INTRODUCTION

At present, Argentine microenterprises operate within an ecosystem marked by volatility and uncertainty. In this context, innovation has ceased to be an option and has become an imperative for survival. However, innovation management does not depend solely on financial resources or technological tools, but fundamentally on the managerial knowledge that leaders deploy to interpret their environment.

Recent research on resilience in Latin American SMEs—for example, Orozco (2025)—emphasizes that one of the defining characteristics of innovation processes is that they unfold within conditions of uncertainty. Likewise, Moreano et al. (2025) highlight that in highly dynamic and competitive business environments, innovation is a key element not only for growth but also for the survival of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

The central problem addressed in this study lies in the fact that traditional administrative theory often reduces management to linear processes, overlooking the human and epistemological dimensions of knowledge. As Edgar Morin (1999) argues, we face a complex reality that demands a form of thinking capable of navigating uncertainty. In the Argentine context, this complexity translates into the need for managers who not only possess information, but who also develop knowledge born from the apprehension of reality (Zubiri, 1984) and from the ability to discern and act strategically within it (Foucault, 1969). Similarly, Villegas et al. (2025) point out that the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on SMEs at both global and regional levels, leading to temporary closures and economic losses due to the suspension of activities, and causing a significant reduction in employment in both formal and informal sectors.

The objective of this article is to describe the managerial knowledge that prevails in Argentine microenterprises with regard to innovation. Rather than adopting a purely descriptive approach, this study takes an analytical stance aimed at understanding how leaders apprehend their reality and transform it into innovative action. To this end, an epistemological triangulation is employed, connecting the voices of six business leaders with theories of complexity, sentient intelligence, and knowledge–power.

The following section presents the theoretical framework, prioritizing those concepts that are directly connected to the empirical findings, avoiding encyclopedic digressions in order to focus attention on the phenomenon of managerial knowledge in practice.

Theoretical–Epistemological Framework

Throughout history, human beings have evolved by seeking and applying their own truths within specific contexts shaped by their learning processes; that is, through knowing how to do, drawing on traditional, historical, and cultural knowledge, experience, intuition, among other forms of knowing. In this way, individuals are able to orient their actions according to the purposes they pursue and the utility they find satisfactory. Likewise, knowledge progresses and becomes linked to the circumstances of the environment in order to understand human reality.

From this perspective, and by way of example, when an economist demonstrates a country’s inflationary projection by analyzing its environment, the explanation is grounded in economic and financial theories and supported by statistical and probabilistic methods. Similarly, the economist seeks to analyze environmental reality by interpreting numerical data and producing macroeconomic projections, assuming that in similar scenarios the outcomes will be as expected, based on prior experiences or lived realities.

In this regard, Bacon (1949) argues that experience is the indispensable foundation of true knowledge, and that the progress of science depends on a rigorous method capable of transforming experience into general laws and practical applications. He emphasizes that human knowledge must be based on experience, but not on vague or casual experience, rather on a methodical and orderly one. According to Bacon, experience constitutes the starting point for discovering the general laws of nature, and these laws, in turn, should guide practice and the generation of new knowledge. Likewise, Hobbes and Kant highlight the importance of the subject’s experience in the formation of knowledge.

Similarly, Zuluaga (2017) points out that a physician heals a patient by following theories that have been validated and tested through scientific reasoning. Meanwhile, a person living in a rural context draws upon traditional, historical, and cultural knowledge to heal an individual within their habitat, following ancestral forms of knowing.

From this viewpoint, and analyzing the previous paragraph, it can be observed that both the physician and the rural practitioner arrive at the same outcome—the healing of the patient. However, the physician relies on science to achieve this result, whereas the other relies on doxa, as referred to by Plato, understood as ancestral knowledge, experiences, lived realities, practices, intuition, and experiential wisdom.

Likewise, when the economist employs scientific methodology to generate financial and statistical forecasts, they must also incorporate exogenous variables, drawing on experiential and contextual knowledge—that is, on their own knowing—in order to interpret the environment. In this sense, it is emphasized that knowledge and saber (knowing) complement one another; they are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

Thus, considering a reflective review of the philosophical aspects of knowledge and saber, it can be stated that saber is indeed a form of knowledge. This reflection is grounded in a theoretical review of the various philosophical positions developed over time, from classical thought to contemporary theories of knowing. Such a review allows for the literary conclusion that terminologies referring to knowledge have also alluded to saber, including intuition, experience, doxa, sensations, ideas, practice, among others.

In this regard, the concept of saber refers to broad knowledge constituted within individuals through diverse elements such as intuition, common sense, cultural patterns, practice, and lived experience. Moreover, as noted by Ramírez (1992, cited in Manríquez, 2008), saber includes the “memory of physical events that leave an imprint,” a type of knowledge that is difficult to codify—that is, difficult to express in words—and that may be either conscious or unconscious.

Thus, saber represents a form of knowledge that is used intuitively and is composed of both cognitive elements (schemas, paradigms, beliefs) and behavioral elements (skills, aptitudes, abilities). In this sense, according to Zubiri (1981), saber occupies a highly relevant place in the formation of episteme and science, referring to a form of knowing that has often been neglected in epistemological tradition, despite being an indispensable component in the formation of knowledge as a whole.

Accordingly, the concept of saber refers to knowledge that cannot always be expressed verbally and that is formed on the basis of individuals’ lived experiences, skills, values, and other characteristics. It refers to the essence and lived reality of each subject—experience that guides actions and decision-making—and thus helps explain why knowledge and observable behaviors differ among individuals, even when they have participated in the same processes of socialization and learning.

In this sense, Zubiri (1981) asserts that saber is an indispensable component in the formation of knowledge as a whole. From this, it follows that even the most explicit forms of knowledge are not devoid of saber, which is linked to intuition, instinct, personal knowledge, practical knowledge, and experience. Consequently, saber manifests itself as intellection, but also as a state in which the intellectual being exists. This intellection is precisely the apprehension of reality, insofar as the intellectual being seeks to sense, understand, and comprehend reality.

It therefore becomes relevant to emphasize that saber refers to the personal component that guides actions and decision-making, in the sense that no one knows or performs tasks in exactly the same way as others, even when individuals have undergone the same induction, training, and learning processes. This is explained by the fact that all information received and stored from external sources is incorporated into each person’s mind through a personal process of mental construction.

As a result, mental constructions differ because the reality lived or perceived by each individual is unique and incomparable. Consequently, each mental construction is personal and distinctive, incorporating assumptions and interpretations, as well as particular ways of seeing or understanding the world, beliefs, convictions, interests, life experiences, abilities, intelligence, among other elements.

On the other hand, in The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969), Michel Foucault (1926–1984) posits that immediate reality is understood through multiple perspectives contained within discursive formations. The author argues that knowledge is not the sole path to truth; truth may also be attained through the exploration of historical documents. Through such documents, events are organized and linked, revealing ruptures or shifts in modes of thinking over time. In this way, the subject’s access to truth is dynamic and evolves with context, taking into account epistemological ruptures that have generated new forms of thought.

Accordingly, Foucault (1969, p. 306) defines saber as “the elements that are indispensable to the constitution of a science, formed in a regular manner by a discursive practice, even if they are not necessarily intended to give rise to it.” Analogously, it can be inferred that human beings may construct a worldview by defining reality through collective learning, setting aside established and institutionalized precepts, thereby allowing forms of knowing to emerge without managerial or dominant control by major political or economic apparatuses. In this sense, truth is generated within each society through emancipatory forms of knowing, free from preconceived controls or norms.

Therefore, it is important to emphasize that administration is not a field of pure knowledge, but rather a construction of multiple forms of knowing that together shape a holistic vision of the object of study—organizations—in order to implement business strategies and actions aimed at achieving desired results.

Understanding managerial knowledge in Argentine microenterprises requires an approach that transcends purely technical administration and is situated within an epistemological dimension. To this end, the present research prioritizes three theoretical axes that underpin the empirical findings identified:

1. Intellection and the Apprehension of Reality

Managerial knowledge is not a purely intellectual act, but rather a relationship of sentient intelligence. According to Zubiri (1984), human beings do not merely think about reality; they apprehend it. This primordial apprehension of reality enables microenterprise managers to grasp the real features of their environment—such as crises, inflation, and changes in consumption—and to assume them as an integrated whole. This framework is essential for understanding how leaders capture everyday situations and transform them into opportunities for innovation.

2. Knowledge as a Device of Order and Power

From Foucault’s perspective (1969), knowledge is not a neutral reflection of truth, but rather a device that makes it possible to organize reality. In the management of microenterprises, knowledge functions as an exercise of power: managers use their logos to discern, classify, and determine what is relevant. This theoretical framework makes it possible to analyze how leaders, by possessing experiential knowledge, exercise strategic governance over uncertainty, confirming that those who hold practical knowledge also possess the capacity to intervene in and transform the organization.

3. Managing Uncertainty in Complex Systems

Given the volatile nature of the Argentine context, Morin’s (1999) theory of complexity is indispensable. Morin argues that knowledge must involve navigating an ocean of uncertainties. In this view, managerial knowledge is redefined as an ecology of action, in which leaders must accept chaos and error as part of the innovative process. This theoretical foundation directly connects with the finding that innovation in microenterprises is not linear, but rather a dialogical and adaptive response to a complex system.

METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted from a phenomenological–hermeneutic perspective. It took place between August 2023 and March 2024, using the phenomenological method, and consisted of the analysis of in-depth interviews with six business leaders, in addition to a bibliographic documentary review. The study draws on one of the major exponents of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl (1859–1938). In this regard, Méndez (2014, p. 94) states that for Husserl, phenomenology is “...the lived study of reality, examining the phenomenon in order to understand it, discovering its essence and nature as it is experienced.”

A non-participant observation technique and semi-structured interviews were used, applying interpretive strategies supported by the ATLAS.ti tool. This facilitated phenomenological–hermeneutic analysis aimed at revealing a description of managerial knowledge for innovation in Argentine microenterprises. The microenterprises studied belong to the Chamber of Small and Medium Entrepreneurs and correspond to the commerce–services sector. They are located in different areas of the Federal Capital in Buenos Aires, Argentina: Caballito, Parque Patricios, and Belgrano.

The present research was framed within the interpretive paradigm, adopting a qualitative approach at a descriptive–analytical level. The objective was to understand the nature of managerial knowledge from the perspective of the social actors themselves within the context of Argentine microenterprises.

Design and Participants: An intentional sample of six (6) key informants was selected, consisting of leaders and owners of microenterprises with more than five years of experience who have implemented innovation processes. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, enabling a fluid dialogue that facilitated the emergence of subjective meanings.

Analysis Procedure: In order to meet the requirement of clarity in category construction, data analysis followed these phases:

Inductive Categorization: A thorough reading of the transcripts was conducted to identify meaning units related to management and innovation.
Axial Coding: Initial codes were grouped into three emergent categories using the Constant Comparative Method. This process enabled a shift from individual narratives to conceptual abstraction.
Epistemological Triangulation: The resulting categories (Apprehension of reality, Logos/Reason, and Understanding of context) were not predefined; rather, they emerged from the contrast between managers’ voices and the theoretical foundations of Zubiri (1984), Foucault (1970), and Morin (1999). This procedure ensured that the identified forms of knowing were not mere descriptions, but theoretically validated constructions supported by data saturation.

Table No. 1. Methodological Framework Used.

Component	Description
Approach/Paradigm	Phenomenological–Hermeneutic. It constitutes the central framework for interpretation.
Data Collection Techniques	1. Non-Participant Observation: Conducted prior to the interviews (to become familiar with the business context) and after the interviews (to confirm specific aspects, recorded in field notes). 2. Semi-Structured Interview: Used to obtain the personal perspectives of key informants. A prior interview guide was prepared based on the theoretical framework.
Sample (Key Informants)	Six (6) managers from companies in the commerce–services sector, located in the Federal Capital (Buenos Aires, Argentina), affiliated with the Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises.
Interpretive Strategy	Coding and categorization supported by ATLAS.ti software, facilitating phenomenological–hermeneutic analysis.
Rigor (Reliability and Validity)	Methodological triangulation (non-participant observation and interviews) and data triangulation (verification and comparison of information from the six companies at different points in time). The criteria proposed by Miguel Martínez (2004)—reliability, validity, and structural corroboration—and by Guba—credibility, transferability, and confirmability—are applied.
Validation Processes	Categorization, contrastation, structuring, and theorization (Martínez, 2004) to facilitate the emergence of the theoretical structure.

Source: Author’s own elaboration (2025).

In this sense, the present doctoral research is framed within the qualitative paradigm, adopting a phenomenological–hermeneutic approach. This framework is appropriate because the object of study (business reality) is not a natural or objective phenomenon, but rather a social and intersubjective reality that must be understood from the perspective of its key actors. Thus, the choice of this combination is methodologically sound, as both approaches complement each other, as detailed below:

1. Phenomenological Component (Husserl): This component contributes the need for rigorous description and the search for the essence of experience. Its objectives are:

· Accessing the pure phenomenon: To describe the reality of management, as well as managers’ perceptions and lived experiences, as they appear to consciousness, without prior theoretical prejudices (through epoché or phenomenological reduction).

· Constructing units of meaning: To identify shared meaning structures within the interviews in order to understand the “what” of the managerial experience.

2. Hermeneutic Component (Heidegger/Ricoeur): This component contributes the need for interpretation and the recognition that understanding is always mediated by language, history, and culture. Its objectives are:

· Interpreting meaning: To move from the description of individual experience to an understanding of the “why” and the “how” of the underlying social phenomena.

· Articulating action as text: To apply Paul Ricoeur’s model of textual interpretation in order to analyze managers’ actions and discourses as “texts” that require mediation between explanation (structural analysis, coding) and understanding (deep meaning).

Table No. 2. Coherence and Operationalization

Process Stage	Theoretical Framework	Methodological Purpose
Data Collection	Phenomenology	To ensure a faithful description of lived experiences (the semi-structured interview as access to the subject’s experience).
Analysis (Coding/Categorization)	Phenomenology and Hermeneutics	Coding (Explanation): To break down discourse into units of meaning. Categorization (Understanding): To group and interpret the meaning of these units so that essential categories may emerge.
Structuring and Theorization	Hermeneutics (Ricoeur)	Structural corroboration/triangulation: To confront the categories with the theoretical framework and the data in order to produce a theoretical interpretation of the phenomenon.

Source: Author’s own elaboration. González, M. (2025).

Therefore, the justification for the relevance and integration of the phenomenological and hermeneutic approaches lies in the fact that the object of study is a social and experiential reality that must first be described and subsequently interpreted within its context of meaning. In this sense, these approaches are selected for their capacity to address the complexity of the social phenomenon (managerial management in firms) from the perspective of the actor, integrating descriptive rigor with interpretive depth.

Additionally, the relevance of the nature of the object of study as a phenomenon of experience is emphasized. The study seeks to capture the lived experiences, perceptions, and personal opinions of managers (key informants), prioritizing—through this approach—the consciousness and experience of subjects over predefined objective structures. Likewise, it is highlighted that managerial actions, decisions, and discourses are inherently carriers of meaning and are situated within a cultural and historical context (Federal Capital, commerce–services sector). Consequently, understanding this meaning cannot be merely descriptive; it must be interpretive.

Therefore, the integration of Phenomenology and Hermeneutics is articulated through a circular process that allows movement from the description of experience to the understanding of its deeper meaning:

Table No. 3. Integration of the Phenomenological–Hermeneutic Approach

Approach	Methodological Contribution	Function in the Study
Phenomenological (Husserl)	Provides the principle of descriptive rigor (epoché).	It is used in data collection and initial coding to describe managers’ experiences “as they are given” to consciousness, constructing units of meaning free from prior theoretical prejudices.
Hermeneutic (Heidegger/Ricoeur)	Provides the principle of meaning interpretation.	It is used in categorization and final structuring to interpret the meaning of experiences. It treats managers’ discourse as a “text” that requires explanation (category analysis) in order to subsequently achieve understanding (unveiling deeper meaning).

Source: Author’s own elaboration. González, M. (2025).

In essence, Phenomenology makes it possible to access and describe experience, while Hermeneutics allows that experience to be understood and contextualized; thus, the methodology begins phenomenologically and culminates hermeneutically.

On the other hand, the analysis of the interviews and field notes was carried out following the key phases of the phenomenological method, with the aim of reaching the essence of managerial experience and the structure of its meaning.

To this end, the first step involved the construction of units of meaning; this phase focused on fidelity to the informants’ discourse:

✔ Transcription: The six interviews were transcribed verbatim and read several times. The technique of horizontalization was applied, whereby, in an initial stage, each relevant phrase, sentence, or paragraph responding to the purpose of the study was treated as a unit of meaning of equal value.

✔ Segmentation and Identification: The discourse was segmented into discrete units. A unit of meaning was defined as the simplest expression that encapsulates an idea, concept, or significant lived experience expressed by the manager.

✔ Open Coding: Using the ATLAS.ti software, each unit of meaning was labeled with an in vivo code (using the manager’s own words) or with a descriptive code that captured its essence. This process resulted in a large number of initial codes.

Likewise, phenomenological reduction (epoché)—that is, reduction—constitutes the core of the method and ensures the purity of the analysis. It was carried out in two steps:

· Bracketing (epoché): A suspension of judgment (or epoché) was applied with respect to initial theoretical presuppositions (derived from the theoretical framework) and the researcher’s personal beliefs about management. The purpose was to focus attention exclusively on the phenomenon as it was presented by the informants.

· Eidetic Reduction (Search for Essence): Once the codes were grouped, eidetic reduction was conducted to refine and condense the units of meaning. Redundancies were eliminated and similar codes were clustered to identify emergent categories or invariant structures that represent the essence of the managerial phenomenon, regardless of the specific company or individual.

Similarly, the interpretation of findings is highlighted, moving from the descriptive level to the hermeneutic level in order to seek the meaning of experience (Ricoeur):

· Intersubjective Analysis (Contrastation): The essential categories obtained from each of the six informants were compared (data triangulation) to identify consistent patterns, significant differences, and cross-cutting themes. This stage constitutes contrastation (Martínez, 2004).

· Individual and General Structuring: An individual meaning structure was developed for each manager, describing how the categories are articulated in their particular experience. Subsequently, a General Structure or Structure of Meaning was constructed—a global configuration that integrates and explains the categories and relationships common to the entire sample.

· Hermeneutic Interpretation (Theorization): The final structure of meaning was subjected to hermeneutic interpretation. Here, the emergent structure was contrasted with the theoretical framework and the specialized literature. The aim was to go beyond description to unveil deeper meaning, implications, and the theoretical contribution of the findings to understanding the phenomenon, culminating in theorization.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the selection of the six (6) managers from companies in the commerce–services sector was based on an intentional or criterion-based sampling strategy, which is fundamental in phenomenological research.

1. Managerial Role: To be a manager or director with decision-making authority and a comprehensive view of the company’s operations.

2. Specific Sector: To belong to the commerce–services sector, which is vital to the economy of the Federal Capital.

3. Qualified Experience: To have a minimum tenure (three years) in the position or in SME management, ensuring a rich and well-established experience of the phenomenon.

4. Geographic Location: To be located in the Federal Capital, Buenos Aires, ensuring the contextualization of the phenomenon within a specific socioeconomic environment.

At the same time, in qualitative research with a phenomenological orientation, sample size does not seek statistical representativeness, but rather depth and richness of experience.

· The number of six participants is appropriate for the phenomenological approach, as it allows for an in-depth description of individual meaning structures (the voice of each manager) while also facilitating the subsequent search for the shared essence or general structure (eidos).

· Priority is given to the quality of information (qualified experience) over quantity, making it feasible to apply intensive analytical techniques such as phenomenological reduction.

In addition, it was confirmed that theoretical saturation was achieved with the sixth informant.

· Theoretical saturation is defined as the point at which data collection no longer produces new or relevant information regarding the essential categories of the phenomenon.

· From the fifth and sixth managers onward, the interviews began to reiterate the central categories and meaning structures previously identified, thereby validating the adequacy of the sample for describing the essence of the managerial phenomenon.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

An Epistemological Triangulation

The description of managerial knowledge in Argentine microenterprises reveals a structure that transcends traditional administrative management. When the findings are confronted with the theoretical foundation, the following can be observed:

1. The Dialectic between Uncertainty and Action

The leaders interviewed operate within what Morin (1999) conceptualizes as an ecology of action. The finding associated with the understanding of the situation within its contextual conditions confirms that innovation in Argentine micro-SMEs does not follow a linear planning process, but rather constitutes a response grounded in complex thinking. While classical theory seeks order, the managerial knowledge described here accepts uncertainty as the natural state of the market. Managers do not wait to have complete information; instead, they use their saber to navigate chaos, transforming crisis into an archipelago of momentary certainties.

2. Apprehension as a Driver of Innovation

The first emergent form of knowing, apprehension of reality, finds its foundation in Zubiri’s (1984) concept of sentient intelligence. This is not a manager who merely studies the market, but one who senses it and grasps it as a unified reality. The results show that forms of knowing born from practice and experience (as mentioned by the informants) are, in essence, the formalization of this apprehended reality. Innovation occurs because the leader has achieved a deep intellection of the real features of the environment, enabling purposeful action upon them.

3. Knowledge–Power as a Tool for Reengineering

Finally, the form of knowing identified as logos and reason (discernment) aligns with Foucault’s (1969) perspective. Discernment—distinguishing what is from what is not—is not a neutral act, but an exercise of organizational power. By defining what is urgent and what is innovative, the manager exercises governance over the structure of the microenterprise. Managerial knowledge thus functions as a device that orders the field of action, enabling the organization to reconfigure itself (reengineering) in response to current technological and social demands.

Relationship between Theory and Findings

1. Intellection and Knowing as the Apprehension of Reality

Managerial knowledge is not a purely abstract act, but rather a dynamic relationship between the subject and their organizational environment. As Zubiri (1981) points out, knowing consists of an apprehension of reality, in which the subject does not merely observe but appropriates the features of what is perceived. In the context of Argentine microenterprises, this process becomes evident when leaders are able to grasp and assimilate everyday reality, transforming uncertainty into new formations of judgment.

This primordial apprehension constitutes the basic fact upon which all knowing how to do is grounded. For the managers interviewed, this means that lived and perceived reality is the primary source of their managerial knowledge, enabling them to “grasp” it in order to generate adaptive innovation strategies.

2. Logos and Reason: Discernment in Management

Beyond initial apprehension, managerial knowledge requires a deeper intellectual process. The concept of logos allows managers to affirm what something is within their field of reality, while reason seeks the foundation of what has been apprehended.

In the managerial practice of microenterprises, this form of knowing translates into the capacity to discern what is from what is not. The findings show that, in the face of crisis situations such as the pandemic, leaders resorted to this state of reflection and discernment to implement process reengineering and technological transformations, grounding their actions in a dual truth that connects academic theory with situated practice.

3. Understanding and Comprehension and Their Implications in the Managerial Domain

It is relevant to highlight that leaders learned and gained experience within microenterprises during the pandemic by following their intuition and work styles. They emphasized the importance of constant communication with work teams, flexibility in decision-making, and the continuous analysis of the market, competition, and trends. This represents an ongoing process of learning, adaptation, and flexibility aimed at achieving organizational objectives.

In this regard, knowing how refers to knowledge acquired through experience, practice, and skills, as well as through understanding and reflection on reality. It is also related to each individual’s essence, intuition, and customs. Consequently, within the application of knowing, the essence of each person and their experiences become fundamental aspects in the construction of knowledge.

Nevertheless, knowing also involves the acquisition of new knowledge through courses, training, and formal education, as well as the application and practice of such knowledge in daily life. However, the importance of understanding, reflecting upon, and interpreting reality is emphasized as a means to strengthen and further develop knowing. Intuition is likewise considered part of knowing, as it can guide decision-making and the generation of new ideas. Thus, knowing is understood as the set of acquired knowledge, practiced skills, and personal experiences that are applied in everyday life.

4. Managerial Knowledge as Experiential Knowledge

Knowledge within organizations is not limited to explicit information. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) define tacit knowledge as that associated with mental models, beliefs, and technical skills (know-how) that are difficult to codify. This perspective is fundamental for understanding why managers value knowledge born of practice over purely theoretical knowledge.

As Drucker (2013) argues, knowledge has become the basic economic resource and the driving force of productivity. In microenterprises, managerial knowledge is conceptualized as an “art” because it integrates intuition, accumulated professional experience, and the capacity to act in complex contexts. Essentially, it is a process of continuous learning and flexibility that enables the achievement of innovation objectives through a deep understanding of the market and prevailing trends.

From this perspective, managerial knowledge in microenterprises is not merely a cognitive capacity; it also aligns with Michel Foucault’s (1969) conception of the relationship between knowledge and power. For Foucault, knowledge is not a passive reflection of reality, but rather a set of rules that allow reality to be “ordered” and acted upon.

In the findings of this research, this concept materializes when the interviewed managers describe their ability to decipher Argentina’s complex environment: their knowledge is not simply an accumulation of data, but a device for intervention. By apprehending reality and transforming it into logos (reason), leaders exercise strategic power that enables them to reduce uncertainty and establish new forms of organization and innovation. Thus, managerial knowledge functions as an instrument of internal governance in the face of external chaos, validating that those who possess experiential knowledge also possess the capacity to transform their organizations.

Table No. 4. Triangulation Matrix – Empirical Evidence vs. Analytical Interpretation

Emergent Category (Finding)	Empirical Evidence (Informants’ Voices)	Theoretical Support (Reference Framework)	Analytical Interpretation (Author’s Contribution)
1. Apprehension of Reality	“Knowledge is not what the book says; it is understanding what is happening on the street today.” (Informant 2).	Zubiri (1984): Sentient intelligence and the primordial apprehension of reality.	The manager does not merely receive data; rather, they “grasp” the real features of the Argentine environment in order to survive. Knowledge emerges from direct engagement with crisis.
2. Logos and Reason (Discernment)	“I had to sit down and think about what was urgent and what was important in order not to go bankrupt.” (Informant 5)	Foucault (1969): Knowledge as an ordering principle and a device of power/action. Foucault (1969, p. 306) defines knowledge as “the elements that are indispensable to the constitution of a science, formed in a regular manner by a discursive practice.”	Knowledge functions as a filter that orders chaos. Logos enables the manager to discern and exercise control (power) over market uncertainty. Likewise, human beings can construct a worldview by defining reality through collective learning.
3. Understanding of the Complex Context	“The pandemic forced us to reinvent the business in a single week.” (Informant 1)	Morin (1999) / Nonaka (1995): Complexity and the mobilization of tacit knowledge.	Innovation in microenterprises is not a structured plan, but rather a tactical response that emerges from the ability to translate complexity into concrete actions.

Source: Author’s own elaboration. González, M. (2025).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the analysis conducted, the following conclusions are presented, synthesizing the contribution of the study to the field of management:

First, managerial knowledge in Argentine microenterprises is defined as a sentient praxis. In line with Zubiri (1984), it is concluded that innovation does not stem from abstract planning, but rather from a primordial apprehension of the real features of the environment. Leaders grasp crisis and transform it into opportunity through direct engagement with operational reality.

Second, discernment (logos) functions as a device of strategic power. Drawing on Foucault (1970), the manager’s knowledge enables the ordering of external chaos and the establishment of a regime of truth within the organization. Innovation is therefore an exercise of authority grounded in expert knowledge that facilitates process reengineering in the face of uncertainty.

Third, management in volatile contexts requires an intelligence of complexity. As proposed by Morin (2016), effective managerial knowledge is that which navigates uncertainty. Microenterprises that innovate are those whose leaders have transformed tactical knowledge into practical wisdom, enabling them to adapt to a dynamic system in which change is the only constant.

Fourth, finally, the need to update managerial training models becomes evident. The study demonstrates that knowledge accumulated through experience and lived crisis constitutes the most powerful intangible asset for competitiveness, surpassing traditional administrative manuals in effectiveness within highly volatile contexts.

REFERENCES

Bacon, F. (1949). Novum Organum. Losada. (Original work published in 1620).

Drucker, P. F. (2013). Post-capitalist society. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina.

Foucault, M. (1969). The archaeology of knowledge (A. Garzón del Camino, Trans., 2003). Available at: http://ceiphistorica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/mfarq.pdf

Martínez Miguélez, M. (2004). Science and art in qualitative methodology. Trillas.

Méndez, G. (2014). Hermeneutic phenomenology in Paul Ricoeur: An integration for approaching reality. Gaceta de Pedagogía, (33). Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador, Instituto Pedagógico de Caracas, Venezuela.

Moreano, C., Moreano, G., Escobar, T., & Guerrero, L. (2025). Innovation and its management in SMEs. Ciencia Latina Revista de Administración y Finanzas. https://doi.org/ (if available)

Morin, E. (1999). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Santillana/UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378091

Orozco, J. (2025). Innovation in times of uncertainty. Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica. https://repositorio.una.ac.cr/items/0245fcfa-5f44-4577-a84e-050f1438ef7c

Villegas, R., Ziehlke, M., Gugini, N., Carbajal, F., & Márquez, F. (2025). Innovation during and after the COVID-19 pandemic in SMEs. Emancipação, 25, 1–8. https://revistas.uepg.br/index.php/emancipacao

Zubiri, X. (1984). Intelligence and logos. Alianza Editorial.

Zubiri, X. (1981). Sentient intelligence. Alianza Editorial.

Zuluaga, D. (2017). Relationship between knowledge, knowledges, and values: An effort to legitimize knowledges beyond science. Revista Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación, 8(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.19053/20278306.v8.n1.2017.5973

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

[1] Doctora en Ciencias Administrativas y Gerenciales. Universidad de Carabobo. Valencia, Venezuela. Email: gonzalezmigdlys@gmail.com. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4366-4512