Barile S., Di Nauta P., Saviano M., Polese F., Supercausality, consciousness and managerial decisions

Forum for Business Education Research and Development

2011, September 26-27

SUPERCAUSALITY, CONSCIOUSNESS AND
MANAGERIAL DECISIONS

Sergio Barile
Sapienza University, Rome

Primiano Di Nauta Marialuisa Saviano Francesco Polese
Foggia University Salerno University Cassino University

2
To survive…

•  Organizations aim to survive in their own
context.
•  Relation between the will to survive, the ability
to dynamically understand the context and the
need to choose the appropriate strategy to
adopt.
•  Management can be understood as the
discipline that deals with this essential
cycle.

S. Barile, P. Di Nauta, M. Saviano, F. Polese

3
Systems perspective
Key points:

¨  organizations (as well as individuals) as viable
systems aiming at surviving in their context
¨  key role of the governing subject in interpreting the
context, defining goals and involving all the
relevant actors into the system’s plan
¨  governance decisions as outcomes of the action of
two complementary and coessential drivers/forces,
competitiveness (opposing resistance) and
consonance (generating harmony).
S. Barile, F. Polese, M. Saviano, P. Di Nauta

4
Decision making without experience
•  The analyzed problem proves to be difficult to
place in a regulated system (laws – rules –
customs) reference field of the decision maker.
•  In lack of a system, the data regarding the
problem appear to the decision maker as
overabundant and not retraceable to a coherent
scheme.
•  A heuristic decision making process proves to
be strongly influenced by the decision maker’s
forma mentis, and significantly affected by
emotional factors deriving from the context.


5
Complexity and managerial decisions
Managerial

Complexity

decisions

•  lack
in
general
schemes
•  dis6nc6on
between
decision

making
and
problem
solving

•  data
and
informa6on

result
not
inherent
•  more
and
more
importance

given
to
the
impact
of

•  decision
taken
according
emo5onal

factors
on

to

everyone’s
strong
decisions

beliefs

We
need
new
methodological
infrastructure
and
complexity
theories

that
overcome
the
limits
of
the
tradi6onal
analy6cal-‐reduc6onist

approach
.


6
Complexity
¨  Complexity does not characterize the system in itself, but emerges
subjectively, charactering the interpretation of the context made by the
decision maker.
¨  A phenomenon can generate chaos, complexity or simply complication.
It depends on the interpretative capacity of the decision maker, not on
the characteristics of the phenomenon (huge variety, variability, etc.).
¨  Complexity manifests itself when the interaction emerging from
relations in a specific process does not respond to clear cut criteria of
behavioral rules.
¨  Complexity forces decision makers to abandon the structural
perspective and need to evaluate “objects”, both tangible or intangible,
not enumerable on the basis of a known calculation criteria (Barile,
2009).

S. Barile, F. Polese, M. Saviano, P. Di Nauta

7
Decision making vs Problem solving

•  Problem solving: choices traceable back to
recurrent problems, already made, and for
which experimented solutions have been
identified.

•  Decision making: choices related to hardly
detailed problems in which the application of
any methodology, independently from the
technical difficulty, becomes difficult or
impossible.


8
Assumptions
•  Distinction between problem solving and
decision making.
•  Renunciation of a reference to Newton’s
scheme of classic laws on natural phenomena.
•  Recovered value of the psychological element
and, therefore, the subjectivity in the less
rationalized choice processes.
•  Different individuals, with different perceptive
capacities, can generate different models of the
same problem, even if applying the same
methodology.


9
Supercausality and consciousness
•  The hypothesis that the
future may, in some way,
influence the present
intrigues the minds of
many thinkers.
•  If the future cannot affect
the past, considering that
the past can influence
the future in determining
processes of cause and
effect, it would run up a
paradox of non decision
making logic.


10
Relativity
•  The hypothesis of retro casuality is the inspiring principle of Albert
Einstein, who after having revolutionized the concept of relativity
substituting Galileo’s absolute time with the absolute velocity of light,
derives from it the well-known equation:
E = mc 2
•  Actually, the initial formulation of the scientist resulted to be even
more articulate:

E 2 = m2c 4 + p2c2
The solution to the second degree equation determines two solutions, a
negative and positive that, considering the vectorial aspect of the
movement variable (the “p”), leads to hypothesize a possible movement
forward in time (positive solution), but also a movement back in time
(negative solution)


11
Some literature on the subject
•  1925: Klein and Gordon introduced to science a formal acceptance
of the concept of final causes and teleological propensity.

•  1927: Bohr and Heisenberg developed the wave/particle dualism.

•  1986: Chris King supposed viable systems are costantly solicited by
factors from the past (classic causality) and factor from the future
(retrocausality). Subjective consciuos is composed of two aspects:
•  Acts of will, intention and processes of choice that rise from free
will
•  Perception of the signals deriving from the environment

•  1994: Penrose and Hameroff, in line with King, theorize that, inside
the brain,

•  Alfieri: volli, sempre volli, fortissimamente volli.


12
Management decisions in uncertain conditions
•  The ongoing is corroborated by past experience as well as from
purposes pursued, and therefore, by the expected future. Not a
certain future, but certainly an imagined one.

•  Government action wants to make possible within a certain
temporal arch what at the moment is impossible or however not
implemented. So, it moves practice of the real and search of the
possible, the latter understood as tension «to create worlds», to
outline new opportunities and original conditions, in respect of a
delicate equilibrium between good sense, which sets to collect
results concretely achievable, and the inspiration to broaden the
horizon of the possible…. The capacity to dream, the capacity that
is to build prospective representations even very distant from the
reality of a certain moment, sets itself, in fact, as the principal
sustainment to enterpreneurialship. (Golinelli, 2000-2011)


13
The government action

•  Management emphasis is not expressed in the
strategy implementation phase, as sustained in
many manuals, but it finds its peak of
commitment in the individuation of the purpose
upstream.

•  The government of organization should not be
considered an applied science, but rather a
procedure with a strong artistic prerogative, that
is, and activity unpredictable and not easily
intelligible from the outside in its outcomes.


14
The government action

•  This does not mean that the managerial action
has to be non scientific, but at least we should
distinguish two activities:

•  Detection of purpose (of the dream)
•  Program implementation

•  Management literature is rich in the second one.
Any manual of project management pretty well
summarizes technical methods and tools.


15
The contribution of (vSa)

•  Government substanties in the adoption of
decisions and actions made to allow for the
system to pursue its purpose.

•  Government action results to be moved by two
fundamental drivers:

•  Competitiveness
•  Consonance


16
Competitiveness and Consonance

Compe66veness
Consonance

“a#tude
of
the
firm
in

concerns
the

‘staying
on
the
market’
by
implementa8on/
searching

dis8nc8ve
preserva8on
of
condi8ons
of

elements
compared
to
harmony,
agreement,

compe8tors
and
progressing
endorsement,
dialogue,
with

over
8me”;
it
finds
the
context
of
reference;
it

expressions
in
different
expresses
the
need
to
match

aspects
(costs,
prices,
sales,
values,
culture
and
needs

of

delivery
8mes,
quality
…)
the
en88es
that
live
in
the

specific
context.


17
Relevance

•  It is a component established by the decision
maker who places a suitable attention priority in
virtue of the goal to reach and of the
organizational hypothesis that he/she wishes to
implement.


18
Resonance

The
essen8al
capability
of
the

governing
body
is
to
create
the

condi8ons
the
two
different
forces

can
interact
“virtuously”,
thus

developing
what
we
call

“resonance”,
which
is
necessary

and
sufficient
to
create
and

implement
a
successful
strategy.

So,
it
becomes
of
par8cular
importance,
from
a
managerial

perspec8ve,
the
ability
to
sense/read
the
effec8ve
and
future
trends

and
dynamics
(that
involve
both
supra-‐systems
and
for
sub-‐systems),

but
also
the
ability
to
assess
their
current
and
prospec8ve

consonance,
which
is
essen8al
for
the
emergence
of
"resonant"

processes.


19
To be in phase

The movie shows that there
is a law in nature (it is not
important for our purposes
to understand more now
about how this law acts) that
allows the emergence of
order from disorder.


20


A general description of the law of phase relationship:
21
from chaos to order

•  There are some conditions (more precisely, the conditioning factors)
that allow chaotic structures, characterized by increasing entropy
(Fig. 1), to bring out configurations with order [syntropy] (Fig. 2).
•  We call these conditions (these factors) factors of resonance, and
define the emerging configuration as phase relationship.

22
Distinction between concepts

•  It is often argued that the term Syntropy is
equivalent to Neg-Entropy. Next slide shows how
Neg-Entropy, on the basis of a time dimension, is
intended as an inverse function of the Entropy.
Syntropy, differently, is to be understood as
complementary Entropy at different times.

•  Essentially, Neg-Entropy tends to restore the
lost order, Syntropy tends to find a new order.


23
Neg-Entropy vs Entropy


24
About the factors of Resonance

•  The factors of Resonance are generally presented
as a sound, basically a wavelenght, a vibration
showed in the video.

•  A vibration which induces, in a homogeneous set of
particles (consonant particles), a dynamic that
change from a chaotic state of indifference to a
condition of organized participation.


25
About the phase relationship

•  The phase relationship is a state of “impaired life”
in which individual components, with an area of
broad existential possibilities, choose to “live” a
specific condition, a subset of their potential life,
that enhances the harmony with all that “feel” of
belonging.

•  When you are in a phase relationship with others,
you vibrate all together.


26
Examples of phase relationship (1)
•  The phase relationship does not exist just for
components such as fragments of iron in our
movie.

•  There are also significant phase relationships for
humans:

Have you ever wondered why, for example, in
1930, in Panisperna Street in Rome, people like
Fermi, Majorana, Amaldi, Corbino, Segre, and
many others were all together there?


27
Examples of phase relationship (2)

•  Why in a certain historical moment (1790) so many people
joined the French Revolution?

•  Why the Neapolitans, in the last elections, have chosen, so
unexpected, De Magistris as the Mayor of Naples?

Simply because also we humans are significantly affected
by the general law of attraction towards what might be
called a phase relationship!


28
Resonance factor for humans

•  The resonance factor for humans, triggering the
vibration, is usually of emotional kind.

•  In support of this statement there is a wide
literature in several disciplines, from psychology to
neuroscience, but I think that it is sufficient to
remember expressions like “love vibrating” or “hate
vibrating” to recognize that emotions are those that
cause us to vibrate.


29
Complexity and phase relationship
•  Complexity, in the Viable Systems Approach
(vSa), is interpreted as the inability to find
solutions to an emerging problem, using
schemes (methods, techniques and tools)
previously intended as valid.

•  These complexity conditions do not manifest an
absolute, objective difficulty, but a specific state
of difficulty, that subjectively refers to the
decision maker in the specific decision making
context.


30
Elements of complexity in (vSa)

•  When the decision maker faces a never
experienced problem, this is not in its
information variety (categories and schemas
owned), he/her considers the problem complex.

•  The solution of such complex problems requires
that the decision maker is able to find new
interpretation schemes (in this way he/she is
in... a new phase relationship).


31
Searching for a new phase relationship

•  In moments of complexity, the search for a new
solution (a new phase relationship) through
abductive processes, it implies the reject of
rational approaches to recover emotional ones.

•  All processes that emphasize the relevance of
emotional rather than rational aspects are
considered, in complex environments,
appropriate to the search for new patterns of
solution, i.e. new phase relationships.


32
Considerations

•  The Italian company-oriented doctrine has been
committed in the elaboration of a paradigm that can
include those aspect, maybe neglected for too long
cause of layouts deriving from the Anglo-Saxon
world.

•  If the present work outlines “the dream” of a new
management approach capable of considering
overly neglected factors, then it is simply necessary
to find the conditions of consonance in the context
of scholars, and the future can come true.


33
References
AA.VV. (2011), Contributions to theoretical and practical advances in management. A Viable Systems Approach (VSA), ASVSA Associazione per la ricerca sui Sistemi Vitali, International Printing,
Avellino.

BARILE, S. (2000), Contributi sul pensiero sistemico in economia d’impresa, Arnia.

BARILE, S. (2009), Management sistemico vitale, Giappichelli, Torino,.

BARILE, S. (2011), “A viable system conceived as a universal decision maker”, in AA.VV., Contributions to theoretical and practical advances in management. A Viable Systems Approach (VSA),
International Printing Editore, Avellino.
BARILE, S. , POLESE, F. (2010), “Linking Viable Systems Approach and Many-to-Many Network Approach to Service-Dominant Logic and Service Science”, in International Journal of Quality and
Service Science, vol.2, n.1.

BARILE, S., POLESE, F., (2011) “The Viable Systems Approach and its potential contribution to marlketing theory”, in AA.VV., Contributions to theoretical and practical advances in management. A
Viable Systems Approach (VSA), International Printing Editore, Avellino.

BARILE, S., SAVIANO, M. (2011), “Foundations of systems thinking: the structure-system paradigm”, in AA.VV., Contributions to theoretical and practical advances in management. A Viable Systems
Approach (VSA), International Printing Editore, Avellino.

BARILE, S., SAVIANO, M., (2010) “A New Perspective of Systems Complexity in Service Science”, in coll. with BARILE S., in Impresa, Ambiente, Management, vol.3, n.3.

BEER, S. (1972), Brain of the Firm, The Penguin Press, London.

DI CORPO, U., VANNINI A., (2011), Supercausality and complexity. Changing the rules in the study of causality. (Syntropy) [Kindle Edition], Amazon Digital Service.

GOLINELLI, G.M. (2005, 20001), L’approccio sistemico al governo dell’impresa. L’impresa sistema vitale, Vol. I, Cedam, Padova.
GOLINELLI, G.M., (2010) Viable Systems Approach. Governing Business dynamics, Cedam, Kluwer, 2010.

GOLINELLI, G.M. (2011), L’Approccio Sistemico Vitale (ASV) al governo dell’impresa. Verso la scientificazione dell’azione di governo, Cedam, Padova.

NG, I., BADINELLI, R., POLESE, F., DI NAUTA, P., LÖBLER, H. AND HALLIDAY, S. (2012), "S-D Logic Research Directions and Opportunities: The Perspective of Systems, Complexity and
Engineering", Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, forthcoming.

RULLANI, E., (1989), "La teoria dell’impresa", in Rispoli M (ed.), 1989, L’impresa industriale. Economia, tecnologia, management, Il Mulino, Bologna.
SAVIANO, M., Di NAUTA, P., (2011) “Project Management as a compass in complex decison making . A Viable Sstems Approach, in Proceedings 1st International Workshop on Project and
Knowledge Management Trends-PKMT2011, Co-located with the 12th International Conference on Product Focused Software Development and Process Improvement, PROFES 2011, Torre
Canne (Br), 21 June 2011.

VON BERTALANFFY, L. (1950), “The theory of open systems in physics and biology”, Science, vol. III.


34
About ASVSA

ASVSA, Associazione per la ricerca sui Sistemi Vitali
Association for research on Viable Systems

Join us!
www.asvsa.com
info@asvsa.com


Forum for Business Education Research and Development

2011, September 26-27

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Sergio Barile
Sapienza University, Rome

Primiano Di Nauta Marialuisa Saviano Francesco Polese
Foggia University Salerno University Cassino University

Barile S., Di Nauta P., Saviano M., Polese F., Supercausality, consciousness and managerial decisions

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Barile S., Di Nauta P., Saviano M., Polese F., Supercausality, consciousness and managerial decisions

Ähnlich wie Barile S., Di Nauta P., Saviano M., Polese F., Supercausality, consciousness and managerial decisions (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Barile S., Di Nauta P., Saviano M., Polese F., Supercausality, consciousness and managerial decisions