The dialectical nature of the current socio-economic process at work, namely, the endless pursuit of maximization of profits leading towards a truncated understanding of Man, which in turn leads towards the further quest for maximization of profits, and so on, appears to pose an endless impasse. Breaking this negative dialectic involves: 1) having managerial studies develop and adopt an understanding and theory of Man that embraces a "radical humanism"; and 2) adopting a conception of corporate governance that aims to serve Mankind in lieu of exploiting it. The radical humanism referred to in this paper considers the human being as a being of speech, of symbols, of senses, of society, of free-will, and not just simply as a resource at the service of the company and of maximization of profit. Embracing a radical humanism, as well as a governance that aims to serve Man rather than exploit him introduces a virtuous dialectic: the adoption of a fuller understanding and respect for Man and Nature leads to the production and subsequent sharing of profits, which in turn reinforces the respect and understanding of Man and Nature, leading to further profits (and subsequent sharing), and so on. Adopting a humanistic approach within business activities and interactions is of the utmost priority if society, and by extension, we as human beings both in the individual and collective sense, are to survive, flourish and emancipate ourselves. At first glance, mainstream management literature would appear to be showing encouraging ‘signs' of enlightenment across the myriad of leitmotivs that are discerned across such words as "humanism", "ethics", "corporate governance", "social responsibility for business", and "environmental responsibility". In fact, if there is a major point of convergence for the many streams of literature, it is the importance of the human person or personal attitudes and behaviors at work. No matter the trend or topic: whether it is about corporate ‘culturalism' (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Schein 1985 and 1991) or motivation and the valorization of human resources (Peters and Austin, 1985; Waterman, 1987; Crozier, 1989; Archier and Serieyx, 1987); whether it is across total quality, the re-introduction of the meaning of work, ‘empowerment' (Juran and Gryna, 1980; Michel, 1989; Serieyx, 1989; Peters and Austin, 1985; Mintzberg, 1989) or the realization of the workplace as an area of social interactions and sharing (Peters and Austin, 1985; Weitzman, 1984; Peters, 1987; DePree, 1989); or whether it is the various pre-occupations on ethics, ethico-spirituality or other management methods aiming towards cohesion, participation, initiative and creativity at all levels, what stands out most clearly is the insistent call from all quarters on putting the human element at the forefront. Yet let us not fool ourselves into thinking that these various streams reflect any significant attempt at creating business frameworks or management practices that embrace man's emancipation as a finality onto itself, or "man as being the measure of all things"

No presente trabalho, o autor procura analisar, ou mais exatamente desconstruir, a essência do pensamento dito de “estratégia” e de governança das organizações, atualmente dominante na cena acadêmica da administração. Servindo-se de uma leitura tanto histórica, heurística, como epistemológica e metodológica da obra e do sistema dominantes no assunto, denominado por ele “porterismo”, o autor faz um balanço crítico do conjunto de teorias da “estratégia” gerencial em geral e daquela do autor mais considerado no assunto: Michael Porter.

In this essay, the author analyses, or more precisely deconstructs, the essence of thinking about “strategy” and the overall governance of organizations predominating the current academic management scene. By drawing on a simultaneously historical, heuristic, epistemological and methodological reading of the dominant work and system on this subject, which he refers to as “porterism”, the author presents a resolutely critical review of the full range of theories of managerial “strategy” as well as those of the most notable author in the field, namely, Michael Porter.

O autor argumenta que os escritos tradicionais e os debates atuais sobre as novas idéias em administração e em teoria das organizações exigem um embasamento teórico adequado. Propõe então, que aqueles que questionam o futuro e a eficiência das organizações ocidentais precisam levar em consideração as contribuições do humanismo-radical neo-marxista mais do que privilegiar o costumeiro funcionalismoconsensual. Nesse sentido, os teóricos e práticos da administração deveriam integrar tais contribuições a fim de compreender a transformação necessária de um tipo taylorista de empregado passivo e obediente em um outro mais ativo e cooperativo. Assim, para alcançar uma renovação da administração, os pesquisadores devem adotar uma visão global da humanidade, para oferecer aos trabalhadores uma maior margem de controle sobre seus ambientes pessoais e sobre suas condições de trabalho.

The author argues that the present mainstream writings on, and debates about "new” ideas of management and theories of organization lack adequate theoretical assumptions and background. He proposes that those who question the future and efficiency of Western organizations need to rely more on a radical-humanistic and neo-Marxist conceptualization than on the functionalistic tradition. Therefore, management theorists and practitioners should integrate such a concept in order to better understand how to transform the passive-obedient Taylorist employee into an active-cooperative one. To achieve a truly renewed form of management, researchers must adopt a global view of humankind, in order to give workers a significant measure of control over their own environments and working conditions.