{"id":20840,"date":"2026-03-24T20:15:48","date_gmt":"2026-03-24T19:15:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/primate.consulting\/?p=20840"},"modified":"2026-03-24T20:16:38","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T19:16:38","slug":"more-than-strategy-biological-functioning-matters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/primate.consulting\/en\/more-than-strategy-biological-functioning-matters\/","title":{"rendered":"More than strategy, biological functioning matters"},"content":{"rendered":"

*This is the English translation of the article by Marina Capizzi <\/span>published on \u201cForme\u201d (March, 2026)<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is not possible to talk about organizational functioning<\/strong> without considering the biological functioning<\/strong> of people, whose nervous system activates states of openness or closure in response to the signals it perceives.<\/em>
\nNeurophysiological<\/strong> configurations have a massive impact on organizational behaviors, but this does not mean that organizations are doomed to neuro-fragility<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is often said that organizations are made of people. Much more rarely is it said that organizations are made of bodies.
\n<\/strong>And yet, people enter workplaces not only with skills and roles. They enter with a body. A body equipped with an autonomic nervous system that continuously evaluates signals of safety or threat. And, based on these, it activates a biological state of openness that enables connection or closure that leads to defense. In practice, it shapes how we react, relate, and decide. Before conscious thought even develops. Can we talk about organizational functioning without considering our biological functioning? Can we ignore it when we talk about the work environment? No, we cannot.<\/p>\n

The body matters
\n<\/strong>Companies continuously invest in reorganizations, tools and technologies, and change management. All of this is right. But why do so many problems persist despite these efforts? For example: the persistence of silos and difficulties in collaboration and delegation, resistance to change, to taking responsibility, to innovation, etc. The reason is simple. Denying that we also have a body\u2014beyond skills, talents, and ambitions\u2014makes it harder to overcome certain organizational problems that arise from self- and co-regulation. What are we talking about? Basic biological mechanisms that enable\u2014or prevent\u2014us from opening up and connecting with others, with the context, and with ourselves. Connection is the neural foundation of mental, relational, and methodological openness. Without connection, we can forget about collaboration, cross-functionality, flexibility, and ownership.<\/p>\n

A new concept of organization
\n<\/strong>We can therefore say that organizations function first and foremost as distributed nervous systems that, depending on the perception of safety or threat, can foster connection (that is: listening, perspective-taking, authenticity, transparent communication, constructive conflict, etc.), or activate defense (that is: silence, rigidity, destructive conflict, role as a shield, etc.).
\n<\/strong>This perspective should not surprise us too much. We all know that in workplaces people constantly \u201ctalk\u201d to each other through posture, micro-expressions, tone of voice, silences, rhythms, proximity, feedback systems, and power configurations. In these \u201cconversations,\u201d bodies are primarily involved. With their autonomic nervous systems.
\nPolyvagal Theory, developed by the American neuroscientist Stephen Porges<\/strong>, introduces the concept of neuroception (the way the nervous system automatically evaluates whether a context is sufficiently safe or not), precisely to distinguish it from conscious perception. Before we even realize it, the body has already decided whether to open up or protect itself, whether to orient toward others or withdraw, whether to explore and find new paths or defend the status quo. An example? Here it is. Why don\u2019t we tell our boss that we disagree? Because our autonomic nervous system perceives the situation as a threat and activates survival mode: self-protection. So? Better to remain silent. Or. Do we perceive that the boss will appreciate a critique? The nervous system\u2014feeling sufficiently safe\u2014enters connection mode. We open up and speak our mind. Naturally. To contribute.<\/p>\n

Working on psychological safety
\n<\/strong>Attention. We are not talking about \u201cattitudes,\u201d but about real neurophysiological configurations that, when activated, profoundly modify our body\u2019s physiology (chemistry, brain waves, heart rate, auditory functioning\u2026) and, with it, the way we think, relate, and decide. With a massive impact on organizational behaviors. Contribute to the common goal or defend one\u2019s own? Speak up or remain silent? Explore or defend the status quo? In short, open doors or close them, build bridges or walls. All of this depends on the neural chain: the biological state active in bodies which, interacting with others\u2019 nervous systems, creates a work context that in turn influences how bodies function. Bodies influence the context, the context influences bodies. If closure prevails, closure feeds itself. If connection prevails, connection feeds itself. All true, but if these are unconscious dynamics, how do we govern them? In reality, this is precisely where a powerful space for action opens up. The fact that the autonomic nervous system operates unconsciously does not mean that it cannot be influenced. We do not directly control biological reactions. But we do control the conditions that make a state of openness and connection more likely\u2014or of closure and defense. This means we must work on the context that shapes people\u2019s daily neuroception. And this is where psychological safety comes into play as a neuro-organizational infrastructure that supports individual and collective performance. Because the higher the perceived psychological safety, the greater the capacity for nervous system regulation. And when the quality of neural connection among people increases, the ability to think together, decide, and learn\u2014from mistakes, difficult conversations, challenges, and disappointments\u2014increases as well.<\/p>\n

Performance and neuro-fragility
\n<\/strong>We are used to considering performance as the product of an individual. But this has not been true for a long time. What a person does, does not do, and how they do it remains important.
\n<\/strong>But in organizations, activities are interconnected. Individual performance does not exist. Performance is always the product of multiple individuals or teams working together. Therefore, performance also has a biological basis: it emerges from the ability of nervous systems to co-regulate. Teams that function well are not those without conflict, but those in which conflict does not systematically trigger defensive states. Where disagreement is not interpreted as an identity threat. Where mistakes do not put belonging at risk. Where speaking, biologically, costs less than remaining silent. Neuroceptive dynamics are a fundamental ingredient of every work environment. From this perspective, slowness, disconnection from customers and markets, persistent negative stress, silence, low levels of learning and innovation, dysfunctional control, lack of proactivity and engagement are all signs of organizational neuro-fragility. Because a neuro-fragile organization is a professional context that pushes the system toward defensive closure states, fueling both internal and external disconnection.<\/p>\n

How to intervene?
\n<\/strong>There are several interconnected actions to take. Here they are:<\/p>\n