The Models of Social Agents in the Modern Management Field

The article is staged and designed to find theoretical and methodological grounds for identifying and analyzing unified factors that contribute to the organization of an effective communication management space in the regions of Russia. The article systematizes existing sociological approaches to the concept of the social agent. It provides dictionary definitions of terms “agent” and “actor”, which are often used interchangeably in academic literature. Through a theoretical analysis of works by international scientists there were identified three unified models of the social agent: the individual actor; the collective actor (subject); an intermediate type combining individual and collective aspects. This typology is applied to analyze contemporary managerial agents (practitioners) involved in the development and implementation of strategic state programs (the Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development, National Projects, etc.). The described models of social agent interaction contribute to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms forming the communicative space of management, as well as processes of unification and diversification in organization and formation of its structure. This article proposes a methodological approach to analyzing the properties of practitioners in the contemporary field of management. Based on a qualitative analysis of official documents, key characteristics of managers as social agents have been identified and unified, allowing preliminary conclusions about their role in the processes of strategic and spatial development of Russia. This article’s methodology for analyzing the properties of the social agents provides a foundation for future research assessing the potential standardization of management strategies across Russia. The authors emphasize the need for further research into regional characteristics, including sociocultural ones, for a more complete understanding of this issue.

1. Shilova V. A., Guseynova K. E. Population involvement in the social space of regional governance as a factor of territorial inequality. Management Issues. 2023;17(6):84–98. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.22394/2304-3369-2023-6-84-98

2. Ritzer G. Modern sociological theory. 5th ed. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2002; 688 p. (In Russ.).

3. Simmel G. Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Georg Simmel Gesamtausgabe. Bd. 11. Frankfurt M.: Suhrkamp; 1992.

4. Vlasyuk G. V. Social organization space. Prepodavatel’ XXI vek. 2012;3(2):364–378. (In Russ.). https://www.elibrary.ru/pxbktv

5. Bourdieu P. Sociology of politics. Transl. from French. Мoscow: SotsioLogos; 1993. 336 p. (In Russ.).

6. Bourdieu P. Sociology of social space. Transl. from French. Мoscow: Aleteiya; 2007. 288 p. (In Russ.).

7. Bourdieu P. The field of cultural production: Essays on art and leisure. New York: Columbia University Press; 1993.

8. Bourdieu P., Wacquant L. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992.

9. Klimov I. A. The sociological concept of Anthony Giddens. Sociological Journal. 2000;(1–2):121–149. (In Russ.). https://www.elibrary.ru/pzqkud

10. Giddens A. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984.

11. Lobo I., Dimas J., Mascarenhas S., Rato D., Prada R. When “I” Becomes “We”: Modelling dynamic identity on autonomous agents. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 2023;26(3)9. DOI: 10.18564/jasss.5146

12. Archer M. S. Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995. 354 p.

13. Archer M. S. Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003; 370 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139087315.001

14. Habermas J. Communication activity theory. Transl. from German. Мoscow: Ves’ mir; 2022; 878 p. (In Russ.).

15. Linde А. N. The safekeeping of the personality in the information societies: The application of the approach of J. Habermas. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Sociology. 2019;12(2): 114–133. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21638/spbu12.2019.201

16. Rovane C. Is group agency a social phenomenon. Synthese. 2019;196(12):4869–4898. DOI: 10.1007/S11229-017-1384-1

17. Touraine А. Return of the actor: Social theory in postindustrial society. Moscow: Nauchnyi mir; 1998. 204 p. (In Russ.).

18. Burns T. R., Machado N. Social rule system theory: universal interaction grammars. CIES e-Working Paper. 2014;(175):1–13.

19. Sztompka P. The Sociology of Social Change. Wiley-Blackwell, 1993. 368 p.

20. Goffman E. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Transl. from English. G. S. Batygina, L. A. Kozlovoi. Moscow: Institute of sociology; 2003; 752 p. (In Russ.).

21. Yadov V. A. Trying to rethink Erving Goffman’s framing concept. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noi antropologii. 2011;14(2):85–97. (In Russ.).

22. Gofman I. The presentation of self in everyday life. Transl. from English. Мoscow: KANON-press-Ts, Kuchkovo pole; 2000. 304 p. (In Russ.).

23. Batygin G. S. The continuum of frames: The dramatic realism of Irving Hoffman. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. 2001;(2):5–24. (In Russ.). https://www.elibrary.ru/bfesdx

24. Habermas J. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Transl. from German. St. Petersburg: Nauka; 2001. 380 p. (In Russ.).

25. Tugendhat Е. Morality and communication. MS; 1981.

26. Guseynova K. E. The problem of organizing the communicative space of Russian regions in the context of the national science project. Research Result. Sociology and management. 2020;6(4):169–183. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18413/2408-9338-2020-6-4-0-10