AUTOPOIESIS IN THE ENTERPRISE

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF MANAGEMENT PROPOSED

FROM THE SYSTEMIC-CYBERNETIC PARADIGM

 Abstract
Traditionally, management has been practiced relaying much more on the
practical experience of the managers, rather than in a baggage of scientific
established knowledge. Nowadays, due to the high demands placed on the
enterprise, this tendency has been weakened by the perception of the need to
have a proper and adequate theoretical frame to guide us in this field. In this
context, theoretical elements of the so-called “Complexity Sciences” as well as
other elements of vanguard Biology have been applied with success in the field of
management. A critical reading of this phenomenon indicates us, in a general
overview, the lack of a strong and coherent theoretical frame in the Theory of
Management. Otherwise, there are theoretical-practical proposals that look for
that fundament in other disciplines, such as biology; that is the case Stuart
Kauffman poses.

The following paper is about to show that the Theory of Enterprise, proposed
during the eighties, by the Chilean professor of management Dr. Aquilles Limone
is, properly, a scientific theory of the organization. That is, from the point of view
of the most advanced schools of the contemporary scientific thinking, and that,
in consequence, it is useful to serve as a theoretical framework for the instruction
of managers, due to the actual and also the most probable future demands in our
professional field.

The fact that this Theory postulates that the enterprise is an autopoietic system
allows us to explain the success of the applications, in the enterprise field, that
nowadays is done of knowledge taken from Biology, since Maturana and Varela,

2
to describe the proper and distinctive characteristic of the living, provided the
word autopoiesis.

Key words: Theory of management, autopoiesis, and cybernetics.

INTRODUCTION
Nowadays it can be seen the tendency to apply the so-called “Complexity
Sciences” in the field of management. Clear examples of the former are the recent
postulates of Stuart Kauffman (Kau99). This tendency is a symptom of a
profound phenomenon that shouldn’t surprise us. In fact, until very recently,
management was practiced much more as an art rather than as a technique,
relaying mainly in the practical experience of the managers, instead of a solid
frame of scientifically established knowledge. In the current conditions of the
global market, the enterprises must adapt rapidly to sudden permanent changes.
This situation has become very hard to handle, and requires a fresh approach, and
the only way to accomplish such new approach, suited to fit our cosmopolitan
civilization, is throughout a solid set of theoretical knowledge.

At the root of this problem we found a general confusion: in the administrative

tradition there is a tendency to mix up two fields that should be conceived as
different disciplines, these are management and the theory of the organization.
It’s no mystery that medicine and biology are not the same thing, neither
engineering and physics nor semiotics and journalism. However, the difference
between Theory of Management and management itself hasn’t been clearly
determined as the examples above.

The theory of management should be a scientific discipline in charge of the

enterprise and the organization, excluding the practical aspects of management. A
Theory of the Organization should not have to deal with the immediate issues,

3
such as cost reduction, increase of productivity or market positioning. It should
be a rigorous discipline in charge of answering fundamental questions through
the use of hypothesis, capable of being proved by empirical means; questions
such us: What is the organization? Of what it is made of? How is its dynamic?
May it be said that an enterprise exists, as the same as an electron exists?
Moreover, in which space it exists?

This scientific task should sustain based on the knowledge search by simple
curiosity, but being subject to scientific rigor and method, and free of pressures
or compromises to obtain certain results, or utilitarian applications. Management
together with other related disciplines, such as management control or the
business processing engineering, are the agents called to resolve the main
problems of the addressed fields. These disciplines related to management should
have a scientific background not only in sciences such us, psychology, sociology
or inclusive in biology, in which nowadays sometimes finds answers. Instead, it
should be based on a scientific theory of the organization.

In 1977, the cybernetist and Chilean professor of theory of management, Aquilles

Limone formulated a scientific theory of the enterprise that complies with the
requirements mentioned above (Lim77). The practical usefulness of this theory
lies not so much on its own body, but rather -indirectly- in its use to solve
palpable problems in management of enterprises and organizations. This theory
fundaments the conception of the enterprise as an entity similar to a living being,
capable of acquiring knowledge. In addition, by doing so, it establishes the
theoretical basis to make possible the application of the so-called complexity
sciences to the study and analysis of enterprises. Nowadays this approach has
been done by biologists, such as Stuart Kauffman.

4
 THE SYSTEMIC-CYBERNETIC REVOLUTION
Limone´s postulates appear today as scientific due to the arrival of a historical
phenomenon that only a few of our contemporaries have perceived. The very
concept of science has a before and an after the twentieth century. Numerous
thinkers of the most varied fields of knowledge concurred to shape this silent
revolution. Names such as Einstein, Piaget, Heisemberg, Von Bertalanffy,
Wiener, Mculloch, Bateson, Von Foerster, Maturana and Varela, among others,
made their part, without realising that their own postulates appear today as
theories capable of being presented from a general point of view. This radical
change in the way which we understand science is the -so-called- epistemological
questioning, this is, the need to introduce the observer explicitly as an element
constitutive of the scientific theories. It has to be indicated that this last point was
not considered necessary or wasn’t clearly enough for the classical science, which
developed from Descartes until the first half of the twentieth century.

Physics was the first of the traditional sciences to include the epistemological
factor in the formulation of quantum mechanics as well in the relativity theories
(restricted and generalized). It should be point out that, even earlier, some physic
theories, such as the statistical mechanics, introduced this factor implicitly trough
the demonstration that the temperature isn’t a fundamental property of the
matter, as it is an emerging property.

The physicist Fritjof Capra (Cap75) sustains that the paradigm change that was
brought up in between the transition from classical physics to modern physics,
it’s part of a change in the general paradigm of the sciences. Moreover, this
paradigm change is characterized mainly for the epistemological questioning and
a holistic-ecological point of view that began with the General Systems Theory of
Von Bertalanffy (Ber68), and was reinforced by cybernetics.

5
Nowadays the contribution of the Systems Theory and Cybernetics to various
traditional scientific disciplines has been accompanied by the appearance of novel
theories that have its sustain in the holistic approach. An example of this is the
Neurolinguistic programming (N.L.P.) that shows a strong influence of the
postulates of Gregory Bateson (Bat75). Other examples are the Chaos Theory
(Pri93), the Radical Constructivism (Gla95) and the post-rationalist approach of
the cognitive sciences (Win86) that sustain themselves in the second order
cybernetics. Clear example of the above is the Theory of Autopoiesis, which was
developed by the Chilean biologists and cybernetists Humberto Maturana and
Francisco Varela (Mat85).

According to Fritjof Capra, the influence of the theory of systems and cybernetics
in the contemporary occidental thought has not been limited to the field of the
human and natural sciences. It has been extrapolated to some theological
postulates of the contemporary Catholic Church (Cap91). A clear example is the
concept of the social sin; this is the sin not committed by an isolated individual,
but done by the society considered as a whole. Systemic concepts such as synergy
and emerging property are the more appropriate to describe this theological
concept.

This profound change of paradigm goes beyond the boundaries of science,

reaching almost the whole spectrum of contemporary thinking and, so, it surprise
us that it hasn’t been assimilated enough in the field of management. Even more
if we realize that the object of management is the enterprise, which is properly a
system.

Some scholars have made isolated contributions, in order to incorporate elements

of the systemic-cybernetic thought in the field of management. During the sixties
and seventies, it was done by the contributions of Stafford Beer (Bee59), Jay

6
Forester (For61) and Jaques Melese (Mel68); also, Katz and Khan developed the
idea of the enterprise as a roles system (Kat78). During the eighties and nineties
was the turn of Peter Senge (Sen90) and Fernando Flores (Flo89). However,
none of them was interested in proposing an ontology of the enterprise.

In addition, some psychologists have applied with success concepts of the theory
of systems or cybernetics to management, usually in the field of motivation and
leadership. Nevertheless, in these cases the object of disquisition isn’t the system
of human activity; instead it’s the group of individuals that form part of a
determined community.

It should not surprise us then, due to the general confusion where isn’t a clear
difference established between management and organizational theory, that is
only a partial application of the systemic line of thought, limited to the individuals
and communities being the subject or the system, instead of the enterprise or
organization treated as a whole.

THE ENTERPRISE: AN ARTIFICIAL LIFE FORM?

The fundamental question that a theory of the enterprise must answer is; what is
the enterprise? This is a wide scope question; thus, we should limit the
perspective for its definition. We are not interested in a definition from the
government, economical or its employee’s point of view, because these scopes
are too narrow and specific. We must concentrate in an entrepreneurial
perspective of the enterprise, a perspective that takes an approach from the
management field. This means that we should focus on the everyday practices
and activities that take place inside an enterprise. From this particular point of
view we’ll be able to verify how certain aspects are hidden or come to the surface,
depending on its interest, as seen from different perspectives.

7
Once this point of view is taken, the unit that we call enterprise cannot be
considered as a building or a set of facilities, due to the fact, that this perspective
is too limited and incomplete. This also applies if we try to define the enterprise
only as an individuals system. This second approach is less restricted than the
first, but still is a partial point of view. A more accurate focus describes the
enterprise as a system of complex interactions between individuals and objects,
this is, individuals that interact among themselves, individuals that manipulate
objects and even objects that interact with other objects. These interactions are
transformations, actions that take place in the enterprise, and the objects that
participate in these actions can be classified as matter, energy and symbols. So it
can be said that an enterprise’s structure is made of individuals, matter, energy
and symbols in permanent interaction.

This permanent interaction translates itself into a system of acts that concatenate
recursively in a way that this system generates more acts establishing a circular
causation, proper of the autopoietic systems; i. e., systems that self-define and
self-support themselves. And so, Aquilles Limone describes the enterprise as an
autopoietic system of acts that have place due to the interaction between
individuals, matter, energy and symbols. (Lim78)

At this point it should be clarified that, by Maturana and Varela, a living being is a
machine that permanently builds itself, or better a machine which performance
allows the sustenance of its own organization in time. (Mat85) The word
Autopoiesis (etymologically: creation of itself) was forged by Maturana to name a
characteristic that is distinctive and proper of the living beings (Mat94).
Subsequently Maturana and Varela have clarified this concept stating that for a
system, in order to be considered a living being, is not enough to be an
autopoietic system. It also must belong to a determined domain of observation:
the denominated molecular domain. (Mat85)

8
As a consequence, when Aquiles Limone presents the enterprise as an autopoietic
system he is not stating that the enterprise has life in a biological sense; because
the domain of observation of the enterprise is the human activity, instead of the
molecular domain of the living beings. And so, the enterprise doesn’t qualify as a
biologically living being, but the enterprises and the molecular living beings share
a lot of similarities and concordances with the biological point of view as seen
from the cybernetic field. In this sense, the enterprise should be a simile of a
molecular living being, an “artificial living being”.

It is said that there is a contradiction in the fact of describing something as

autopoietic and artificial at the same time. In my opinion, this contradiction is
only apparent, and it is due to the confusion of two different domains of
observation. In the molecular domain, the enterprise is an artificial machine or, in
Maturana and Varela’s words: alopoietic. This doesn’t invalidate that, in the
domain of the acts, the enterprise is an autopoietic system and from this domain
of observation, it can’t be qualified as artificial. Both domains should not be
confused, as principle of “logical accountability”. As Maturana and Varela told:

“As observers we can see a unity in different domains, according to the

distinctions that we make. So we can consider a system in the domain of the
operation of its components (....) also we may consider a unity in its interactions
with the environment. (....) The problem starts when we change from one domain
to the other without noticing it. (....) If we keep our logical accountability clear,
this complication dissipates.” (Mat85)

The fact that the enterprise is susceptible of a cybernetic treatment, similar to a

living being, supports the idea of the organizational learning as a process done by
the enterprise considered as a whole, making a difference from the learning done
by the individuals that conform the entrepreneurial community. (Ahu98)

9
It also gives a solid theoretical support to the current tendency, clearly seen in the
postulates of Stuart Kauffman (Kau99). He uses the complexity sciences, which
have been developed primarily under the biological science, in the field of
management analysis.

From this perspective, it comes as natural to see the evolution of the enterprises
in the history of our civilization as a process with similar characteristics as the
evolution of the biological species. In Stuart Kauffman words:

“I see in business an extension of nature, with laws not so far different from the
ones that dictate evolution. Nature has solved problems for millions of years. It
may be the time to pay attention to how it has done it.” (Kau99)

In this sense, nowadays four evolution stages can be distinguished in the

management field (In the enterprise evolution it seems that we haven’t found an
extinguished species yet). This are, first a pre-industrial stage characterized by a
casual treatment of the administrative work. Second an industrial stage in which
the leading enterprises made professional or mechanized its production
processes. Third, a post-industrial stage characterized for the prominence of the
financial administration and speculation. Finally, the fourth stage that can be
called the cybernetic stage, in which, the leading enterprises besides fulfilling the
standards mentioned above, are characterized by the stress put in management of
its informational resources (data, information, and knowledge).

Now it’s convenient to clarify another matter that could lead us to confusion.
Until now, it has been signaled out that the structure of the enterprise is
conformed by the interactions of individuals, matter, energy and symbols. In
order to give scientific rigor and compatibility with Maturana and Varela’s theory
to this description of the enterprise, it’s necessary to question the existence of
these objects from an epistemological point of view. By doing so, we should

10
acknowledge that -in strictness- objects don’t have an existence completely
independent from the observer, thus, they are mere constructions made by the
individuals. The above mentioned is particularly clear in the case of the symbols,
but in strictness extends on the same level to energy, because it is intangible, i. e.,
energy is only an explanation of a set of phenomena scientifically observed. The
same applies to matter, since physics has demonstrated that matter is a particular
form of energy. Finally, we must acknowledge that the own individuals are mere
objects build by some observer, based on an observed and supposed continuity
that allows the distinction as a unit. As a result, the statement that establishes the
structure of an enterprise as conformed by individuals, matter, energy and
symbols in permanent interaction, actually means that, the structure of the
enterprise is constituted by constructions done by the same individuals, as by any
other individual that has knowledge1 of that enterprise.

Once an epistemological constructivistic2 perspective is chosen, we must say the

enterprise doesn’t constitute itself in the physical space, sometimes called the
“real space”. Instead, it can be said that all the enterprises are virtual ones.

The enterprise emerges in a domain of interactions between individuals and

constructions that we call objects. When these relationships are interpersonal, are
presented mainly under the form of conversations. These conversational acts play
a fundamental structural role, because it allows the specification of the structure
of the enterprise and make possible the generation and making of decisions.
Therefore, the development of a theory of the enterprise must fundament itself in

1 According to Maturana and Varela knowledge is a subjective quality that an

observer assigns to a living being, when accepting its actions as valid in a
determined context. See (Mat85)
2 Ernest Von Glasersfeld forged the denomination Radical-Constructivism in
order to refer to this type of epistemology that recognises that experience is the
only accessible thing, and it is always subjective and cannot be
transferred.(Gla95)

11
a description of the conversational phenomenon; this description should meet
the rigorous characteristics of the scientific method. This rigorous approach can
be found in the theory of the Autopoiesis. From this scientific perspective, the
conversation takes place at the linguistic interaction between two or more beings
endowed with emotion (Mat85). The emotion, from a biological point of view,
it’s defined as an structural disposition of a living being that specifies a domain of
possible actions for that living being (Mat85). Language is defined as the
consensual recursive co-ordination of conducts. Here, recursiveness lies in the
fact that the co-ordination can operate over other co-ordination, producing the
phenomenon, seen in human languages, which is that the language allows us to
speak about language itself (Mat85).

According to Maturana and Varela, language plays a fundamental role as founder

of the human society, becoming so the most proper and distinctive element of
the humane (Mat85). In Francisco Varela’s words:

“There are some dimensions in language through which emerges the social. It’s
about the linguistic acts that we constantly make: declarations, promises, requests,
and formulations. In fact, this net of speech acts, with its conditions of
satisfaction, doesn’t form a mere tool of communication, as it is the fibre of our
identity. And so describes much of the occurrences in an office, by which it
relates much more with the comprehension of its dynamics than with the classic
administrative organizational diagrams”3. (Var88) A specific conversational
domain is thus established for those predominant emotions in the interaction of
the individuals that participate in the conversations. In the case of the enterprise
this main emotions are gain, compromise and steer. The emotion of gain

3
Original text does not contain bolded characters

12
manifests itself in the economical relations, the compromise in the labor relations,
and steer in the technical relations.

Like every autopoietic system, the enterprise is continuously changing its

structure, coupling with the environment in which it’s possible to distinguish an
industrial field, one economy, and one world. This structural dynamical joint has
a persuasive and non-coercive character. Thus it can’t be said that an enterprise is
forced to act one way or another; in other words: the history of the
transformations of an enterprise is given only by its own structure and not by the
environment.

From this perspective, it can be said that the only objective pursued by an
enterprise is to sustain its own organization.

At this point is convenient to clarify that in cybernetics the concepts of

organization and structure aren’t synonymous. Organization relates to the pattern
of characteristic and permanent relations, that conserved, allow us to identify or
distinguish the system. Structure instead relates to the specific and actual form in
which this organization takes place. As consequence the organization is the
definer of the system and confers to it, its class identity, but this can’t take place
without a structural support susceptible of being perceived or at least intellect by
a capable observer.

Under this conceptual frame, the enterprise resembles the typical wave usually
made by the spectators of a sports event. This wave couldn’t exist without the
public that forms its structure, but the public isn’t the wave. When we see a wave
that moves from left to right, the public isn’t necessarily moving in that direction
instead it is moving predominantly up and down. What moves from left to right,
isn’t the structure itself, instead, it is an interrelations-pattern that preserves itself
and so allows us to say that there is something there. Although, strictly we know

13
that the wave only exists as a construction that we make as observers that
perceive an interesting phenomenon and put a name on it to co-ordinate our
actions in relation with it. When we talk of this pattern denominated “the wave”,
we perceive it as an object, and we can even think that exists as something
independent from us, but -evidently- it isn’t so. When we concentrate our
attention in that object called “wave”, we could say that there is people coming in
and out at every instant, in the sense that they are participating or not in the
activity that defines the object. However, the public, strictly, doesn’t constitute an
entrance or exit flow. The wave doesn’t have entrances or exits, it simply keeps its
structure at the expense of a never-ending structural mutation. Something similar
occurs with the enterprise. The enterprise doesn’t have entrances or exits because
it is an actions system, like a wave. People may say they enter or leave an
enterprise, in the same way that matter, energy or symbols flows in and out of the
enterprise. Nevertheless, this is a misleading idea because it only relates to the
different degree of participation that the persons, matter, energy and symbols
have in that complex activity system that is the enterprise.

In any autopoietic system, its organization manifests through the spontaneous

appearance of three kinds of relations: of specificity, topological and of order.
These relations determine in each particular moment and context the structure of
the system itself. This way, the structure allows the organization to take place,
closing the causal circuit. The relations of specificity determine that the produced
components are those defined by its participation in the autopoiesis of the
system. The constitutive relations are those that determine the typology of the
autopoietic organization and as a consequence its boundaries, and, finally, the
order relations determine the dynamic of the autopoietic organization.

14
 AUTOPOIESIS: DIFFERENCES AROUND A COMMON APPROACH
Many authors have postulated that the autopoiesis is present at the enterprise.
The principal authors that relate to the subject of the autopoietic systems agree
on this issue, although there are some differences that should be pointed out.

Maturana and Varela , on their text “The tree of Knowledge”, distinguish among
the living beings autopoietic systems of distinct order. The cells are autopoietic
systems of first order, because they exist directly as autopoietic molecular
systems, the multi-cellular organisms are autopoietic systems of second order,
because they are autopoietic systems that operate as cells conglomerates. In a
similar way, both authors sustain that, in the case of the cellular interactions of
the multi-cellular beings, once an organism starts structural coupling with other
organisms (....) the other represents a source of perturbations that are
indistinguishable from the ones that come out of the “inert” environment.
Although is possible for this interactions between organisms to acquire a
recurrent character and, so it establishes an structural coupling that allows the
upkeep of the individuality of both organisms through the development of their
interactions. If these couplings are performed by organisms with a nervous
system, it originates a peculiar phenomenon (...) the phenomenology of the
couplings of third order. (Mat85)

As a consequence, for Maturana and Varela, the autopoiesis that occurs within
the enterprise it’s incidental. In this sense, Maturana has pointed out that:
“Although it’s indubitable that the social systems are autopoietic systems, by the
sole fact of being systems conformed by organisms, the object that defines them
as social systems isn’t its components’ autopoiesis. Instead, it’s the form of the
relations established between the organisms that conform the social systems.
(...)”Mat94

15
Another author, Gareth Morgan, sustains that, although the theory of the
autopoiesis had its origins in biology, and that its authors had tried to keep its
application in this field, the theory has a circumstantial application in the theory
of the organization. Morgan points out in his book “Images of organization”:
“Maturana and Varela developed their theory primarily as a new interpretation of
the biological phenomena, keeping big reserves, about its application in the social
field. But, if seen as a metaphor, the theory of the autopoiesis has interesting
applications for the understanding of the organizations”. (Mor90)

A much radical approach can be found in the works of Niklas Luhmann, whom
elaborated a theory of the social systems as autopoietic systems of
communications (Rod90). Under this formulation, the autopoiesis in a social
system doesn’t fundamentally lie in the autopoiesis of its components, like in a
coupling of third order, and it isn’t a mere metaphor as Morgan suggested.

Maturana has manifested his disagreement with Luhmann, because in his own
view, when in the language we refer to a social system we don’t connote a
communications system. Under this formulation, the structure of a social system
would only be conformed by communications, not by persons, “and the
relational phenomenon that implies the living of a being, that as a fact its
connoted in a daily bases when speaking of the social, would be excluded”.
(Mat94)

However, Maturana leaves the door open to the possibility of the existence of
autopoietic systems of conversations; nevertheless, for Maturana such a system
wouldn’t correspond to a social system, as it would to a culture. According to
Maturana: “A culture is a net of co-ordination of emotions and actions in the
language that configures a particular mode of interlocking the acting and
emotions of the people that live the referred culture”. (Mat90)

16
From what Maturana postulates, it’s understood that he sees the enterprise as a
coupling of third order. However, under this perspective, the structure of the
enterprise would only be conformed by individuals. But, the relational
phenomena that implies the interacting of individuals, matter, energy and symbols
(that we connote in administration, when relating to an enterprise) would be
excluded. Therefore the autopoietic system of third order doesn’t refer to the
enterprise as a dynamic of human activity, and only refers to the productive
community that propitiates the enterprise. Otherwise, if we only concentrate in
the tight net of conversations we are limited to describe the culture of the
enterprise. The question that arises in both cases is if these perspectives are
adequate. Do they satisfy the theoretical needs of management or economy? It
seems that the answer to these question marks cannot be affirmative.

Otherwise, Limone’s theory has concentrated not only in the culture or the
communicational process that constitutes an autopoietic system “per se”, neither
in the community of individuals that conform a distributed system of third order.
Instead, it has concentrated in the enterprise considered as a whole. In Limone’s
perspective the structure of the enterprise isn’t conform only by persons or only
by communications. According to Limone its structure is conformed by the
interaction of persons and objects. This approach has the advantage of being
more relevant to the needs of a theoretical fundament for the analysis and tasks
of an administrator, that isn’t only interested in the conversations in which
participates the staff, but in all kind of acts that take place in the enterprise. The
recently mentioned fact is very relevant, because once we speak of acts it involves
the conversations, that finally determine decisions, as well as the concrete actions
that are done, and the consequences that result from that being done.

The above mentioned doesn’t invalidate the ideas developed in this article, in the
sense that the role of the language is fundamental within the structure of the

17
enterprise, but this quality as “fundamental” shouldn’t be confused as
“exclusive”.

Aquiles Limone distinguishes in his description of the enterprise three macro-

processes that as a whole achieve the task of the upkeep of the organization
trough the adaptation of the structure of the enterprise. These macro-processes
are the primary process, the decisional process and the structuration process. The
primary process is the set of transformations done in and by the enterprise that
allows the regeneration of the funds used in the upkeep of the structure and of
the funds consumed in those transactions. The decisional process is a closed
conversational net, which relative activity specifies every instant and in the whole
amplitude of the system, the operational coherence needed in the production of
technological, labor and economical relations that conform the system in the
whole net of processes. Finally, the structure process defines at every instant the
structure of the enterprise trough two complementary mechanisms of
differentiation and integration; the first divides or distributes and the second
cohesion or integrates. These three processes are strongly coupled in a manner
that its distinction, as any distinction, is subjective and, consequently, the
boundaries that separate them are diffuse and, at last arbitrary. (Lim98)

18
 CONCLUSION
Aquiles Limone propositions do not pretend to be the last sentence about what is
definitely an enterprise; as himself accepts, it's only an ontology, only an
explanation. However, it should be recognized that his ontology is consistent. At
the same time it agrees with the most recent and vanguard postulates of
disciplines such as biology, physics and the post-rationalist approach of the
cognitive sciences, included (second order) cybernetics. In other words, Limone’s
theory is a scientific theory legitimately, as seen by the most advanced schools of
the contemporary scientific thought. Therefore, it establishes a solid base for the
formation of managers, under the context of the current and probable future
demands that must be faced in this important field of human activity.

19