Disciplinary society as a prerequisite for the formation of organizational culture

Aim. To identify the correlation of the narratives “organizational culture” and “organizational behavior” with the metanarratives “economism” and “disciplinary society” as belonging to a single civilizational space.Objectives. To trace the historical conditionality of the emergence of the concepts of “organizational culture” and “organizational behavior” as concepts and norms of disciplinary society; on the basis of these concepts to convey the desire to develop optimal technologies of social engineering to rationalize work.Methods. The author applied general scientific methods of textual and comparative analysis, synthesis, as well as basic principles of historical and philosophical method of research.Results. The unity of value and semantic assumptions between the concepts of “organizational behavior” and “disciplinary society” is shown. The most important tools of influence and control of disciplinary society, in particular panopticism, are also used to form organizational culture. Individual self-control — “technique-self” — is generated by people due to their realization of total control over themselves. A person controls himself if he wants to be a unit of society or labor collective. This is the basis for such forms of social engineering as “organizational culture” and “organizational behavior”.Conclusions. The idea of a disciplinary society is that the outcome of human socialization would be the controllability of man over the socio-political institutions of domination. Man's controllability of power becomes a condition of his usefulness, including economic. However, the task of organizational culture is to find ways in which a person, being disciplined within the framework acceptable to society, retains the desire for creativity, which is necessary for society and its institutions as a condition for development.