Beyond the Bottom Line: How Human Growth Makes for Wiser Decisions in Organizations

Hey there! Let’s chat about something pretty important, especially if you’ve ever had to make a tough call at work or seen how decisions ripple through a team. We often think of decision-making in organizations like a cold, hard math problem or maybe a quick, adaptable reaction to whatever’s happening right now. And sure, those approaches have their place, they really do! They help us stay efficient and react fast. But, if we’re being honest, they often miss a huge chunk of what it means to be… well, human.

Think about it. When decisions are purely about logic or just what works *right now*, they can sometimes steamroll over things like how people feel, whether they’re growing, or how we treat each other. We see this play out during big crises or when new tech like AI shakes things up. Suddenly, maximizing efficiency might mean layoffs, or chasing a market opportunity might ignore the long-term impact on people or the planet. These moments show us that our usual playbooks aren’t quite cutting it when things get ethically messy and deeply human.

The Problem with Current Decision Models

So, what are these usual playbooks? Broadly speaking, they fall into two camps: the rationalists and the pragmatists.

Rationalist models are all about rules, universal principles, and logical steps. They want decisions to be consistent and objective, like following a strict moral code. Think of it like a flowchart for ethics. While this gives us structure and aims for fairness, it can be pretty rigid. It sometimes struggles with the messy reality of diverse cultures and the complex web of human relationships. It’s like trying to apply one-size-fits-all rules to a world that’s anything but.

Pragmatist models, on the other hand, are super flexible and focused on what works in the moment. They’re all about outcomes and adapting to the situation. Need to solve a problem? Find the most practical way, fast! This is great for navigating dynamic environments, but it can slide into a kind of “anything goes if it works” mentality. If there’s no anchor in universal moral truth, what’s “good” can become relative, potentially leading to ethical inconsistencies or just going along with whatever the loudest voices or immediate pressures dictate. It’s like having a compass that just points to “convenient.”

Both of these approaches, while useful in their lanes, often fall short when it comes to the deeper stuff – things like personal growth, genuine ethical responsibility, and that elusive quality we call wisdom. They tend to see decision-making as a process separate from the people involved, focusing on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ but not the ‘who’ or the ‘why’ in a truly profound sense.

A Deeper Look: The Need for Anthropology

This is where things get interesting. What if better decision-making isn’t just about better processes or rules, but about a deeper understanding of ourselves? What if it’s about understanding what it truly means to be a human person?

Recent thinking in organizational psychology and management is starting to nudge us in this direction, highlighting the need to weave ethical considerations together with personal, interpersonal, and systemic growth. It’s becoming clearer that focusing purely on efficiency or short-term gains isn’t sustainable and can even be dehumanizing. We need models that prioritize ethical growth and are grounded in a richer picture of the human person.

Enter Polo and IPS: A New Foundation

This is where we turn to some fascinating ideas, specifically from the work of philosopher Leonardo Polo and the Inter-Processual Self (IPS) Theory. They offer a framework that sees decision-making not just as a task, but as a powerful opportunity for personal and relational growth.

Drawing from older traditions (like Aristotle and Aquinas, but pushing beyond them), this approach puts the human person squarely at the center. It suggests that our ethical actions and decisions flow from who we are at our deepest level. Polo’s big insight is about the human person having an “act of being” (*actus essendi*) that goes beyond our “essence” (like being a rational animal). This act of being is about our intimacy, our unique reality, and it’s rooted in something transcendent.

This “act of being” has fundamental properties, which Polo calls “transcendentals”:

• Personal Freedom: Not just freedom *to choose*, but a deeper openness.
• Personal Knowledge: A kind of inner wisdom or light.
• Personal Love: A capacity for gift-love, for giving and receiving ourselves.

These aren’t separate boxes; they’re interwoven, forming the core of who we are. And crucially, Polo suggests this act of being is a *gift*, rooted in a relationship with a personal God. This perspective gives a profound “why” to ethics – we strive to be good because our very being is a gift, meant to be shared in gift-love with others.

The Inter-Processual Self (IPS) Theory Explained

The IPS theory takes these deep philosophical insights and translates them into a framework for understanding our moral psychology and growth. It argues that the modern idea of the “self” is too limited, often focusing just on us as individual agents trying to realize our own potential.

IPS says the real “root of who we are” is being a person in this transcendent sense – a gift, open to growth through gift-love relationships. Growth isn’t just about improving our skills or achieving goals (our “essence”); it’s about becoming a better person at the level of our “act of being,” and doing so *for the sake of loving others better*.

IPS helps us see that our personal growth and our relationships aren’t separate domains. They are two sides of the same coin – our intimate being is inherently relational. This framework suggests that true practical wisdom, the kind that guides ethical decisions, comes from integrating our whole being – our agency, our will, our physical aspects (what we *have*) – under the guidance of the person (who we *are*), oriented towards the flourishing of ourselves and others.

It acknowledges that we live in the modern world and need to integrate our individual identity and creative drives. But it places these within a larger context where the ultimate reference point is the person, growing through intimacy and inter-relational connection. This kind of growth isn’t about hitting a fixed target like “self-actualization”; it’s an ongoing journey of self-donation and reception.

Decision Making as Growth: Applying IPS in Organizations

So, how does this play out when we’re making decisions in organizations? It changes the whole game. Instead of seeing decisions purely as ways to manage risk, hit budget targets, or boost efficiency, we start seeing them as moments pregnant with potential for human growth.

Firstly, IPS encourages us to value ourselves and others as persons – unique beings with a transcendental dimension, who are *more* than just our jobs, skills, or actions. Recognizing ourselves as a “gift” opens up decision-making beyond just striving for personal success. It grounds decisions in an *ethos of relationship*, seeing others not as means to an end, but as fellow persons with inherent dignity.

Secondly, acting from our personal intimacy, guided by personal freedom, knowledge, and love, means our decisions can become expressions of who we are at our deepest level. This isn’t about abandoning rules or goals, but about integrating them under the higher guidance of transcendental anthropology. Goods are moderated by norms, norms are made flexible by virtue, but the *meaning* and *motivation* for virtuous action comes from our transcendent being, our openness to God and others.

This perspective transforms the “why” behind being good. It’s not just for virtue’s sake, but for the sake of becoming a better person *for another and for others*. Decision-making becomes a way to manifest this personal action, aiming for mutual growth.

Navigating Organizational Challenges

This framework offers powerful ways to navigate complex organizational challenges. Take intergenerational dynamics, for example. Modern workplaces bring together Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z, each with different values, expectations, and tech comfort levels. Rationalist or pragmatic approaches might see this as a problem to be managed through rigid policies or quick fixes.

IPS, however, sees this as an *opportunity for mutual growth*. Younger employees, often digital natives, can help older colleagues with technology, while gaining empathy for their challenges. Older employees bring experience and stability, teaching younger generations about loyalty and long-term perspective. Decision-making guided by IPS principles fosters mutual respect, learning, and shared growth, building trust and collaboration across generations. It encourages leaders to be reflective and adaptive, valuing everyone’s contribution.

It also helps address conflict and build trust. Formal communication or rigid rules often fail because conflicts stem from deeper human dynamics. IPS encourages understanding individuals at their core – their needs, motivations, and intimate reality. It shifts the focus from external control to internal motivation rooted in gift-love and mutual service. This builds genuine trust and resilience, accommodating human errors while resisting the tendency to dehumanize people in business processes.

Furthermore, this approach strengthens ethical leadership. Instead of just following regulations, leaders are encouraged to embody humility, compassion, and integrity rooted in their own imperfect, gifted being. Practical wisdom is guided by higher virtues like friendship, hope, and forgiveness, balancing justice and mercy, self-interest and the good of others.

This human-centered perspective also fuels innovation and resilience. By understanding human needs at a fundamental level, organizations can develop solutions that are not only technically sound but also deeply humanistic. It moves beyond treating individuals as mere means to strategic goals, fostering a culture of mutual consideration and growth. It also reduces moral relativism by grounding decisions in the inherent value and dignity of the person, extending empathy even to distant or marginalized stakeholders.

Why This Matters

In essence, rationalist and pragmatist models, while useful for certain aspects, create a kind of dualism that limits our potential. They tend to oversimplify human beings and miss the incredible potential for development inherent in our interactions and decisions. They might deliver short-term gains or follow abstract rules, but they often lack soul, empathy, and long-term ethical depth.

Polo’s transcendental anthropology and the IPS framework offer a way out of this dualism. They provide a solid ethical foundation by linking our very being as persons to ethics – integrating goods, norms, and virtues under the guidance of our transcendentals (freedom, knowledge, love). Ethics isn’t just another department or a set of rules tacked on; it’s intrinsic to who we are and how we act.

This approach reframes decision-making as a *human* endeavor aimed at fostering *humanistic growth*. The development of everyone involved becomes a core focus and a driving force. It’s about creating organizations that are, first and foremost, human communities where people can flourish.

This isn’t a prescriptive, step-by-step guide. It’s more of a compass, pointing us towards a deeper, richer way of understanding ourselves and our actions in organizations. It challenges the prevailing view that business and ethics are separate. Instead, it argues that ethics is fundamental, woven into the fabric of human action and organizational life because it’s rooted in the very nature of the person.

It’s a challenging path, for sure. It asks us to look beyond easy answers and embrace the complexity and depth of human beings. It might feel daunting compared to the straightforward (though limited) logic of rationalism or pragmatism. But by centering the human person, their growth, and their capacity for gift-love and wisdom, we can unlock a truly transformative potential for decision-making in organizations, making them not just efficient or adaptable, but genuinely wise, resilient, and humane.

Source: Springer