We already saw the reasons why human beings have a typology: because we are mammals. As long as we have a typology, no matter how connected, hyper-connected, culminated or consecrated it may be, we are going to have a distorted vision of the world and of life. If we are below connection, we will feel, like the archetype we have chosen to govern our life, an inflated emotion, a disconnected emotion which will become aggressiveness towards our own talent, and a prohibited emotion that will become a phobia against our own vocation, and against the meaning of our life, or at least, against the sense we ought to give it, provisionally and with a good sense of humour, in order to leave our typology behind. In the world, we already saw too, 98% of people are in that situation: below connection. And those people think, live, express themselves, dream, create organisations and works, draw up philosophies, ideologies, religions, interpret history and create subjects that are studied in universities. The disconnected human being creates a world that he confuses with the real world. He creates his distorted world, which he tries to make sense of. Sense at least to want to remain in it; the human being creates a world in which to find himself and resolve his contradictions.
MAT, as a science, provides basically two things: a set of tools for growing indefinitely – and finding in that growth increasing safety, development, justice, status, belonging, and plenitude, and, also and above all, more harmony, clarity, corporality, metamorphosis, soul and spirit – and a set of tools for analysing reality and transforming it into what it can be.
Growth is infinite by definition, although the narcissism of the followers of the most grown has attempted, time and again, to transform that reality and that testimony and that potentiality that we all have, into ideologies and religions. In doing so, these followers degraded the stature of the grown being that could have served them as a guide, until transforming him into an idol capable of competing with their domestic idols; and the testimony of an organic and natural path that ought to stimulate us, into dogmas and straightjackets that prevent us from reaching and surpassing the stature of said grown being. Of course there are also the most degraded beings, the dissociated people, who form 3% of the population, driven mad by the psychic phenomenon of “possession” by their archetype, and who find, time and again also, embittered and resentful followers prepared to sacrifice their empty and poor lives for them. Which is equivalent to saying sacrificing their own life for that of the omnipresent idol of the dissociated person in question. Let’s think for example of social phenomena such as Nazism, the Messianism of Sabbatai Sevi, Stalinism, the Spanish inquisition, or the organisation Al Qaeda. And we won’t mention the psychopaths who have created their criminal aberrations and, sometimes, their organisations, which we will study in a subsequent work .
Growth is infinite, although at the end of each process, at least at the beginning of the path, we may have the impression that there is nothing else thereafter. At the start we err out of naivety and our surroundings can then perfectly catch us unprepared and place the stop sign that, if it becomes a norm, can carry the worst to manufacture an ideology again or, worse, a religion. A religion or an ideology, for MAT is an obligatory stop sign for those who follow them. Irrespective of the height at which the sign is placed.
Growth is infinite and can lead us to losing our typology completely, and that’s not the end of the path. It is a goal for the mammals that we are. Then the real adventure beings, the exciting adventure of living the life of a normal human being. And the path continues and continues without an end. That is not a prodigy. It is normality, organic. Everyone reaches as far as they want to and can, which doesn’t mean at all that the path ends there. It means that a person or a human being, with a name and surname, reached that far.
In a subsequent work we will write about the path, the paths. Not the entire possible path, of course, but the one already experimented on ourselves and on the people who are growing, with or without us, or who have grown before us coming into the world. At least we will see clearly the path to leaving the typology behind, which is no small thing.
In this chapter we will speak about the instrumental aspect that MAT offers for analysing reality. We will refer only to a small but decisive part of that reality: organisations. And there are two reasons for this: because it is what is most urgent and decisive to start transforming the world into what it can become, and because we are at an historical moment when the person is the focus of interest and will continue to be so for a century. And also, of course, because it has most impact and is the easiest for a first approach to MAT, the object of this work .
I. THE TYPOLOGIES OF ORGANISATIONS:
Organisations, whether these may be a couple, family, company, association, state, group of states or the world, all have a personality typology and, this is so for various reasons: organisations are the creations of people, they are created with a finality, and that finality has several functions. Let’s take a look:
The organisation, a human creation:
As human beings, we all have in our structure a Socialiser that allows us to function in society. Functioning in society is, at the same time, a need and a skill for each person. Our Socialiser allows us to do this in order to develop all the functions of the Rector and the Protector and as a need to cultivate our soul and the harmony that guarantees the order of being in tune with our seven-dimensional nature. Whether alone or accompanied, the human being functions to be in a relationship. In a relationship with himself, or with others and with his Centre. For any of those faculties, the person needs an organisation. If we had been born in order to be isolated and alone, we would only be able to reproduce alone with ourselves. Even so, our seventh structure, the Centre, would lead us to have a relationship with the air, the plants, the animals and with other beings like us. Because knowing the environment we are immersed in is a privileged tool for knowing ourselves deeper and better.
As the creation of a person, the organisation is an entity that has its own personality, since it is made in the image and likeness of its founders and their successors.
If it were only like that, organisations would have a multiple personality: that of its founders. Or that of the people with charisma that come to lead these organisations.
But the organisation is the creation of people who all have their seven-dimensional personality structure and who have human aspirations and motivations of safety, development, justice, status, belonging and plenitude that they wish to realise through their creations, in other words, in this case, the organisations that they create.
Not all founders have the same motivations and some will create their organisations with the finality of achieving safety, others development, others justice, others status, others belonging, others plenitude. Or all six goals. Or seven goals if they have the six transcendent aspirations. Whether by demand of the founder with most weight and charisma or by consensus, the founders will privilege one of their needs or motivations. This will become the organisation’s vocation and, with it, the organisation will have a personality typology whose skill will be in the prior emotion in the sequence. For example, if the vocation is justice, the skill will be development. And the talent will be in status, and it will have a Constructor personality typology. Its degree of evolution will be evident from its typological phase. The same as with people.
Knowing the typology of an organisation is just as easy a task as knowing the typology of a person. In our work as specialised consultants in the diagnosis of organisations and in the strategic planning of their change processes, we have created several tools that allow us to diagnose accurately the personality typology of the organisation. In this work we will share some basic tools for diagnosing the organisational typology almost by way of an example, since knowledge and handling of the set of tools requires a time and a space that is beyond the objective of this work.
Thirty years ago, speaking about the personality of an organisation was seen as a delirious lucubration. Nowadays all experts, readers and clients of consultants dedicated to organisational diagnoses already share the certainty that an organisation has a personality, a system of values that is expressed in its culture, structural and emotional strong points and weak points, and even a soul. Now the theme of an organisation’s soul is fashionable. It is not yet admitted that the organisation, like a person, also has its own spirit. However, all sociologists and historians have shown how an organisation could prove the quality of its spirit, let’s think of just one example, that of the Vietnamese war, where once again, it was shown, that a small poor people could defeat the most developed and militarised state on the planet. Vietnam, a Reactivator country, grew with a connected Legislator leader like Ho Chi Min and defeated the Revealer titan that is the United States of America. History is plagued with similar examples that alert us so that we can understand the force of the spirit, since the beginning of time. No evolution would be possible without it. Since the human being must have an inkling of finality, of a “what should we do things for” to be able to advance.
The organisation, an instrument of finalities:
When we create an organisation we do so with, at least one, finality. That way we create couples, families, businesses, associations, states or groups of states. Obviously, we have not created the world, but in transforming it into an organisation, we have also given it a typology.
When we marry or we join a stable partner, we decide to found a family and thus an organisation with its own typology is born. Some of us create a family as a means for achieving safety, others development, others justice, others status, others belonging and others plenitude, and for that reason not all families will have the same typology. There will be families of each one of the six “normal” typologies, but also, to a much lesser extent, there will be families of psychopathic typologies that we will not study in this work.
Ordinary people don’t meet in order to decide what basic finality, much less transcendent one, they wish to achieve by founding an organisation. They say that they marry in order to found a family and have children, that they found a company in order to make money, that they create an association in order to promote an activity or a function, that they create a state in order to differentiate themselves from their neighbours, that they create an association of states in order to organise their resources better, and everyone fights for building a world in which the six human motivations can triumph. If it were that simple all families would be Reactivators, all companies would be Constructors, all nations would be Revealers, all groups of states would be Legislators and the world would be Fortifier. This is not the case. There is a reason that weighs more than the conscious will, at least in people with a typology, in other words in all of them. What most weighs is the unconscious finality, since that way the human being reproduces the history of his own gestation and tries to find help for his self-fulfilment and to triumph over his small personal history and, also and above all, to find a sense and a guide for understanding himself, knowing himself, evolving and transcending. That is why the typology of our organisations has more weight than that of the people comprising them. We have verified this reality time and again, both in our teaching work as well as in our organisational consulting.
The transcendent function of organisations:
The aspect that conditions with most weight the typology of an organisation will not be the personality typology of its founder, nor the specific and explicit need of its creators (to make bread, for example), nor its conscious basic finality. It will be its ultimate unconscious finality. That is why, traditional consulting crashes time and again when it confuses the explicit declarations of the founders – referring to the company “mission”, company values, organisations, skills, strengths and weaknesses – with the live reality of the organisation in action.
This affirmation, which could seem complicated, as if detecting the typology were a matter reserved for great analysts of the human being’s unconscious reality, is and proves to be the opposite: knowing the typology of an organisation is as simple as knowing that of a person, and, moreover, obeys the same laws thus making the benchmark of what is achievable retreat. The human being reproduces the history of his gestation when he creates organisations and in fact all classes of works.
Indeed, as we already saw, the human embryo has as his finality to be of his Centre, then the foetus wishes to have a Centre, then he loses his Centre, then he holds on to the axes, then he loses the axes and then he loses the sequence. And he is born with his typology connected. A connected person is identical to a one-day old baby, where the useful potency of the installation is concerned. Considering connection to be the end of the road is equivalent then to considering that all human beings have been born in order to die with just one day of life. Is this the truth?
The creation of an organisation has as a vocation to make us advance in the process of connection, hyper-connection, transcendence or more, which in reality we aim to achieve. And those dreams are, in general, unconscious. There are beings who, upon founding their organisation, aspire to connect themselves, others to transcend, others to advance to much higher phases, which, since we have not analysed or even mentioned them here, we will not consider. When, even knowing and handling MAT, an ordinary person wishes to achieve an objective, let’s say belonging, and wishes to found a company whose typology is devoted most frequently to love, he is not going to manage to have a Reactivator organisation but one that is Promoter or Legislator; more often than not, Revealer; in exceptional cases, Constructor. Because the Promoter typology represents, for the Reactivator typology, connection, and the Legislator transcendence, the Revealer an even more remote and elevated phase, which we haven’t spoken about, and the Constructor an even more remote phase.
The reason for this is in the nature of our Orienter, whose basic function is to elevate itself and capture our spiritual nourishment, what brings us plenitude and elevates our spirit, making us advance in our access to truth. And our Orienter is always seeking a higher truth than the one, that, at each moment, we can consciously capture. It is at least one phase ahead of our historical reality. For example, a disconnected Constructor, in other words in Legislator phase, if he is very spiritually short-sighted, will dream with his Fortifier pre-connection and will create a Fortifier organisation so that it can help him to realise himself better. Only the great narcissists create organisations of their own typology, since they consider themselves to be the beginning and end of everything created or to be created. Everyone else, if we function moderately well, will create an organisation of the typology that connects us, if we function even better, an organisation that represents transcendence, and if we are very altruistic and spiritual we will create our cosmic pair. Hardcore idealists will create an organisation that presents itself as our dissociation but that in very advanced stages of growth will be revealed as our ideal complement for forming a team.
Having established these bases, next, we will share a basic set of tools for detecting the typology of organisations.