Darwinist connections between the systemness of social organizations and their evolution

In other words, within the universe, “there is a sorting out process in which some variant types persist, while others disappear, so that the nature of the ensemble as a whole changes” (Lewontin 1983: 65).

“Evolution presumes creation. Creation, in the light of evolution, includes events taking place over time, i.e. it is a creatio continua, in which God becomes visible to believers as the Creator of heaven and earth” (Message by Giovanni Paolo II at the Symposium on Faith and Evolution, April, 26th, 1985, published in Pascual 2004: 34).

In the Letter to the Searchers of God, written by the Episcopal Commission for Faith’s Doctrine, we can read: “God did not create a completed world: creation was not finished. Man has slowly taken possession of the earth, moulding and shaping it to his needs, developing the potential of what has been created for his wealth and for God’s glory. In particular, to date we witness changes which were unthinkable up to few decades ago. These changes show that man owns unbounded capabilities, whose instrument is constituted by the new technologies” (Italian Episcopal Conference 2009: 24).

The prominent late cardinal and theologist Martini (2009: 9) added: “The Church does not oppose and it is open to the theory of biological evolution, provided that the possibility both of the creation by God and of the original sin—which is today explained in numerous and complex ways—is preserved”.

The founder, in Italy, of “economia aziendale” (i.e. business administration and management) as a per se discipline, Zappa (1956: 166), conceives the external environment as a context “for which” the firm “operates” and “on which it continuously reacts”. Through these lenses, the firm is considered not only as the object, but also as the subject of evolutionary change.

It is worth pointing out that in all editions of The Origin of Species going from the second to the latest—which were personally edited by Darwin (1872)—the famous biologist himself somehow attributes a role in the evolutionary process to the Divine Creator. Throughout his book, Darwin is so fascinated by the “marvellous world” of the varieties he discovers, that he concludes: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one” … [This author’s note: After the word “breathed”, Charles Darwin has added “by the Creator” since the second publication of the book] … “and whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved” (Darwin 2008: 478). On this theme, see also the research study by Lamoureux (2012).

The highest number of new entrants is registered in those industries where the expected growth rate and the expected profits are the highest. But, the risks are also high. Especially for this reason, these industries present the firms’ highest mortality rates (Geroski and Schwalbach 1991; Vivarelli 1991).

In the natural world, selection never stops. It “silently and insensibly works, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life” (Darwin 2008: 84). Indeed, we shall see further on that—as far as the economic world is concerned—the firm’s behaviour can reveal capabilities that can change the competitive environment and bend it to the desired strategy. This happens after the first years of the firm’s existence. Thanks to their accumulated experience, the surviving firms grow and start processes which modify their business sector into an environment different from that they once entered. The evolution of firms is “only partially guided by crush, in that it is much more fostered by the willingness of people to behave methodically, weightily, and plausibly. Thus, the environment becomes artificial rather than natural” (Weick 1969).

The relationship between the structure and the system can be deepened by reading Chandler’s fundamental work (1962) and the theoretical essay by Teece (1993). The important cross-country analysis by Mayer and Whittington (1999) is also worthy of mention. In this regard, we should not forget James Thompson’s seminal lesson (1967: 10) concerning the stability granted to the firm by an efficient organizational structure: “We will conceive of complex organizations as open systems, hence indeterminate and faced with uncertainty, but at the same time as subject to criteria of rationality and hence needing determinateness and certainty”. These needs foster the construction of the organization’s structure.

In this regard, see, for example, the provisions contained in the current version of the Italian Civil Code (article No. 2328, Subsection 2, Paragraph 3).

Although Darwinism is controversial and only cautiously applicable to the business administration disciplines, it is useful to mention that its critics often “tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, when they reject the evolutionary approach” (Dagnino 2006: 103). It is remarkable that, in the sesquicentennial anniversary since its first edition (London, 1859), Darwin’s main work has been considered useful also for our current public policy makers (The Economist 2008: 117).

Evolution (for example: from the Neanderthal man to the contemporary man) differs from metamorphosis (for example: in Europe, the height of the XXI century men and women has increased over the last millennium).

Darwin’s findings would suggest that “animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number” (2008: 472) and “probably all the organic beings have descended from some primordial form into which life was first breathed” (p. 472). At least as far as hominids are concerned, the case for the common ancestor and the branched (i.e. grouped) ancestry has been demonstrated by a number of empirical research studies (Pievani 2010: 121 ff).

During the evolutionary process, some of the genes themselves can be altered or there may be the modification of the order in which they position themselves on chromosomes. The genes can also be modified if their state is activated or disactivated. For example, The Economist (2014: 67) has recently reported: “People are living longer, which is good. But old age often brings a decline in mental faculties … many researchers … have been studying the role in ageing of klotho, a protein encoded by a gene called KL. A particular version of this gene, KL-VS, promotes longevity…. What they found was startling. KL-VS did not curb decline, but it did boost cognitive faculties regardless a person’s age by the equivalent of six IQ points … KL-VS will be the most important genetic agent of non-pathological variation in intelligence yet discovered”.

In this respect, it is common to read that only those giraffes with a long neck survive, while the others perish. The long neck is a winning genetic heritage that helps the organism to reach the fresh leaves of the high trees. That is to say, giraffes select by themselves.

That’s because it is forces that really fight. The resistance and survival of the organization are, first of all, a struggle against oneself to save the inherited forces and accumulate new forces. Only secondarily, the struggle for existence becomes a fight against others. According to some Darwinists instead (e.g. Dawkins 1976) the struggle for survival is a confrontation essentially between the genes of each individual and everything else.

“As cultural evolution includes human biological evolution … a Darwinian theory of social evolution must be both Darwinian and Lamarckian” (Marmefelt 2009: 74).

In biology, of course, “the success, or fitness, within the genetic of populations, means neither physical health nor optimal adaptation to the environment. The only criterion used for evaluating the fitness of an individual is that of determining the relative amount of descendants who survive, i.e. how much of the individual’s genotype is present in the offspring and subsequent generations” (Curtis and Barnes 1989).

“Dialectical analysis […] must be concerned with the active reconstruction of organizations. This reconstruction is aimed towards the realization of human potentialities by the removal of constraints, limitations upon praxis.” (Benson 1977: 18).