“Angels and Demons” in Organizations:



“Angels and Demons” in Organizations:

Notes for a Psico-Sociopathology of Innovation.

Carlos Vignolo*+

“Nothing is more common than the idea that people who live

in the 20th Century Western world are eminently sane”

Erich Fromm

Dedicated to Wilhelm Reich and Peter Drucker, Viennese with foresight!

1. INTRODUCTION: CORE PROPOSITION, PURPOSE, AND BASIC PREMISES

Twenty years have gone by since the fall of the Berlin Wall. How many paradigms, stronger than that wall have fallen in these two crucial decades of human history! How many undertakings and innovative leaderships have emerged in this period, also surprisingly!

We live in an era of transcendent mutations; we are starting to get out of the narrow path that marks the historical division between the 20th Century and “the New Realities”, as anticipated by Peter Drucker![1].

In these times of profound change, an avalanche of evidence, presented in magazines, seminars, and courses, and even on television, demonstrates and triggers an imperative and sometimes distressing need to innovate. Do not be overly concerned: innovation is nothing more than the inescapable adaptation to the environment in order to survive and develop. Darwinian evolution in the human arena. Revolution is nothing more than innovation in times of profound, sudden and unpredictable change. Therefore, it is unavoidable in times such as these: an era of globalization, digitalization, biologization, and orientalization of the planet!

The increasing agreement on the urgent need to innovate —and in some areas, such as education, of making revolutionary changes— and the avalanche of projects that organizations carry out with this purpose, unfortunately are not consistent with the very high percentage of those that fail miserably or achieve results that are far below expectations[2].

A. Main Proposition

In this brief essay I propose that the main cause of these failures is the use of overly simplified and naive paradigms regarding humans and organizations, paradigms that are ontologically blind to a set of human and organizational pathologies. Blind paradigms, particularly regarding what I call our “dark side” or “demons”, an expression I use to designate some “brutal facts of reality”[3] about which not only we do not talk, but we are also not conscious of. Furthermore, we resist “bringing” them to our conscience. Thus the epigraph.

I advocate the need to research and act upon the “pathologies” of our organizations if we want to improve them, especially if we want to achieve not only innovation, efficacy, efficiency, and sustainability, but also quality of life, respect, and dignified work for those who make up these organizations.

If we do not achieve the latter, the innovation that we achieve will not be human innovation. This is distinguishable from the natural evolution of the other species precisely because we can guide it and provide it with a purpose. Our evolutionary drift as a species is neither risky nor lacking in direction. We must not only survive but also prevail as humans. This has to do with values, principles, and ideals.

In a previous paper I set forth the possibility of a new discipline —Sociotechnology— to complement the approach of psychologists, sociologists, and other organization specialists, with a Systems Engineering perspective[4]. In this article I propose that a key part of Sociotechnology must be the development of a Psycho-Sociopathology, the systematic study of organizational (and human) diseases that prevent or hinder human innovation.

B. Purpose

In this text, my interest is to address all those who work in organizations and are committed to transforming them into spaces that are simultaneously more productive and more human, with the conviction that those that excel and last, base their success on a deep sense of Mission and not only or mainly on economic ambition, as evidence is increasingly showing.

Signs of the times are also clear in the world of business: we are living a revolution that is rehumanizing the enterprise. Love is gradually turning into the main element of achievement and full satisfaction, also within the enterprise! Only enterprises with soul, with a sense of mission, are able to generate contexts where individuals achieve the standards of productivity, quality, and creativity that global competition demands.

I am especially interested in appealing to those who see the “glass half full” in organizations, to show them that, contrary to what they normally think, acquiring conscience about the “dark side” is a necessary condition to improve life in them.

I intend to persuade them that naivety and simplistic and romantic interpretations of what is human, generate more harm than good when designing, leading, and managing organizational change processes, even if done with the best intentions.

With this essay I also aspire –romantically, I admit!– to rescue for the cause of this neo-humanism some former progressive people and revolutionaries who, due to successive frustrations with attempts at social or personal transformation, have increased the numbers of neo-Maquiavelian pragmatics or resigned cynics, post modern pathologies with which any organizational innovation project must also deal.

Lastly, with this essay I hope to strongly call attention and invite to collaborate in research, avoidance, detection, neutralization, prevention, and cure of what I call the most dangerous human and social disease of all times, whose frequency of appearance has increased lately as a result of the accelerated evolution of the human species in contexts that are increasingly more competitive and demanding and less focused on love: the Homo Psicopaticus.

The psychopath is a Homo Sapiens who has become completely disconnected from himself and has no ethics, shame, guilt, repentance, or conscience, making it very difficult to distinguish him and, therefore, particularly dangerous for the development of any organization and the individuals who make it up. The psychopath is the main obstacle for human innovation.

C. Basic Premises

This is a tentative essay. I don’t intend to unfold fully formulated or solidly based theses even though for some of them I do have a good amount of empirical evidence and conceptual support. I do not intend to formulate universally valid laws which are fixed in time. It has been a long time since I abandoned that pretension which is, unfortunately, quite frequent among scientists, philosophers, and people in general.

I declare myself to be a radical constructivist, not only as a philosophical option but also as a way of life. I was lucky to learn, early in my academic career, about Kuhn’s[5] interpretation of science and then Maturana’s and Varela’s[6] interpretation of knowledge and being.

Since then, I don’t believe that human beings have the possibility of knowing or revealing a reality that is independent of the observer. Therefore, I do not formulate propositions that pretend to be true; I only hope that they will be useful in certain contexts, for a certain time, and for a certain purpose.

2. VERY BRIEF OUTLINE OF THE THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL BASIS

My interest in the quality of life in organizations goes back to 1989, and I associate it to the dedication of the classic “Mintzberg on Management”:[7] “This book is written for those of us who spend our public lives struggling with organizations and our private lives escaping from them”. It was “The Cost of Excellence”[8] and “The Corrosion of Character”[9] which later led me to keep looking at the dark side of organizations.

Another push in this direction was Mario Waissbluth’s reflection in his article called “Industrialización y Tecnología en América Latina: Diagnóstico Psicoanalítico y Opciones Fantasiosas”[10] (Industrialization and Technology in Latin America: Psychoanalytic Diagnosis and Imaginative Options) from whom I borrowed Fromm’s epigraph at the beginning of this essay.

It was the Harvard Business Review and its rehumanizing turn —which I place in the article “Work and Life: The End of the Zero-Sum Game”[11] — which finally drove me to look systematically in this direction. I saw a peak of this turn in the special December 2001 issue, revealingly entitled “Breakthrough Leadership, It’s personal: why self knowledge is the best strategy today”, where the editorial takes us to one of the principal Freudian theses by indicating:

“It is certainly important to break the old mental habits that impede finding fresh solutions to perennial problems. It also involves breaking the interpersonal barriers that we all raise to prevent genuine human contact”[12].

The reasons why we build these barriers take us directly to the issue of personal “demons”: those that live within us, condition what we do and what we avoid doing but of which we are not conscious…and about which we resist becoming conscious!

Already in 2001 I suggested the lack of self esteem as the fundamental basis of the psychopathology of being Chilean.[13] My surprise and happiness were great when I later discovered that Senator William Fulbright had advocated a similar thesis in 1965 to explain the behavior of North Americans.[14] This reaffirms my thesis that everything is already written…and we all experience the same things! It is just that we don’t see it![15]

In their seminal “A Survival Guide for Leaders”, Heifetz and Linsky propose a specific way to avoid the risks of the dark side, when suggesting that “…to survive today as a leader, it is necessary to have a sanctuary to reflect routinely about the previous day’s journey, recompose emotional energies, and recalibrate the moral compass”.[16]

The article “The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake”[17], published by (the rehumanized) HBR in 2005, constitutes a new and important turn regarding this topic.

The subject is also addressed in “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work”[18], where detecting and stopping psychopaths plays a key role.

However, the starting point of my interest in these complex issues was the pioneer work of Wilhelm Reich. My own Reichean therapy lead me to his texts, and its eminently corporal character showed me how some of our demons frequently reside outside the therapeutic reach of language in “that great system of reason” that is our body. Thus, my academic approximation to the subject came much later than my personal work with my own demons.

My experience leading several organizational transformation processes, some of them abruptly suspended without apparent reason or due to spurious reasons, also added to these reflections. This behavior, which I observed with particular frequency and virulence in the public health sector in Chile, led me to look for an interpretation regarding its origin, not only due to natural human curiosity, but also to design more effective and sustainable intervention strategies.

Finally, a recent and very significant affluent of my current position regarding these issues is Dethlefsen and Dahlke’s revolutionary proposal in “La Enfermedad como Camino”[19] (Illness as a Path). This essay is, in part, a first attempt to take the argument unfolded there to the field of “organizational medicine”.

3. THE MAIN ARGUMENT: “DEALING WITH THE DARK SIDE OF THE FORCE”

A. General Propositions

As announced earlier, my central thesis is that in order to generate innovation cultures in organizations it is essential to pay attention to their dark side, and to the dark side of the people who make them up. It affects what we perceive and our blind spots, our mental models, our beliefs and values, our available emotional spectrum, what we do, and what we avoid. The demons living there significantly affect the organization’s agenda, but almost never emerge in its members’ explicit conversations and, therefore, cannot be the object of any action, as all action is in language. For practical purposes ―of organizational intervention― I propose three categories for demons.

In the first place, those whose existence is recognized but are deliberately excluded by “positive” leaders that promote an organizational culture that avoids conflict, without conscience of the costs of such a silence. They are small demons, and dealing with them is not very difficult for expert consultants.

In the second place, those demons that the organization and its members are blind to because they are a part of the culture, of the collective common sense, as was the case of slavery in its time or, until recently, nature’s infinite capacity to receive industrial wastes. This blindness may be treated by traveling and contacting groups that are very different from one’s own. Type 2 demons become visible when there are encounters with different cultures, which globalization is producing for many, sometimes in the form of brutal paradigmatic clashes.

The third type of demon, much more complex and difficult to treat than the previous ones, is the type we do not see because it would be unbearably painful to see, accept, and deal with. It is the one that a psychoanalysis patient is able to verbalize when reaching the climax of Freudian psychoanalysis (this example is only valid for graphic effects). This is the type that I will continue calling “dark side” or “demon” from here on.

It is critical to become aware of these profound social and human pathologies, these demons, to generate a new innovation paradigm, one that enables organizational transformations that are effective, profound, sustainable, and most importantly, human.

Why so? Why must we swallow this bitter existential pill to be innovative?

Firstly, the fact that something is rooted in the unconscious does not mean that it does not affect what people perceive, think, believe, feel, and do. This is very obvious but frequently ignored. Suffice it to think about how many people go through life believing that they can live well, taking care of themselves and others, without any thought regarding their personal dark side, and doing nothing to investigate it, learn about it, and manage it.

Secondly, if we only deal with the symptoms of the profound disease —such as distrust, destructive envy or slander— without seeing its origin, we will not be able to advance our innovation agenda. If we insist, the demons will hide and we will temporarily eliminate the symptoms, but they will return as soon as the external impulse ends (typically a consultancy project), and the same (or other) symptoms will emerge. Remember how some of the intervened organizations that you know have gone back to their old practices less than a year after the transformation project has ended.

Thirdly, if what we look for is to generate innovation cultures, we need to simultaneously generate evaluation cultures. In effect, adaptive evolution always involves an evaluation of adjustment to the environment. In turn, generating evaluation cultures involves reaching high levels of transparency, mutual knowledge and trust, and ideally intimacy, between the members of the organization. This is impossible if demons are not allowed in the organization’s public conversation.

Fourthly, we learned from Humberto Maturana that in a human system, when a set of relationships (a way of life) starts to be preserved, a space opens up for everything else to change in accordance with this preservation. Thus, if one part of the system is not cognoscible, assessable, or changeable (and thus must be preserved), there are less degrees of freedom for adaptive evolution. What is even more serious, the core values of the organization are at risk in order to preserve the demons. What we have ad portas is an institution without ethics, headed for psychosociopathy.

Fifthly, we must persevere in showing the “dark side” of the organization that we want to transform, in addition, so that it does not amplify the demons of its members (or produce new demons) but, on the contrary, heals them or at least contains them.

Two questions emerge. The first related to effectiveness: is it possible to generate effective and sustainable change by addressing the organizational demons without referring to the personal demons of the organization’s members?

From a radical constructivist point of view, the answer is clear. There is no significant organizational transformation —there is no real autonomous adaptive evolution— if individuals are not transformed in coherence with the organization’s systemic change. In this area, Orientals have an advantage over us, which is well illustrated in Nonaka and Takeushi’s illuminating phrase regarding innovation.

“The essence of innovation is to recreate the world according to a particular ideal or vision. To create new knowledge literally means to recreate the enterprise and each of its members in an uninterrupted process of organizational and personal self-renovation”[20].

It is not possible to generate profound innovation processes in organizations if individuals, especially those in positions of power, are not willing to undergo transformation along with them. This inevitably implies including the individual “dark side” in the process.

A second cloud of questions then emerges regarding the tension between effectiveness and privacy. Is it acceptable that people should allow others to inquire about their personal demons as a condition of membership to an organization during the processes of managed change? Who decides the limits, and with what criteria? How can people protect themselves from leaders or coaches who are psychopaths and manipulators armed with this methodological demand? We leave this cloud of questions for future texts and as challenges for specialists in psychopathology to research.

B. Demons in Chile

Which do you think are the most relevant demons in Chilean organizations? Chile stands out in first place for distrust, a demon of Spanish origin which has placed Chile on the world podium of this sad anti-Olympic trial several times.

Chile also stands out for “chaqueteo” (coattail pulling), the active envy that makes people pull the coattails of those who progress and get ahead from us.

The average Chilean is submissive and on occasion subservient toward “gringos” (any Caucasian foreigner), but arrogant with the Indians (any mestizo). We are effectively racist, a defect that the majority denies completely and some sincerely do not see. We are profoundly classist, which is brutally evident and systematically ignored.

In view of the foregoing, it is not strange that in Chilean society there are so many social climbers; those who imitate and try to attach themselves to the higher classes, specially those with an aristocratic origin. There are also the “pretenders” who, when cellular phones first appeared on the market, used fake phones while driving in order to show off an economic and technological position they did not have.

We Chileans also have masochistic features and a certain tendency to immolate ourselves. In fact, in Chile a large percentage of patriotic celebrations are related to defeats or “moral triumphs”.

Do you believe that innovation is possible in this cultural context? Certainly not. Chile is an anti-innovation culture. Many Chileans are willing to resist any attempt to innovate and transform the organizations in which they live. Change is only accepted —though unwillingly— when it is inevitable, when the alternative is death. We console ourselves saying that it was just this time, while we try to limit it and slow it down as much as possible.

Radical innovation has no space. The urgent revolution, for example in our educational system, is fiercely resisted in spite of the overwhelming empirical and theoretical evidence and the wide ranging consensus regarding its need… by teachers and union leaders themselves! A giant student movement that demanded changes in 2006 and threatened the status quo, giving hope to many and scaring others, ended in agreements amongst professional politicians (in the worst sense of the word) promising that everything would change so that nothing would change too much[21].

What may explain this Chilean attitude? What Chilean demons are underlying these behaviors?

Here I unveil my central thesis. The mother of these attitudes is Chilean’s low self esteem. This is the true Chilean social disease, and our distrust, coattail pulling, arrogance, racism, social climbing, classism, and masochism are only symptoms of this original demon.

I understand self esteem to be a profound bodily sensation of self acceptance which is formed and settled in the body —is incorporated— during the first years of life. This meaning of self esteem refers to the loving acceptance of ourselves and to a serene gratitude for the gratuitousness of everything that happens to us.

Self trust goes on a different track and is not necessarily correlated with self esteem. Self trust belongs to the rational domain: it is a judgment that we make of our skills and performance in a certain area.

I believe that people with low self esteem develop a high self demand, in the conscious or unconscious hope of compensating that essential lack of love with the admiration that our successful performance will produce in others and ourselves.

As expected, high self demand generates high performance and success in many of those suffering this disease. The person moves up on the social and economic scale, and increases his prestige and power. Self confidence grows, but the existential discomfort does not disappear, and we continue to feel that “deep inside” we are worth very little. It cannot be any other way, because self esteem exists in a profoundly corporal domain —an early construction— which is not modified by social achievements nor by worldly facts and reasoning.

The increasing gap between low self esteem and growing self confidence puts our identity at risk: our success cannot be deserved and, therefore, it must be due to a long series of lucky strikes, favorable circumstances, and help from others. The impostor syndrome appears and successive successes make it worse. Presidents, Managers, Ministers, and others in positions of power and fame who suffer this disease must guarantee that the organizations they lead will not change in a way that may evidence their weaknesses and lead to a loss of their power.

This generates great stress, anxiety, and anguish in those who should be the leaders of innovation, and who on the contrary, become the leaders of the opposition to change —veiled and cunning too! They will say yes to many innovation proposals —for fear of appearing reluctant to change— and then they will do everything possible to abort them, especially when they show their potential for true change, unless they ensure the maintenance of their power positions. They will look with admiration, envy, and fear toward those who seem intelligent, creative, and sure of themselves —normally those who have not yet been domesticated by the organization, young or recently incorporated people—, and will be willing to do everything that is necessary to neutralize them and take over their innovation proposals.

If the suffering and fear of these hominids with low self esteem in positions of power is too great and prolonged over time, the risk of total disconnection from the self is very high. It erases the unbearable sensation of being an impostor increasingly at risk of being discovered and allows access to the pleasurable, undetectable, and unbeatable position of the psychopath. There is no more sleeplessness, suffering, fear, guilt, shame, or conscience. No more sanctuary to “Repair emotional energy and recalibrate the moral compass”. The possibility of climbing to the top and then falling precipitously, à la ENRON, is in play.

Resistance to innovation is not only an issue of leaders. All those suffering the deadly disease of low self esteem, even when their share of success and power are lower, will do everything necessary to maintain them, in the conviction, mostly without grounds, that if the organization changes and advances toward higher stages of development, he or she will not be able to meet the requirements. The problem is not that these people are not conscious of the need for and feasibility of change. It is that they feel —not think, they feel—, deep inside, that they are not capable of assuming the roles that organizational innovation demands of them. Distrust, coattail pulling, arrogance, and all the other mechanisms of self defense are activated, blocking the possibility of innovation.

As is evident, these perverse and hidden forces of opposition to change will be greater in less human organizations, that is when leaders and managers in the organization care less about what will happen to individuals as a result of the transformation processes.

This is why I am convinced that the “competitive-atomistic-rationalistic-economicist-authoritarian and classist” model installed in Chile in the last decades, as a result of the encounter of the Chilean culture with the neo-liberal paradigm, is a major obstacle for innovation in Chile.

To a person suffering from low self esteem, “educated” in an “instructivist-rationalistic-success driven and teleologic” paradigm such as the one predominating in the Chilean family, where love, acceptance and respect for children are relegated to the background, that organizational model cannot seem more negative. It poses a permanent threat of being discovered as a fraud and, therefore, the individual will be willing to do everything possible to avoid changes in the status quo where, until now, it has been safe to hide.

4. IN THE WAY OF CONCLUSION: WHAT CAN BE DONE?

I propose that there is much that can be done and achieved if “La Enfermedad como Camino” (The Healing Power of Illness) method is adopted. This implies “Opening your Eyes Wide” and working untiringly to gradually increase conscience about all that inhabits the dark side of the organization and the people who make it up. In addition, obviously, to those elements from the “bright” side of the organization, that enable the generation of distinctive value for the community it serves, and the local and world environment where it operates.

How is this done? In first place, with much love. With much acceptance and great respect. With much patience and tolerance. With much prudence. Placing at the center of the Transformational Manifest that it is not possible to determine a priori the time required by change and, in many cases, the directions of change. That demons cannot be eliminated but can be known, accepted, and managed. That the process of building organizational awareness must be accompanied by processes of individual awareness which makes them very complex to understand and predict. That it is necessary to be prepared for greater and more surprising changes in everything except in what refers to the Value Project of the organization, the Mission that gives it a transcendent sense of being, and the values and principles by which it is governed, which is the only thing that is preserved and around which everything else turns and changes.

All this is done by talking, not discussing or debating, but talking. Talking a lot, first of all, about the self, in an interrupted process to deepen personal knowledge and that of others, so that then, step by step, in teams and with great caution, we may come closer to learning about personal demons, which will only show themselves when they feel accepted, and with greater ease when they are common to many people in the organization, as is frequently the case. Nothing alleviates and helps Chileans more than discovering other people with low self esteem that also suffer from the conversation and awful fears of the impostor!

In the case of Chile, everything flows more easily in innovation projects when gradually, individuals are able to see and accept in themselves and others around them, the distrust, the coat-pulling envy, authoritarianism, fear of failure, and insecurity as a starting point for the discovery and acceptance of the more profound and painful diseases such as classism, masochism, and low self esteem.

Nobody doubts that a good cure requires a good diagnosis. Postmodern medicine points out that this involves deeply and finely observing both the soma and the psique and the interaction between them, with a systemic and dynamic perspective. The new medicine also invites us to pay more attention to the disease than to the symptoms and to make the illness the path, which implies understanding and accepting the disease as inherent to the process of learning and human development.

This is also true for organizational medicine.

We will not achieve healthy, innovative, and human organizations if our diagnoses are not profound and subtle. This forces us to go deep into the organizational soul, its aches and temptations. Its demons. Only old fashioned organization doctors, those with the ability to listen with empathy and love as the main therapeutic resource, will be able to undertake this task.

-----------------------

* University Professor and Director of the Innovation and Sociotechnology Program of the Industrial Engineering Department of the University of Chile. Civil Industrial Engineer and Master’s degree in Economic Engineering from the University of Chile. Postgraduate studies in Political Economy at the University of Sussex, England.

+ I would like to thank Carlos Vergara del Río for his essential contribution in attempting to comply with the editor’s request of making the text accessible and easy to understand as well as my hope to reveal, only partially, my personal demons so as to not shock the readers. I also thank Álvaro Ramírez, Ricardo Neira, and Jeanne Simon for their valuable comments and suggestions on preliminary versions of this document.

[1] Drucker, Peter. “Las Nuevas Realidades”. Editorial Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, 1995.

[2] John Kotter (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 1995. See also: Carolyn Aiken and Scott Keller (2009). The irrational side of change management. The McKinsey Quarterly (2), 101-109.

[3] Expression used repeatedly by Jim Collins is his legendary “Good to Great” when referring to that which “optimists” prefer to exclude from their vision.

[4] Vignolo, Carlos. (2002) “Sociotecnología: Construcción de Capital Social para el Tercer Milenio”, in Reforma y Democracia, CLAD Magazine, Caracas, No. 22, February 2002, pages 171-198.

[5] Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

[6] Maturana, Humberto &Varela, Francisco (1985). El Árbol del Conocimiento: las bases biológicas del entendimiento humano. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Universitaria.

[7] Mintzberg, Henry (1989). Mintzberg on Management. Inside our strange world of organizations. New York: Free Press.

[8] Aubert, Nicole and de Gaulejac, Vincent (1993). El coste de la excelencia. Barcelona: Paidos.

[9] Sennet, Richard (1998). La corrosión del Carácter. Barcelona: Anagrama.

[10] Waissbluth, Mario (1985). Industrialización y Tecnología en América Latina: Diagnóstico Psicoanalítico y Opciones Fantasiosas. Revista de Administração, (20) 3, 3-9.

[11] Friedman, Stewart D., Christensen, Perry & DeGroot, Jessica (1998). Work and Life: The End of the Zero-Sum Game. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1998.

[12] Harvard Business Review. From the Editor. December 2001 –Special Issue. Volume 79, Number 11 (underlining by author).

[13] Maturana, Humberto & Vignolo, Carlos (2001). Conversando sobre Educación. Revista Perspectivas en Política, Economía y Gestión, Industrial Engineering Department, University of Chile, Santiago (4) 2, 249-266.

[14] Fulbright, J. William (1966). The arrogance of power. New York. Random House.

[15] Internet could well constitute a mega revolution in also breaking through this blindness.

[16] Heifetz, R. and Linsky M. (2002). Managing Oneself: A Survival Guide for Leaders, Harvard Business Review, June.

[17] Ket de Vries, Manfred F.R. (2005) The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83, Number 9, September.

[18] Babiak, Paul & Hare, Robert D. (2006). Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. Regan Books.

[19] Dethlefsen, Thorwald & Dahlke, Rudiger (1993). La enfermedad como camino. Plaza&Janes Editores, Barcelona.

[20] Nonaka, Ikujiro, Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. New York. Oxford University Press.

[21] Happily, the seed sowed by the “penguin revolution” in 2006 is growing, under the care of the citizen movement “Educación 2020”.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download