Based on the verification that there are companies that are not Organizations because they do not share any of the fundamental attributes that characterize them according to the various doctrinal currents of the Administration, but that in fact they are administered, -as individuals do with their personal life in non-business activities-, and that they propose to call “Nano-businesses”, the need arises to redefine the object of study of this discipline to move from its current conception, the organizations (the continent) to “the activity / s / it is or administrative or administrative action / s ”(the content), while redefining its epistemological status as a“ technical-scientific discipline ”.
introduction
The concern raised by some students of the Faculty of Economic Sciences of the National University of Jujuy (FCE / UNJu) during 2010 to Professor Cra. Mercedes Espinoza and that she transferred it to me, regarding the treatment to be given to those business economic units made up of only the owner and that they do not occupy personnel in a dependent relationship, neither formally nor informally, led me to reflect during the summer about the question of the object of study of the Administration and its epistemological status ”.
The reading for four decades of bibliography on Administration, first as a student and then as a teacher, in which, in an absolutely confusing way, Administration is presented as the "scientific discipline… (which) consists of certain general principles and a certain philosophy… to ensure maximum prosperity for the employer, together with maximum prosperity for each of the employees ", or as" an administrative doctrine (which) aims to facilitate the governance of companies "" composed of a set of principles, rules, of methods, procedures "that a" process "matters, or" like the art of getting things done… (taking care of) decision processes as well as action processes ",or that "it is an organ" or that "it is practice rather than science… it is not knowledge but performance… it is a social responsibility… and it is embedded in culture… it is an objective function determined by tasks… it is a discipline" to express synthetically only some of the innumerable conceptualizations that have been formulated of it, but always referring to the organizations that constitute the object to which it is applied.
This has produced in me - and perhaps in many other colleagues - a kind of intellectual "silence" that has not allowed us to think critically about this affirmation so categorically and repeatedly expressed. Yes, there was an exception. About twenty years ago, expressed within the meetings of ADENAG (Association of General Administration Teachers) of which it was a part, formulated by Professor Cra. Clara LEWIN DE DOBRY of the National University of Rosario, now deceased. Clara raised to amazement, bewilderment and even discomfort for everyone, that the object of study of the Administration was not "Organizations" but "Administrative Activity". There was that question that was never deepened by her or addressed by anyone else that I know of. But it was always present in my memory and, I must say, year after year I have the opportunity to expose it to my students. Even so, until the aforementioned point, it never occurred to me to reflect seriously and deeply on the matter. Now I decided, starting from that question from my students, to carry out a more in-depth review of the bibliography at my disposal and to search for new antecedents.Among the latter, I rescue two recent works: that of Professor Juan Omar Agüero from the National University of Misiones (UNAM) whom I heard in his presentation in September 2010 in Posadas, Misiones, on the occasion of the II Regional Administration Conference of the NEA and that of Professor Daniel Enrique Urié of the National University of Patagonia San Juan Bosco, whose presentation I found among the documents of the XXVII National Congress of ADENAG held in Santa Rosa, La Pampa in 2011.on the occasion of the II Regional Administration Conference of the NEA and that of Professor Daniel Enrique Urié of the National University of Patagonia San Juan Bosco, whose presentation I found among the documents of the XXVII National Congress of ADENAG held in Santa Rosa, La Pampa in 2011..on the occasion of the II Regional Administration Conference of the NEA and that of Professor Daniel Enrique Urié of the National University of Patagonia San Juan Bosco, whose presentation I found among the documents of the XXVII National Congress of ADENAG held in Santa Rosa, La Pampa in 2011..
My original reflection was directed solely to the proposition contained in the title of this work. The first statement, " NOT ALL ORGANIZATIONS ARE COMPANIES ", is a known and undisputed truth throughout the doctrine, since there are non-profit organizations (neighborhood, social, foundations, educational, state). But that " NOT ALL COMPANIES ARE ORGANIZATIONS ", constitutes a novel statement or, at least, rare. This led me early in 2010 to sketch the idea of the Nanoempresa, one that, while performing the business function, does not constitute an organization in the ontological sense and that, therefore, would be out of the scope of the Administration in accordance with the brief outline outlined and that will be expanded in the next chapter. But we do know that they are also "manageable."
This speculation promptly led me to consider the need to rethink the object of study of the Administration since, until now, generally and overwhelmingly, “organizations” have been identified as such and, also, to analyze their epistemological status on which they exist divergent positions.
II. About the object of study of administration and nano-enterprises
There is an appreciable coincidence in the doctrine regarding considering "organizations" as the object of study of the Administration.
If the characterizations that have been formulated are reviewed, by way of example, the following can be mentioned:
- "Organizations are, of course, hierarchical entities, in the sense that they are composed of smaller units (Simon, 1962), such as groups and individuals." "… organizations are collective entities";
- “…` organization` refers to the complex design of communications and other relationships within a group of human beings… The sociologist calls it a `system of functions`; but for most of us it is more familiarly known as an 'organization';
- "Organizations are material entities with physical characteristics, characterized by social relations and demographic processes";
- "organizations are, in effect, physical structures that have consequences for interaction"… In addition to their physical qualities, organizations consist of repeated patterned interactions between social actors (Weick, 1969)… To speak of patterned interaction is to speak of a structure of social treatment… the social structure can be represented "in terms of relations (links) between social objects (eg, groups and people)" (Tichy and Fombrun, 1979: 924) (229);
- “… organizations lead to social relationships. That is, individuals interact within the organization ”;
- "… a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two or more people" (BARNARD, Chester J. - The functions of the Executive - Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1938: 73 in;
- “Organizations are social units (or human groupings) deliberately built and rebuilt to achieve specific goals. … Organizations are characterized by: 1) division of work responsibilities, power and communications…. 2) the presence of one or more centers of power…; 3) replacement of personnel… The organization can also vary the mix of its personnel through transfers and promotions ”(ETZIONI, Amitai - Modern Organizations - Englewood Cliffs, NJ - Prentice-Hall, 1964: 3 in;
- “… organizations are defined as collectivities… established to achieve objectives on a more or less continuous basis… they have other specific features apart from the specificity and continuity of purposes… relatively fixed limits, a normative order, a scale of authority, a communication system and an incentive system… ”(SCOTT, Richard W. - Theroy of Organizations in FARIS, Robert EL - Handbook of Modern Sociology - Paul Mc Nally and Co. - Chicago, 1964: 488 in;
- "Blau's analysis gives primacy to the interaction of individuals as the vital center of the organization." (BLAU, Peter M. - Exchange and Power in social Life - New York - Hohn Wiley & Sons Inc., 1967: 329 in;
- The organization as a closed system. “This perspective is traditionally linked to the early writings of Max Weber on bureaucracy… The tasks aimed at achieving the goal are subdivided among the members of the organization in such a way that each member has a limited sphere of activity according to its own capabilities;
- “The organizational structure itself is a power arrangement… Organizations can be seen as social systems in which the power arrangement determines a good part of what happens. Power struggles alter these dispositions and are an active part of the organizational system ”;
- "… the organization as the government information processing system"
- “the organization gathers the resources in an orderly manner and arranges the people in an acceptable model so that they can develop the required activities. The organization unites individuals in interrelated tasks… to make people work together effectively towards the achievement of specific objectives ”
- “The general nature of the organization… dealing with the interactions between the characteristics of men and the work climates provided by the organization”;
- “The organization is about how to make people work together efficiently”;
- “… the organization is a social entity as well as an economic arrangement… if the organization is going to be useful… it needs to supply not only the economic needs, but also the social and psychological needs of its members that originate from being part of a organization";
- "The organization is a social institution… (whose) center (is) a system of activities performed by its members…"
- “… the organization refers to both the process and the structure…“… the design of the structure is not a simple task… ”because it relates` human units` whose “… human relationships are both a curse and a blessing
- “… we can then build` learning organizations`, organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspirations is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together ”.
As can be clearly seen, all these characterizations, despite coming from authors of different theoretical aspects of the Administration, agree that "Organizations" are collective, social entities, made up of two or more human beings (in the preceding citations there have been underlined these aspects).
The administrative doctrine is to answer that these entities ("things" in the ontological sense of Mario Bunge's Ontological Theory of Form, of whose "substantial properties" that characterize them, the common to all is "mutability" or "capacity to change ”), organizations are his particular object of study. This would constitute a paradigm of the Administration in relation to its object. But the sociology of organizations and the psychology of organizations, as branches of sociology and psychology respectively, also claim this field (that of organizations) as their own.
Durkheim, on the other hand, that "more than any other man deserves… the qualification of founder of scientific sociology", maintains that "the object of sociology is society, studied through its manifestations… (which) he called" social facts "," Which should be analyzed according to their usefulness; "The function of a social fact should always be sought in relation to some social end" (DURKHEIM, 1895: 111). Thus, he characterized the approach to functionalism, which was mixed with that of structuralism, which recognizes its first mention by Spencer (1875); A. Radcliffe-Brown, GP Murdock, M. Herskovits and C. Lévi-Strauss understand it as based on kinship relationships; SM Lipset, R. Bendiz, identify the structure with social classes or with social stratification; others, with organization or with social institutions,thus, T. Parsons, Ginsberg, A. Radcliffe-Brown, etc. Both structuralism and functionalism converged in structural-functionalism with a systemic vision (Talcott Parsons, David Easton and Karl Deutsch) that establishes an analogy between organic life and social life, highlights the importance of the individual and the roles of the parts (subsystems) in maintaining the whole (system) in order to satisfy the demands of the environment.highlights the importance of the individual and the roles of the parts (subsystems) in maintaining the whole (system) in order to satisfy the demands of the environment.highlights the importance of the individual and the roles of the parts (subsystems) in maintaining the whole (system) in order to satisfy the demands of the environment.
From the perspective of social psychology, Daniel KATZ and Roberto L. KAHN, conceptualize “organizations… as an input-result energy system, in which the energy from the result reactivates the system. Organizations are notoriously open systems ”.
A science assumes the character of such, when it is capable of cutting out a specific and specific part of Reality that constitutes its particular object of study, which cannot be totally shared by other (s). Given the panorama described above, “organizations” do not seem like the appropriate object of study for the Administration, since it is typical of other scientific knowledge (sociology –for some-, social psychology).
On the other hand, the actions of isolated individuals are also “manageable”. A person can "manage their time", "manage their work or professional career", "manage their income", "manage their business carried out individually", and so on.
The individual, performing only those activities or other "non-economic" in the sense of not pursuing a profit purpose, but others, eg. social work (individual voluntary work, individual artistic tasks, in the role of student, etc.), using resources for a specific purpose, it does not constitute an organization either, in the ontological sense that the vast majority of administrative doctrine confers on this term. Consequently, it would not be an object of study by the Administration, nor would its techniques and recommendations be applicable to it.
In addition, an individual can, by himself, without the assistance of another or other individuals (who, together, would constitute an “organization, with a relationship structure), develop a business or other type of activity, fulfilling all the functions of it (attracting resources, transforming them, obtaining products or results by selling goods or providing services, financing and financing, researching and developing markets and products, etc.).
To the latter, a company that does not constitute an organization, proposes to call it "NANOENTERPRISE", that is, that "minimal and embryonic manifestation of entrepreneurial entrepreneurship" that, like the other types of companies () today known based on their size (micro, small, medium and large companies), it is possible, necessary and convenient to administer.
If a set of substantial characteristics or properties that represent something of a thing is listed, in this case "organizations" - which can be expressed as "predicates" of the form-, widely accepted by authors from different theoretical aspects of the Administration, is It is possible to observe that practically all of them are not presented in this new category of proposed Company, the "Nano-company", which proves the statement that it is not an organization and, however, as a Company that is given its profit purpose, it is object of the act of administering.
What then would be the particular object of study of the Administration if it is not "the organizations"?
It is suggested to return to the idea of Clara Lewin de Dobry raised some two decades ago: “THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITY (S) OR ACTION (S) OR ADMINISTERING, be they carried out by individual subjects (people) or social (organizations) ”, in a certain similarity with the object of study defined by Durkhein for sociology:“ social facts ”and not society (already cited in 31). That is, not the continent where or in relation to whom they apply (organizations, individuals), but to their very content, themselves.
Trying to establish an explanatory parallelism, it could be affirmed that the Administration would be to organizations and individuals, what medicine is to people. It would apply multidisciplinary knowledge born, developed and derived from other scientific fields such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, social psychology, economics, statistics, mathematics, computer science, etc., adapted to the needs of its use in function of its purpose, that is, to achieve an effective and efficient use of the resources that they (individuals by themselves or organizations) have available to achieve the objectives that are proposed, in the same way as medicine uses knowledge of biology, chemistry, physics, genetics, etc., in order to preserve the state of health, or recover it,of the people for whom it is intended.
III. Towards a new epistemological conceptualization and characterization of the administration
If the object of study raised above is taken into account, following Durkheim in analogy and keeping Drucker in mind, one could consider “Administration as the scientific discipline that, applying multidisciplinary knowledge from social sciences such as economics, sociology, social psychology, psychology, and formal sciences such as mathematics, statistics, computing, etc., deals with the best way to apply or use effectively and efficiently resources of all kinds (human, material, financial, of information, technology, time) available or accessible by individuals and organizations, in order to achieve the purpose (s) or objectives that they set, inserted in a specific culture, acting sustainably and with social responsibility. This is,seeks the best possible performance given the prevailing conditions, trying to improve them as soon as it is feasible ”.
Regarding its epistemological status, Mario BUNGE's position is partially shared. Its purpose is not to explain the operation of its object (s) of study, nor to analyze the causes that cause it, nor to predict its future behavior, it is not a science. It does not "look for the laws and norms that the administrative activity satisfies or should satisfy," it is agreed.
However, the distinction between "applied science" and "scientific technique" (thus adjective by its use of the scientific method, Bunge tells us) does not seem so clear. The applied scientist, this author points out, "strives to apply the basic laws of reality found by the basic scientist and to understand a part of that reality so that someone can transform it"; "The technician uses scientific knowledge, although not the most general and profound, but what he needs to achieve his objective… he uses the truth to reach the utility (for someone)", "(his) center of activity is the design of devices or action plans that allow creating or controlling specific things. It would therefore be a similar status to that of "nuclear engineering, agronomy, medicine, law or economics",although "much more scientific than law and even economics, disciplines still strongly influenced by ideology."
Bunge calls “ administratecnia"To the system of disciplines that study administration, a" scientific technique that: a) studies administrative activities and relationships that take place within and between socio-systems; b) uses the scientific method as well as the results of scientific research in psychology and in basic and applied social sciences; and c) it is proposed to optimize in some aspect (for example, productivity, social benefit or profit) the functioning of the socio-systems ”…” the correct approach to administrative problems, like any other social problems, should be systemic ”…” but they do not constitute a science, because far from aiming to achieve disinterested knowledge, they seek to know the best way to control something, namely: the administrative aspects of the socio-systems ”.
Thus, it agrees with Bunge regarding the epistemological framework of the Administration as a “scientific technique”; technical for its purpose or purpose, scientific for its method or way of studying its object. But he disagrees as to the fact that their object is only the socio-systems since those "activities and administrative relations" are not developed only within these socio-systems but are also carried out by isolated individuals, individual people who do not use the competition of another or others for the development of their activities, be they of any nature (eg “ Nano-companies ”), as already mentioned in II.
IV. Conclusions
An "anomaly" has been detected regarding the object of study of the Administration, -defined quasi paradigmatically by the doctrine as "Organizations" -, represented by the case of sole proprietorship (although it is also valid for other non-business activities) and that, following the decreasing order of the typologies by size of companies widely used (world-wide or transnational, large, medium, small, micro), it is proposed to name "NANOENTERPRISE" using the Greek prefix "nano" that comes from the Greek νάνος and means superenano, to those business units made up of a single person who is, at the same time, the owner and sole member.
This name as "Nanoenterprise" has not been found in the literature to which access has been made. Only one proposal was found by the Professor of the Complutense University of Madrid Gustavo Lejarriaga de las Vacas who proposes "9" The term nano-company can be applied to entities with three or fewer workers. Given the minimal nature of the prefix nano, it is preferred to allocate this name to those companies without staff and, therefore, without structure, which depend only on the activity of the owner and sole member. In literature in the Portuguese language, the same name was found but as a synonym for microenterprise.
The detection of this anomaly led to the rethinking of the "Administration's object of study", which is suggested to replace the current "Organizations" by "THE (S) ACTIVITY (S) OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION (S) OR DE ADMINISTRATE ”understanding by such to“ the one (s) destined (s) to achieve the best way to apply or use effectively and efficiently the resources of all kinds (human, material, financial, information, technological, time) available or accessible by individuals and organizations, in order to achieve the purpose (s) or objectives that they set out ”.
This led to the need to propose a redefinition of the Administration and its epistemological status, understanding it as “the technical-scientific discipline that, applying multidisciplinary knowledge from social sciences such as economics, sociology, social psychology, psychology, and formal sciences such as mathematics, statistics, computer science, etc., deals with the best way of applying or using effectively and efficiently the resources of all kinds (human, material, financial, information, technological, time) available or accessible by individuals and organizations, in order to achieve the purpose or objectives that they set, inserted in a specific culture, acting sustainably and with social responsibility. That is, it seeks the best possible performance given the prevailing conditions, trying to improve them as soon as it is feasible ”.
Thus, questions are left open about the proposed proposals, considering that these basic disciplinary aspects should be addressed and investigated in greater depth by researchers, teachers and professionals in this field of knowledge in order to specify their scope and, therefore, their competences and expectations that society and users may have and expect from it.
V. Bibliography
ADDER, JJ 1990. "Organizations". Buenos Aires: Paidós, 1990.
AGUERO, Juan Omar. 2010. "Theory of Administration: a fragmented and multifaceted field". II Regional Administration Conference of the NEA. UNAM, 2010.
BUNGE, Mario. 1980. "Epistemological Status of the Administration" - RAE Vol. XI-B. Buenos Aires: Arindo SA, 1980.
DRUCKER, Peter F. 1975. "Management: Tasks, responsibilities and practices." Buenos Aires: The Athenaeum, 1975.
FAYOL, Henri. 1961. "Industrial and General Administration". Mexico: Herrero Hnos. Sucesores, 1961.
FRISCHKNECHT, Federico. 1978. "Organization". Buenos Aires: The Athenaeum, 1978.
Gran Enciclopedia Rialp, 1991. in structuralismo_ sociologia.htm.
HALL, Richar H. 1973. «Organizations: Structure and Process». Madrid: Prentice / Hall International, 1973.
KATZ, Daniel - KAHN, Robert L. 1977 (1966). "Social psychology of organizations". Mexico: Trillas, 1977 (1966).
KLIKSBERG, Bernardo. 1975. "Organizational thought: from Taylorism to Organization Theory - Scientific Administration in discussion" - Paidós - Buenos Aires, 1975.
LEJARRIAGA PÉREZ DE LAS VACAS, Gustavo. 2004. "The labor society as nano-company: towards the one-person labor society". ASALMA (Magazine of the Madrid Labor Societies), nº 5, January-February, 2003,: 24. in MARTIN LÓPEZ, Sonia-LEJARRIAJA PÉREZ DE LAS VACAS, Gustavo-ITURRIOZ DEL CAMPO, Javier - «Considerations on the nature of the capital stock in the cooperative societies of associated work »- REVESCO (Magazine of Cooperative Studies). First semester, N ° 091 - ABdelmalek Essaadi University - Madrid, 2007: 99 in.
PFEFFNER, Jefrey. 1987 (1982). "Organizations and Organization Theory". Buenos Aires: El Ateneo, 1987 (1982.
SENGE, Peter M. 1992 (1990). "The Fifth Discipline". Sydney: Random House, 1992 (1990).
SIMON, Herbert A. 1979 (1947 and 1957). "Administrative behavior." Buenos Aires: Aguilar, 1979 (1947).
SMELSER-WARNER. 1982 (1976). "Sociological Theory - Historical and Formal Analysis". Madrid: ESPASA-CALPE, 1982 (1976).
TAUSKY, Curt. 1976 (1970). "Conduction and Organization". Buenos Aires: The Athenaeum, 1976 (1970).
TAYLOR, Frederik Winslow. 1961. "Principles of Scientific Management." Mexico: Herrero Hnos. Sucesores, 1961.
TERRY, George R. 1971. "Principles of Management." Mexico: CECSA, 1971.
EUROPEAN UNION, COMMISSION OF THE. http://www.naviaporcia.com.
URIE, Daniel Enrique. 2011. «Epistemological reflections on Administration». XXVII National Congress of ADENAG, Santa Rosa: ADENAG, 2011.
WILKIPEDIA. 2011. -
Footers:
1 TAYLOR, Frederick, Winslow - “Principles of Scientific Management” - Herrero Hnos. Sucesores - Mexico, 1961: 34.
2 FAYOL, Henri - "General and Industrial Administration" - Herrero Hnos. Sucesores - México, 1961: 129.
3 FAYOL, Henri - Op. Cit.:149.
4 FAYOL, Henri - Op. Cit.:136
5 SIMON, Herbert A. - “Administrative behavior” - Aguilar - Buenos Aires, 1979 (1947 and 1957): 3.
6 DRUCKER, Peter F. - "Management: Tasks, responsibilities and practices" - El Ateneo - Buenos, Aires, 1975: 29.
7 DRUCKER, Peter F. Op. Cit.:13.
8 AGÜERO, Juan Omar - "Administration Theory: a fragmented and multifaceted field" - II NEA Regional Administration Conference - Posadas, 2010.
9 URIE, Daniel Enrique - “Epistemological Reflections on Administration” - XXVII National Congress of ADENAG - Santa Rosa, 2011.
10 PFEFFNER, Jeffrey (1987) - “Organizations and Organization Theory” - El Ateneo - Buenos Aires - 1987 (1982): 15.
11 PFEFFNER, Jeffry (1987) - Op.cit.:68.
12 SIMON, Herbert A. –Op. cit.:XV.
13 PFEFFNER, Jeffry (1987) - Op.cit.:219.
14 ADDER, JJ -. - "Organizations" - Paidós - Buenos Aires (1990): 229.
15 HALL, Richard H. - "Organizations: Structure and Process" - Prentice / Hall International - Madrid, 1973: 5.
16 HALL, Richard H. - Op.cit.:6.
17 HALL, Richard H. - Op.cit.:7.
18 HALL, Richard H. - Op.cit.:8.
19 HALL, Richard H. - Op.cit.:10.
20 HALL, Richard H. - Op.cit.:15.
21 HALL, Richard H. - Op.cit.:32-33.
22 FRISCHKNECHT, Federico - “Organization” - El Ateneo - Buenos Aires, 1978: 38.
23 TERRY, George R. - “Principles of Administration” - CECSA - Mexico, 1971 (1968): 327.
24 TERRY, George R. - Op. Cit.:333.
25 TERRY, George R. - Op.cit.: 342.
26 TERRY, George R. - Op.cit.:344.
27 KLIKSBERG, Bernardo - “Organizational thought: from Taylorism to Organization Theory - Scientific Administration in discussion” - Paidós - Buenos Aires, 1975: 25.
28 KLIKSBERG, Bernardo - Op. Cit.:31.
29 TAUSKY, Curt - “Conduction and Organization” - El Ateneo - Buenos Aires, 1976 (1970):
30 SENGE, Peter M - "The Fifth Discipline" - Random House - Sydney, 1992 (1990): 3.
31 BUNGE, Mario - “Treatise on basic philosophy. Volume 3. Ontology I: The furniture of the world ”, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1977 in (ontolog% C3% ADa) accessed on 07/11/11.
32 Cf. URIE, Daniel Enrique - Op.cit: 7-8.
33 SMELSER-WARNER - “Sociological theory - Historical and formal analysis” - ESPASA-CALPE - Madrid, 1982 (1976): 118.
34 SMELSER-WARNER - Op.cit.:110.
35 SMELSER-WARNER - Op.cit.: 116-117.
36 Gran Enciclopedia Rialp, 1991 in structuralismo_ sociologia.htm consulted on 07/12/11.
37 KATZ, Daniel - KAHN, Roberto l - "Social Psychology of Organizations" - TRILLAS - Mexico, 1977 (1966): 25.
38 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION - Definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises adopted by the Commission - Art. 1: »Any entity, regardless of its legal form, that carries out an economic activity shall be considered a company. In particular, entities that carry out a craft activity or other activities on an individual or family basis, partnerships and associations that carry out an economic activity on a regular basis shall be considered companies. " in http://www.naviaporcia.com/ images / documents / document_14.pdf accessed 07/09/11.
39 KHUN, Thomas - «The Structure of Scientific Revolutions» - Fondo de Cultura Económica - Mexico, 1971 (1962) “… recognition that in a certain way nature (reality) has violated expectations, induced by the paradigm…”: 93.
40 DRUCKER, Peter F. - Op.cit.:12-13.
41 BUNGE, Mario - “Epistemological status of the administration” - RAE - Vol. XI-B: 1145 (1980).
42 BUNGE, Mario - Op.cit.:1146.
43 BUNGE, Mario - Op.cit.: 1147.
44 BUNGE, Mario - Op.cit.:1146.
45 BUNGE, Mario - Op.cit.:1148
46 BUNGE, Mario - Op.cit.:1149.
47 WILKIPEDIA - https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano_(prefix) accessed 07/09/11. "(Symbol" n ", equivalent to one billionth (10 ^ -9) of a meter of the International System of Units) that does not mean an object but indicates a measure").
48 LEJARRIAGA PÉREZ DE LAS VACAS, Gustavo - “» The labor society as a nano-company: towards the one-person labor society ». ASALMA (Madrileñas Labor Societies Magazine), nº 5, January-February, 2003,: 24. in MARTIN LÓPEZ, Sonia-LEJARRIAJA PÉREZ DE LAS VACAS, Gustavo-ITURRIOZ DEL CAMPO, Javier - «Considerations on the nature of the capital stock in the cooperative societies of associated work »- REVESCO (Magazine of Cooperative Studies). First semester, N ° 091 - Abdelmalek Essaadi University - Madrid, 2007: 99 in.: 100. Accessed 07/09/11.
