been clarified, which, in comparison with the scientific approach, significantly expands the limits of cognition. Emphasis is placed on the need to build management models taking into account national traditions of culture and mentality, which can become not only a condition for effective management practice, but also a long-term factor in the unification of the country. Conclusions. The scientific novelty of the research results lies in the deepening of scientific and philosophical understanding of the socio-cultural essence of modern management. The practical significance of the obtained results is manifested in the expansion of cognitive capabilities of managers and their horizons of vision of managing objects.

Modern theory of management as its own source of knowledge has a practice that complements, formalizes and substantiates knowledge not only of philosophy but also other disciplines: psychology, sociology, social psychology and anthropology, as these sciences cannot consider human activities outside of philosophy and cultural context. Philosophy contributes to a deep penetration into the understanding of the management phenomenon, rooted in culture, restores inherited from the past values, norms, passing them on to new generations.
Unresolved issues. Despite some achievements of previous researchers in the field of management philosophy, it can be stated that in fact the management philosophy has not yet developed. There is no doubt that it is necessary, because otherwise we will not be able to cope with the danger of the final transformation of management with its extremely diverse mosaic of theoretical concepts into eclecticism. Comparative analysis of scientific disciplines shows that eclectic danger threatens management to a greater extent than any other science. Thus, it is necessary to create a management philosophy. But as you know, the philosophy of a scientific discipline involves a kind of intersection of sub science, in our case, management, and philosophy. Creating a philosophy of management, do not do without a "trip" to both "worlds" are both in the world of management and in the world of philosophy. Both of these campaigns are associated with enormous difficulties. Turning to management, we focus on contradictions, conceptual problems. Turning to philosophy, we do not identify the provisions in a form suitable for us. In its modern form, the philosophy of science is mainly focused on the physics philosophy. But we do not need the physics philosophy, but the management philosophy, and it does not exist. It seems that in one form or another it is necessary to take into account the achievements of historical and analytical philosophy, hermeneutics, and poststructuralism. The relevance and significance of the study and solution of these issues determine the purpose and the research objectives.

Purpose and methods
The purpose of the article is the development of scientific and philosophical approaches to understanding the socio-cultural essence of management in terms of increasing eclectic danger that threatens management as a science. Achieving this goal involves solving such problems: determine the relevance of the researched problem, analyze the state of its study and identify unresolved issues in it; to reveal the essence of the scientific approach (sub science of management) to understand the nature of management as a socio-cultural phenomenon and show the limitations of the cognitive capabilities of this approach; to reveal the essence of the philosophical approach (meta science of management) to understanding the nature of management, which, compared to the scientific approach, significantly expands the cognitive capabilities and horizons of vision of managers (researchers) of this socio-cultural phenomenon.
The methodological basis of the study is the dialectical principle of cognition, systemic, historical and philosophical approaches to the study of organizational phenomena and processes in society. The study is based on the ideas of philosophy about the unity of matter, motion, space and time. Based on the dialectical principle of cognition, management is considered in the process of continuous development, change, transformation, as well as in relation to material objects and spiritual entities of society. At the same time, both each social organization and its management is a contradictory unity of various opposites, which are constantly in a state of unity and struggle, thus ensuring the self-development of social organizations and management.
Management and social organization, as a managing object, are considered through the prism of a systems approach, according to which they are a stochastic system consisting of a set of interconnected elements combined to achieve a common goal of the organization.
The methodology also involves the use of historical and philosophical approaches. Management is studied in chronological order and considered from the standpoint of ontology, epistemology, axiology, meanings and purpose, which allows a deeper understanding of its socio-cultural essence.
Research methods. The following methods were used to solve specific research problems: contextual-analytical is to study the existing scientific provisions on the research problem; terminological is when clarifying the content and scope of the concepts "managing", "management", "organization", "philosophy of management"; phenomenological is to reveal the essence of management as a socio-cultural phenomenon; structural and functional are during the analysis of the construction and functioning of public organization and management; modeling is to predict possible scenarios for future management; comparative is when comparing scientific and philosophical approaches to the study of management, establishing their similarities and differences; observation is while collecting empirical data about the object of study; abstraction is in order to highlight the essential properties of management and distraction from the secondary; analysis and synthesis are in-depth study of the nature of public organizations and their management; theoretical generalization is to summarize.
Research information base. The information base of the study consists of scientific works of the most famous domestic and foreign scientists in the theory and philosophy of management, systems theory and systems analysis, organizational theory, psychology, sociology, social anthropology and cultural studies. As a practical justification of the conceptual provisions of scientific and philosophical approaches to understanding the socio-cultural essence of management used the results of the author's own research, obtained on the basis of observations in the process of working as a manager in various business organizations.

Scientific approach to understanding management
The study of the theory and management history as a socio-cultural phenomenon should begin with a consideration of basic scientific ideas about managing. To do this, we have to look in dictionaries and find out what words mean "managing" and what they mean. Interpretation of this term, first of all, we find in the "Great Explanatory Dictionary of the modern Ukrainian language", where it is defined as an action in meaning: to direct the activities, work of someone, something, to be at the head of someone, something; manage; to direct the course, the course of a process, to influence the development, the state of something" (Busel, 2005(Busel, , p. 1511. In other sources, the essence of managing is interpreted as: "an act that leads to changes in the state of an object; impact on the object, system, process, etc. in order to maintain their sustainability or transfer from one state to another in accordance with the established purpose" (Kovbasyuk, 2011, p. 675); "directing the course, movement, activity of someone, something; controlling the actions of someone, something" (Ozhegov, 1949, p. 726); "influence on the managed system in order to ensure its desired behavior" (Novikov & Novikov, 2007, p. 335); "targeted, specially organized input impact on the object to keep it in a given state or in a given mode, despite the action of various obstacles" (Butkovsky, 2010, p. 7); "interconnected set of cyclically repetitive processes of development and implementation of solutions focused on the stable operation and effective development of the system and its main parts" (Kodzhaspirova & Kodzhaspirov, 2000, p. 98); "the function of organized systems of different nature (biological, social, technical), which ensures the preservation of their specific structure, support for the mode of operation, the implementation of their programs and goals" (Ilichev et al., 1983, p. 704). There are many other approaches, according to which managing is defined as: action, influence, process, activity, function, system, etc.
The term «управление» ("managing") has an ancient Russian etymology, which is defined by the Old Slavic words "right", "authority", "correct", "righteous", "direct", "true" and, according to the eminent linguist Sergei Ozhegov (1949), denotes: means of influence; authorities and a set of devices with which to direct the movement of machines or the activities of someone or something (p. 727). This emphasizes the correctness of managing action (influence) not only physically but also morally, identifying with justice.
A similar emphasis on the correctness of managerial action on the person, as the basis of the managing system, also makes a famous lexicographer Vladimir Dal (1866): "Managing is an action that is consciously organized by a person when he seeks to influence the course of a process in the right, favorable, necessary for him" (p. 432).
In contrast to such a humanistic approach, cybernetics, as the science of the managing laws, is abstracted from the specific features of objects of different nature and managing moral aspects, focusing on the general (physical, formal) that is inherent in them all. From the standpoint of cybernetics, managing is interpreted as "the process of transforming information into action, i.e. the process of converting it into signals that guide the functioning of managing systems" (Shynkaruk, 2002, p. 657). In this case, managing is considered as a system of stable links between the managing subsystem, the managing object and the external environment, which are mediated by the flow of managing information (Figure 1). Applying a purely formal approach to qualitatively distinct objects, cybernetics has played a crucial role in creating a modern managing theory. However, it should be noted that the various managing concepts developed on a cybernetic basis take into account only the verbal communication links between the subject, object and the external environment. A whole layer of nonabstracting non-verbal signals, invisible from the standpoint of cybernetics, is out of the question, which is extremely dangerous in the case of human systems managing, but quite acceptable in the managing of technical objects.
Thus, as a result of the analysis of the concept of "managing" («управление») we conclude that first, in the broadest sense; its meaning is to purposefully influence the managing object, in accordance with the peculiarities and patterns of existence and development of a particular type of object to ensure its integrity, normal functioning, dynamic stability in the environment and the achievement of the goal.
Secondly, as you can see, managing is an extremely diverse and very capacious phenomenon. Scientists consider it from different angles, including the cybernetic and humanistic. Therefore, there are a number of definitions. It is important through which epistemological "glasses" a person looks at this phenomenon and what type, sort or kind of managing it is.
Depending on the type of managing object, there are managing of natural systems created without human participation and managing of artificial systems created by mansocial and technical ( Figure 2).

Figure 2. Areas of managing and types of management
Source: own development Natural managing focuses on the processes occurring in animate and inanimate nature, such as plant development, water flow, etc. The technical includes the machines managing, production lines, etc. The object of social managing is people, their relationships, behavior. Each person has an individual character, personal qualities, psychological characteristics, etc. Therefore, its reaction to managerial influences is subjective and not always predictable, and therefore, social managing cannot be purely mechanistic (what is its most important feature). Social managing is as a purposeful influence of subjects of managing on the life of people united in social groups, depending on the specifics of these groups is divided into administrative and public managing (political management), managing of the economic sphere (economic management) and managing of the social sphere (directly social management) people's life.
Today in the Ukrainian language, despite some controversy, the term «суспільне управління» ("social managing") is increasingly associated with the foreign term "management" (from the English verb manage is to manage, which comes from the Latin manus is hand). In addition, in foreign dictionaries, in particular in the Oxford Dictionary, the word «управління» ("managing") is translated as "management" (Wheeler et al., 2007, p. 459). Thus, the concepts of "social managing" and "management" in the modern scientific literature are practically considered synonymous.
Management is as a multifaceted socio-cultural phenomenon emerged a long time ago, although its active scientific study began relatively recentlyin the late nineteenth century. In general, it should be emphasized that management as an independent phenomenon does not exist. It always exists only where there is a social organization as a union of people. In real life, there are different human organizations: political, economic and directly social. These organizations have different properties, among which the most important are their integrity and viability. Preservation of these properties is provided by means of certain actions of people, and this activity is called management, and people who carry out it are managers. Therefore, in our opinion, consideration of any management issues should always begin with considerations: what is an organization, what is its nature, how it arises, how it is arranged, how it lives and develops, and so on.
Thus, "organization" and "management" as categories of scientific knowledge are correlated as general and partial. Management is a separate type of activity, but not autonomous, but one that is naturally included as a subsystem in the activities of the organization as a whole. And given that the first organizations of people arose in primitive society, the beginning of the emergence of management as a special activity, should be considered a period of antiquity in human history.
Common features of any social organization are that its main components are the people who are part of the organization, the tasks to which its activities are aimed, and management, which formulates the tasks and sets in motion the potential of the organization to solve these tasks. Based on this understanding of the components of the organization, it can be defined as a conscious association of people who, by solving the problems facing the organization, pursue their own goals ( Figure 3). Organizations arise and continue their lives only because they allow people to solve their problems. People give life to organizations, they contribute to their lives. But they do so because in return they receive certain benefits from organizations, which they use to solve their personal problems ( Figure 4).
If the people, on whom the existence of the organization depends, lose interest in it and move away from it, then the organization begins to have problems. And under certain circumstances, it may even cease to exist. Preventing such crises and ensuring the proper satisfaction of the interests of all people on whom the existence of the organization depends, is one of the most important tasks of management.
In view of the above, it means the satisfaction of the interests not only of those who live; work in the organization and to whom it belongs, but also all other stakeholders with whom the organization is associated. This is a very important methodological position and should be used in research on various aspects of management. An organization is a kind of "organism" that is born, lives and develops in a certain environment and the world of economics, business, politics, technology, and culture, nature, which are evolving and constantly changing. In order to survive in this changing world, every organization must also be constantly changing and adapting to it. The ability to change in a timely and appropriate manner is one of the determinants of the survival and success of organizations and a key task of management.
Features of management are determined by the type of organization in which it is included (political, economic, and directly social). Their management mechanisms are very different and depend on the specific type or variety of organization, its size, territorial level (local, regional, national, transnational), stage of historical development of mankind (pre-industrial, industrial, postindustrial) and many other factor. And in this sense, management is seen not only as a specific intellectual activity, but also as a process by which managers (managers of different names) form organizations and manage them, by setting goals and developing ways to achieve them. However, often management is also understood as the apparatus (body) of managing, and a certain category (layer) of people who carry out management.
In general, management is a purely practical activity that permeates every organization, affecting all its areas. However, management is not identical to all the activities of the organization. It includes only those functions and actions that are related to the coordination and establishment of interaction inside and outside the organization, with the motivation to carry out activities, etc. And since management applies to all human organizations without exception (business, administrative, educational, artistic, military, etc.), ensuring their reliable functioning, it can be argued that it is the basis of society as a whole. In addition, in our opinion, management, although the main, but not the only source of managerial influence on the organization. There is at least one other sourcethe self-organizing nature of the organization itself as an open system. Therefore, it is always necessary to take into account the ratio of managerial efforts and tendencies of self-organization. As a result, the result of managing is ambiguously a linearly predictable consequence of managerial influence, but rather nonlinear, as something like in physics "refraction of light ray in the environment", or as "an equivalent force equal to the vector sum of individual forces". Due to the above, management is not an absolute, but always probable predictable regulation of the organization, which requires a very subtle consideration of the peculiarities of the situation and the selforganization nature. Depending on the situation, self-organization can both strengthen and weaken the managerial influence on the organization, and in any case will refract the direction of this influence ( Figure 5). Therefore, the managerial decision always involves the inevitable risk, and, consequently, the social responsibility for this decision, for the subsequent regulatory actions and their results. Thus, management is a human "superstructure" over the natural "structure" of self-organization. In organizations, even with all their manageability, the share of self-organization is very large. In certain periods of the life cycle, it is not less and may even exceed the managerial influence. After all, man, like other animals, is a biological species. The amount of self-organization of people sometimes turns out to be much larger than we imagine. But the initial collective nature of humans for their survival as a species once required and still requires today something even greater, additional is management. So the person creates (at first very weak) elements of coordination of efforts of colleagues on a kind and begins management. Thus the person becomes also the social individual, instead of remains only a biological kind in a natural variety, elements of not only management culture, but also culture as a whole arise.

Philosophical approach to understanding management
The central figure on which the success or failure of any social organization depends is the manager. Therefore, in order to be able to continue the scientific and philosophical discussion about management, it is very important to give the correct answer to the questions: "what should a manager do?" and "what makes him a manager?". It is not just a question of what competencies (qualities) of status may still be lacking for the manager. This is a question about the essence of managing; this is a question about how we understand the theoretical foundations of management, its philosophical and cultural aspects.
Above, we have already partially answered this question. The manager must: form an organization; to set goals, develop ways to achieve them and set in motion the potential of the organization to achieve these goals; ensure the integrity and viability of the organization; to guarantee the proper satisfaction of the interests of all people on whom the existence of the organization depends; make timely changes in order to adapt to the changing environment of the organization; perform actions related to the coordination and establishment of interaction inside and outside the organization; to encourage members of the organization to effective activities, etc. However, all this is only a theoretical "mechanics" of management, not its philosophy and cultural studies.
And if we answer, repeating the common saying that the manager "must effectively manage" is the end of the discussion. First, the manager, with absolute certainty, must not only do this, simply because of the variety of situations and practical tasks. Secondly, with unenviable regularity this is what to manage effectively and does not work on a massive scale. You can stay on the answer line "as it should be", by analogy with the fact that not everyone in society succeeds. And you can disagree with this and offer another answer to the question.
There is a very simple answer: "manage people", which in principle logically follows from the essence of the nature of social organization. But is it that simple?
Well-known American researcher Chester Barnard in his famous book "The Functions of the Executive", first published in 1938, expressed the view that the true role of leadership is manifested in the management of the organization's value system, which today, 80 years later, sounds non-trivial.
On the first page of his book Ch. Barnard (1938) admits: "I found that when trying to start studying the organization and behavior of people in the organization there are several seemingly simple questions: "what is an individual or personality?"; "what do we mean when we talk about personality?"…" (p. 9).
These questions may indeed seem too simple if we consider the simple evolution of the views of management theory on its subject in the last 120 years. Starting with the study of man in terms of his work and physical properties (scientific managing), going through the study of organization (administrative school), researching human relations (school of human relations), developing a quantitative approach (management science) and many other different approaches to management, theory management again came to man, but already in its holistic perception, in the unity of its socio-psychological and cultural aspects: "…approach to man as a pattern of the management development concept" (Shepel, 2013, p. 126). What were for the theory and practice of management in the 50-60's of the twentieth century quantitative and systemic approaches, 70's is situational approach, 80's is strategic management, since the 90's has become an organizational culture. Within the framework of this approach it was supposed to achieve a full understanding of man in the management system. And here began, in our opinion, the most interesting "adventure" of management theory.
The discovery of the culture of management was only one: to paraphrase the classics, "man is a measure of government", and at the heart of man himself is culture. The first thing that came out of this is management theory had to recognize that the basis of management (both on the part of the object and on the part of the subject) is something that is in itself irrational and difficult to express, if at all, how much-any rational and measurable forms. The second is it quickly became clear that neither special tools, nor the developed methodology of work with the individual, or the separate person, in the managing theory does not present.
As the management object, culture cannot be understood and realized by a simple rational description. A person can be forced to follow certain norms, respect certain rules, and even instill in him certain values. But it is impossible to make these values become her own, the basis and result of her own experience, the development source, a simple introduction of organizational culture. In practice, culture is formed in the process of self-knowledge and self-organization of each person, under the education influence, on the basis of life experience, etc.
Culture reveals itself, first of all, through the sphere of values, through ideas, images and other semantic forms that have an irrational and fundamentally unverified character. According to the German philosopher, founder of the Baden school of neo-Kantianism Heinrich Rickert (1910): "The world of values is the realm of meanings that lies above all being and forms an independent kingdom, which lies on the other side of the subject and object" (p. 302).
But any theory that deals directly with man is based on a certain model of man. What can rational models of culture (person) have to real management practice? The activity of a real person and a team can be formalized only in some part. And this part may prevail when it comes to simple motivational expectations (money, career, education, etc.). At a deeper level, if a person is seen as a carrier and even more so the creator of a particular culture, neither human activity nor man himself can be fully formalized. Thus, this part, which cannot be formalized, seems to fall out of the context of rational management. And since the loss of such a part of the management subject is fundamentally unacceptable, the management itself is increasingly brought into the realm of not quite rational phenomena.
Practice shows that the use of abstract models of human behavior and thinking in the organization does not lead to the desired results. That people do not need to be adjusted to the schemes and concepts of management, but rather, management must be built based on the person himself, his culture, values.
As a result of the problem of culture, which originally occupied the border areas in management, gradually expanded the boundaries of management. Questions of meaning and purpose, which seemed peripheral to the main subject of management theory, became a number of major.
At the turn of the XX-XXI centuries the management theory was closely dealt with by man himself, and this, in turn, required a radical revision of some of its foundations, a rethinking of its own methodology. However, due to the limited capabilities of the scientific (rational) method of cognition in management, there is a clear awareness of the need to form a meta science of management is the management philosophy. Management began to be presented as an act of existential choice that has a meaningful nature and is not subject to direct rational description. In addition, any description is a formalization that "removes" in our perception the vitality and reality of management, covering only a certain part of the managing object.
The management philosophy, compared with the scientific approach, allows to significantly expand the boundaries of knowledge of the management subject, to feel its irrational component, inaccessible to the abstract scientific method and as a result is to improve the management quality ( Figure 6).

Phphilosophical horizon of vision; Scscientific horizon of vision;
Δexpanding the horizon of vision; Ratrational part of the object of management, which can be scientifically formalized; Irratirrational part of the management object, which is not amenable to scientific formalization, but is amenable to philosophical understanding Within the philosophical approach, management is seen as a specific human activity aimed at conscious production and implementation of the meanings of the organization. It would be possible to stop on it and to return to consideration of a question of what competences are necessary for the manager for performance of this task. If the course of thought did not give rise to at least one other very difficult question: where to get these meanings?
How the management process is arranged from the point of view of the manager? The beginning of managing an organization is the formation of an image that contains an idea of the organization itself and how to manage it. This image, endowed with a certain meaning, is formed first in the head of the manager on the basis of his own picture of the world. Russian researcher Alexei Andreev (2016) notes: "It is impossible to create an enterprise without creating its image. Man is the creator of the Images of the Worlds by virtue of vital necessity. First, she must create a very accurate image of the World-Nature to survive on Earth, and then, for the sake of survival in society, she At this stage the manager creates some ideal reality, so that in the process of this ideal to translate into reality. The primary structural element, or way of translating an ideal reality into reality, is the idea of the most accessible form of meaning transmission for perception and use.
Thus, the process of building a management system can be represented as some emanation of the idea by which the meaning that is at the beginning in the head of the manager is embodied in organizational activities.
It's all management. And actually all this is done by the manager by the manager.
The manager creates the world. And in these words there is nothing impermissible or eloquent. Let's remember how Willie Stark reasoned and built his political activity on this belief from Robert Warren's (1946) novel "All King's Men": "And he wanted the last little thing, which just cannot be inherited. Do you know which one? Good. Yes, the simplest, ordinary good. And it cannot be inherited. You have to make it, Doc, if you want it, out of evil. Do you know why, Doc? Because it's out of nothing to do. -I want to ask you one question. If, in your opinion, it is possible to proceed only from evil and only from evil to do well, then how can you know what good is? How do you recognize him? -You will invent it in the course of business. Good? And what else do you think people have been doing for a million years?" (p. 284).
In this context, from time immemorial, humanity has developed two main approaches, or views on the proper organization and management of society, which differ in the criterion of relation to human nature. At one time in ancient China, on this occasion, Confucianism and Legism opposed each other. Confucius (5th cent. BC) insisted that government should be based on humanity and charity, that is, on Ritual, while Sun Tzu (5th cent. BC) was a supporter of law-based governance.
In the European tradition, this issue was given importance by a prominent German philosopher, the founder of classical philosophy Immanuel Kant (1793), which recognized at least two approaches: "Legal and civil status is the relationship of people to each other, because they are in public order subject to public legal laws (completely compulsory). In an ethical and civil state, people are united under the rule of social laws, but free from coercion, that is, only the laws of charity" (p. 81).
Thus, the approach to the organization of society on the basis of law is based on the recognition of the fact that man is by nature selfish, evil and generally vicious, and an external law is needed to curb his animal nature.
Another approach is the approach based on humanity and charity is addresses the best qualities of human nature: kindness, mercy, self-sacrifice. This approach leaves a person the opportunity to determine and determine for themselves what can and should be considered charity. A charitable person always does charitable deeds.
Does a manager have the right to invent Good, even from Evil, and in the course of the case? The question is rhetorical, as well as the question of what right the manager has to decide (direct) the fate of man. Of course, no one gave him such a right, but with each of his decisions he does so to one degree or another. And in each of his specific decisions, the manager goes through Scylla and Charybdis Law and Charity. Each time he is faced with a choiceto proceed from a particular idea of human nature. Including in relation to himself. In the end, this experience is fused by the manager in the knowledge of human nature is the main knowledge of the manager.
The manager creates the world, but this in itself does not distinguish the manager from the representatives of other professions. However, it is his responsibility to, firstly, correctly assess the possibility of choosing between the Law (social, i.e. relative establishments) and Charity (non-social, i.e. absolute, good), if you cannot invent meanings, and take ready, and secondly, for the choice of charity itself, if you need to create meaning again.
In addition, let's say the meaning is invented by the manager in the course of the case. But it had to be invented. The manager must make this meaning accessible, understandable and his own to those he manages. Confucius (5th cent. BC) warned his students: "A perfectly wise man is able to improve his teachings, make strict rules and write them down, summarize and put all this in order, but he is not able to get people to accept it all" (p. 95).
Thus, the main object of the manager's attention is the creation of meanings, their translation and maintenance. The question arises: when does a manager manage people? And to manage meanings means to manage people. All other human management, i.e. any interaction that does not affect the sphere of meaning-making (meaning-images) is manipulation. This is also a part of management, in addition, a necessary part. But it is instrumental (Figure 7).
Meaning management in the full cycle is from creation to implementation, with personal responsibility for the results of the process gives the work of the manager a professional character. And the source in this case is culture, in the sense given to it by the French philosopher of culture Michel Foucault (2010): "Culture means a certain amount of values, arranged in a certain sequence and hierarchically organized. These values are universal, but at the same time available only to some; a person can acquire them only by sacrificing his life and following certain rules of behavior. The ways and means of acquiring these values are also organized in a certain order and form the sphere of knowledge that governs and transforms human behavior" (p. 243).

Conclusions
The article provides a scientific and philosophical and methodological analysis of understanding the essence of management as a socio-cultural phenomenon in modern society. The results of the study allow us to draw the following conclusions: 1. Traditional management as a science based on the abstract-logical method has a number of disadvantages. First of all, it is the fact that from the field of view of managers who use purely rational methods, a significant part of the object of management falls out, which is not amenable to formalization and scientific logic. The consequences of using such a traditional, purely scientific approach are incomplete vision of managers of managing objects, incorrect assessment of situations and inadequacy of management actions.
2. The management philosophy offers an integrated approach that takes into account irrational factors and by parallel inclusion of abstract-logical and emotional intelligence of the manager ensures the integrity of the object perception of management. At the same time, a person as a carrier and creator of a certain culture, who reveals himself through the sphere of values, ideas, images and other semantic forms that have an irrational character, comes to the fore in the management process. The process of management is seen as an act of existential choice, which has a meaningful nature and is not subject to direct rational description, but is perceived emotionally, intuitively. The activities of the manager are mainly aimed at the conscious production, implementation and maintenance of the meaning of the organization.
3. It has been proved that management as a science at a certain stage of its development is somehow forced to acquire a philosophical companion. The philosophy of management as a Meta science does not appear by chance, but in connection with a certain need, because the desire to do without it leads to a crisis of management, its cognitive limitations. Philosophy of management significantly expands the possibilities of management and provides the key to understanding management as a unique socio-cultural phenomenon of mankind.
4. Scientific and philosophical understanding of management cannot be carried out without taking into account socio-cultural factors. In this regard, the most important task in the field of management is to identify those national cultural traditions that can and should be used in theoretical and methodological understanding and practical application in management. Ignoring the peculiarities of national history and mentality turns into difficulties in the formation of a market economy, social tragedies, technical and technological disasters. And only management models built on national specifics can become effective and overcome emerging difficulties. 5. Addressing management issues, the philosophy of management as the most important task sees the development of conceptual foundations for the formation of national management models, as this task does not fit into one or more disciplines and requires not only interdisciplinary approaches, but also a holistic philosophical reflection. Of course, a scientifically formulated national model of management can become not only a condition for effective management practice, but also a long-term factor in the unification of the country. Such a model should become a key link in the management system at the macro level and permeate its content, defining the rules of the game in all areas of management.
6. It is important to emphasize that management is a purposeful rational activity, and in modern philosophy the rationality concept has undergone a very serious transformation given the stochastic nature of natural and social processes, the diversity of types of life, the presence of different connections and tendencies of self-organization. The philosophy and science of management of the XXI century denies absolute certainty and mechanism, recognizing the variability of the preconditions and norms of rationality, which forces the use of such grounds as ambiguity and uncertainty in assessing the situation and making management decisions.
7. In modern life, organizational interactions are governed by such worldview categories as the relationship between man and nature, the ideas of justice, good and evil, culture and tradition, which means that the basis of modern management is not only a set of specialized disciplines that have applied value, but also a holistic philosophical and methodological approach, inscribed in the modern worldview.
The scientific novelty of the research results lies in the deepening of scientific and philosophical understanding of the socio-cultural essence of modern management.
The practical significance of the obtained results is manifested in the expansion of cognitive capabilities of managers and the horizon of their vision of managing objects.
Prospects for further research in this area may lie in the philosophical understanding of certain aspects of management.