چالش‌های مدیریت صنعتی‌سازی در دوره حکومت پهلوی دوم

تلاش برای توسعه صنعتی ایران تا پیش از دوره پهلوی دوم، خارج از چارچوب و برنامه‌‌ای مدون و مشخص و به صورت دستوری انجام شده بود؛ اما در دوره حکومت محمدرضاشاه پهلوی با تدوین برنامه‌های توسعه عمرانی بلندمدت و به موازات آن تاسیس یک نهاد برنامه‌ریز به‌نام سازمان برنامه، برای اولین‌بار، صنعتی‌سازی کشور در مسیری از پیش‌طراحی شده قرار گرفت. با این‌ وجود، بررسی روند توسعه صنعتی در طول این دوره حکایت از بروز چالش‌های متعدد مدیریتی در امر صنعتی‌سازی کشور دارد. مقاله حاضر با تکیه بر اسناد و منابع کتابخانه‌ای و به روش توصیفی تحلیلی تلاش دارد به این پرسش پاسخ دهد که چالش‌های مدیریتی در مقاطع مختلف این دوره چه بوده‌اند؟ نتایج حاصل از بررسی اسناد و منابع در این پژوهش نشان از آن دارند که مدیریت صنعتی‌سازی کشور هیچ‌گاه به ‌عنوان امری مستقل از مدیریت سیاسی کشور نبوده و توسعه صنعتی در تمام طول این دوره همچنان بر اساس سازوکارهای سنتی مدیریت در ایران پیش می‌رفت. در چنین سازوکاری نقش و اختیارات نهادها، مدیران و متولیان صنعتی متاثر از عوامل داخلی و خارجی مرتب دستخوش تغییر می‌شد و اصطکاک و مناقشه‌ای دائم میان آنها پدید می‌آمد. به‌علاوه از شکل‌گیری یک سازوکار علمی و تحقق اهداف پیش‌بینی شده در برنامه‌های صنعتی ممانعت می‌شد.

industrialization management challenges during the second pahlavi era

extended abstract introductionefforts to industrialize iran before the era of pahlavi ii (mohammad reza shah) were conducted outside of any coherent, structured plan and often executed in a directive manner. however, during the reign of mohammad reza shah pahlavi, with the formulation of long term developmental plans and the parallel establishment of a planning institution known as the plan organization, industrialization for the first time embarked on a pre designed path. despite this, the examination of industrial development throughout this period reveals numerous managerial challenges in the process of industrialization. in the early years of mohammad reza shah's rule, although the government assumed economic and industrial responsibilities in accordance with the constitutional law, officials and politicians lacked deep familiarity with industrial management practices and the evolving nature of industrial management in the west. consequently, despite the formulation of a comprehensive development plan, placing industrial programs under its umbrella, and creating a planning institution, the absence of a scientifically structured mechanism for industrial management and the undefined scope of responsibilities of those in charge became a point of contention. this contention persisted into later decades as the power of the state diminished and shah's involvement in governance increased, leading to significant challenges in managing the country's industrialization. these challenges sometimes manifested as tensions between the government and technocrats outside the state apparatus, at other times as overt and covert conflicts between members of the government and state agencies, and occasionally as direct confrontations between shah and the government itself, ultimately hindering the achievement of long term industrial goals.the present research is aimed at examining these challenges across five distinct periods from 1941 to 1979 and answering the question: what were the managerial challenges during various phases of this era? studying the trajectory of industrial management between 1941 and 1979, and observing recurring issues and challenges, led to the assertion that industrialization management during this period was never considered independent from political management. throughout this entire era, industrial development suffered from the absence of an independent and scientific managerial mechanism.the existing body of research on industrial development in iran can be categorized into three main groups. the first group focuses on the historical timeline of industrial transformations in iran. papers such as a century of industrial change in iran and examining the developments of industry and industrial development in iran review the historical trajectory of industrial growth in the country (rahnama 2020: 2 38 and sharifzadegan 2015: 41 66). the second group examines industrial transformations through the lens of urban and industrial planning. papers like structuring development in pahlavi era iran, reasons for the failure of the development planning system in pahlavi ii era, and the dissertation the formation of the plan and budget organization and its impact on the political and economic developments of the pahlavi ii era analyze industrial transformations within the context of long term development plans (kasraei 2023: 218 238, taleb 2006: 181 204, and shahvand 2019). the third group investigates the industrial sector as a component of the economic system. papers like the economic strategy of pahlavi ii and economic policies of the pahlavi ii regime regarding industry, with an emphasis on iran germany relations, 1961 1978 address the challenges facing the industrial sector as intertwined with the broader economic policies of the regime (nasr 2003: 31 39 and torabi 2017: 66 78).the distinctive feature of the present study compared to previous works is its focus on analyzing industrialization during the pahlavi ii era from a managerial perspective. methodologythe research method employed in this study is descriptive analytical. the researcher refers to less utilized library sources, examines existing documents, and extracts historical data. initially, the process of drafting plans and implementing industrialization programs during the pahlavi ii era by the relevant authorities is described. subsequently, based on the gathered information, the performance, outcomes, and impacts of their actions are analyzed and evaluated. discussion and conclusionthe examination of industrial management challenges across five periods during the pahlavi ii reign reveals that despite structural and institutional changes and the formulation of long term plans, the management of industrialization continued to follow traditional management mechanisms in iran. this mechanism was heavily dependent on the interests of the ruling power, and the behavior and motivations of individual politicians and state managers, as well as the political and economic stances of foreign actors. this management system struggled with issues such as individual and unplanned decision making, overlapping responsibilities among stakeholders, shifting authority, neglect of specialized expertise, preference for short term gains, and foreign interventions, etc. in such a system, there was significant resistance to delegating managerial authority to experts and non political figures. even when such authority was granted, it was temporary and superficial, driven by non scientific motivations. as these motivations altered, there was a regression to conservative practices, resulting in the withdrawal of responsibilities from experts. consequently, the formation of an academic and scientific framework for industrial management based on expert thinking was obstructed, hindering progress toward achieving long term industrial goals.