There is no shortage of definitions of what is the management of organizations, management. A very simple but valid, at least traditionally, may be that managing consists of planning, organizing, directing and controlling people and groups, together with resources (technology, finances, productive teams, etc.), with the aim of achieving the ends or goals that the organization has.
I want to emphasize that this definition is the traditional one, the one that appears in many books and the one that for years has shaped our vision of companies and organizations, although others are emerging that emphasize the fundamental component or element of management such as management of communities of people who find in work a part of the meaning of their life; the other very important one would be love.
Management has always existed, management. Not only since the human species appears in evolutionary history; also in higher primates and other organisms (including birds, insects such as bees and ants) we find characteristics, ways of working and relating that require management.
But a little over 100 years ago, management began to be systematized and studied as a subject that can be learned, with which one can experiment. And I seem to see a common thread in its evolution: the growing and progressive incorporation of various branches of knowledge or science that make it more efficient and, lately, putting the focus on its relevance as a human community. Thus, we have gone from the use of double-entry accounting (Fray Luca Paccioli, 15th and 16th centuries), to the engineering of methods and times, to the scientific organization of work, to sociology, anthropology, etc.
If we speak of management as the organization of human communities, "nothing human will be alien to it"; and among the newest human is the exploration of the brain, about which we know very little but infinitely more than just 30 years ago. The brain is an eminently social organ, in addition to being the support of the mind and therefore of what characterizes us as individuals, as thinkers of our thoughts, as evaluators of "I" and "me".
We know that the evolutionary brain develops to ensure our continuity as a species, which essentially depends on the development of our relational capacities, and on personal protection - but fundamentally supported in the group, in the family, in the tribe, in the clan. - in the face of the dangers of an environment that for millennia was hostile to us.
There is no doubt that today the organizations in which we work are an important, essential part of our environment, another is love. There is also no doubt that all groups of living organisms need systems of coordination, conflict management, resource allocation, and for millennia these functions have been carried out by strong leaders to impose themselves and compassionate so that in the allocation of resources no one lacks them. (although the leaders kept the best). If Synthesize will allow me, I will soon write another article about current leadership and how brilliant authors like Barbara Kellerman say that now the emphasis must be placed on the followers and not on the leaders. But let me advance my opinion that with the great social transformations,the emergence of large corporations, human agglomerations, mass production, a good part of the leadership has been corrupted.
The brain has four basic or fundamental instincts, that of acquiring (iA), that of defending what has been acquired (i D), that of understanding / learning (i C) and that of relating or socializing (i R).
A little before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the standard of living of a large part of humanity was not much higher than that of the Neardental (see book "A farewell to alms", Princeton University Press; evidently during millennia the gross product grew enormously but through the “Malthusian loop”, each increase in wealth was followed by an increase in population, and the quotient, personal and family wealth, hardly advanced). Therefore, when new companies satisfy the first two instincts, they combine the corruption of the leadership, or a good part of it, and the satisfaction of the needs of the followers.
But we have reached an evolutionary and cultural moment in which the non-satisfaction of the other two instincts is generating serious dysfunctions, discomforts and even diseases. Now that we know much more about the brain, we know that the future of organizations, their sustainability, will depend on the attention we pay to it.
Further advancement: since the brain and the mind are developed fundamentally through attachment, to our first caregivers but later to the groups to which we belong, only organizations that take them into account will be sustainable and not only in interpersonal relationships but also also in strategic thinking.
In my new book "Neuromanagement" I present the fundamentals of everything that I have explained here in a very brief way and I point to the attachment that will be, is already being, the path through which I will try to direct my thinking and research. Attachment is the fundamental characteristic of a mature brain and mind capable of facing life with a greater probability of being satisfying, even happy. We may have some idea about what it means, how it works and the results of interpersonal attachment, but I end up asking the reader the following question:
What would strategic thinking based on attachment look like? When current strategic schemes are less and less useful I think the question is pertinent. And to your response, with the help of all readers, I am now dedicated.
