Since the strategic management implemented the steps that, at least in theory, most entrepreneurs use to articulate their company, such as establishing the vision, mission, goals, objectives, strategies and everything that arises therein The fight to convince employees, partners and collaborators to know, internalize and defend the dream and the orientation of the company has not stopped.
The investments, to call them somehow, that are made to implement the vision and mission of the company as something of its own to those who make it possible range from small stickers that are placed on the back of the identification passes to days of particular prices that They waste time and money because their impact is rarely measured.
Courses, seminars, talks and messages through the intranet, corporate newspapers and as much visual, auditory and / or written media as possible.
However, in addition to overlooking what it means to be committed or identified with the company, organizations have ignored for years that the heterogeneity of those who integrate it is not only seen at the academic, socio-economic, cultural or religious levels, elements that affect the perception of the vision you want to sell, but one of the biggest obstacles is present in the management style that the company has. And it has been well said: style, in the singular and not in the plural, since beyond the traditional vision that describes participatory, authoritarian, indifferent and inspiring trends, management can be observed in two different ways whose characteristics are easily observable; management can be anisotropic or isotropic.
Yes, that's right, such words come from terms typical of the jargon used by physicists, and have simply been extrapolated to the administrative world. This topic is extensively exposed in my book Inept Managers.
The word isotropy comes from the Greek and means "of the same direction or space" therefore, the word anisotropy should be understood as its antonym "unequal direction or space". In physics, isotropy conceptualizes the “fact that certain measurable vector quantities give identical results regardless of the direction chosen for the measurement” according to what can be read on Wikipedia in this regard; and it was precisely that connotation that inspired their comparison and application in management.
The management that is known, taught and practiced is anisotropic, that is why there are expressions such as the ones mentioned above and widely known to all, since when there is inequality in direction and space, it is logical that expressions such as authoritarianism or indifference, possible only in environments where there are such obvious differences that allow for hiring.
The differences can be so many that it is difficult to list them all, but it would be an interesting exercise to ask how a company can convince an employee that it has to internalize a vision and a mission when the collaborator must make use of the subway or mass transportation, with the sacrifice that this means, while those who direct him arrive in the comfort of their cars and park in assigned positions.
The disproportion prevents us from understanding as our own a creed that is full of contrasts. Added to this is the difference that some companies print to spaces for general staff and those available to their executive staff, the existence of bonuses, royalties and exclusive benefits for certain positions and many other expressions of inequity that, regardless of style that it possesses, reaffirms the anisotropic vision of management that is practiced.
Although it is true that all of the above is not intended to revive the worn out and even failed Marxist thought whose hypocritical class equality led several socialist countries to the ruin of their inhabitants; It is no less true that it is difficult to get employees to identify with something that clearly excludes or classifies them differently.
Isotropic Management or GI, briefly conceptualized, could be seen as the evolution of linear thinking that has made possible the permanence and repetition of anisotropic management. The GI does not intend to implement the vision of the company but rather to find a match between the independent visions of its collaborators and to strengthen the identification in order to achieve the same result in all operations without altering or differentiating the conditions in which they work. This is based on the creation of a uniform space where the same conditions and benefits are enjoyed and the same possibilities of growth and development are possessed, where the only possible differentiation is found in the added value that is given to the result of management, being the same collaborator who is located at a level of participation according to their contribution.
In isotropic management there is no place for the managerial styles mentioned at the beginning, those are possible due to the existing inequality in the administration as already mentioned; In the GI, circumstantial leadership reigns supreme and co-esteem it in all its breadth, since what is sought is collective benefit through individual benefit.
When the Managerial Zeitgeist model was proposed in 1997, the circular orientation (different from that proposed by Russell L. Ackoff) foresaw the application of Fracto-Management and in turn an isotropic administration.
Author's note: Respecting the style with which I usually write my articles, in the summary content I have spoken of the author in the third person even though the reflections and proposals presented here are my own and the product of my research in the administrative sciences.
