From the author: This article was published in the proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference "Psychology of Management in Modern Russia: Labor and Organization Processes" The global economic crisis forces us to look for the reasons for its emergence and ways to overcome it. The scale of the current crisis and its duration are pushing for a deeper rethinking of the entire economic and business policy. Strategies focused on quick gains without taking into account the consequences are barbaric management leading to the destruction of many spheres of life of a modern person. So much has been written and said about the global economic crisis in recent years that it has turned into both simply “talking out” and a source of new income. Now there are many “anti-crisis” areas of business (including psychological), fueled by the very situation of the destruction of society. At the moment, there is “devastation” in the economy, in culture, in relation to health (obesity pandemic, the consequences of alcoholism, a significant increase in the number of congenital disorders health and the deterioration of the health of workers) reveals a systemic crisis of society. The center of this crisis is the barbaric psychology of greed, aggression and manipulation. One can say about the crisis in the words of M.A. Bulgakov: “This is a mirage, smoke, fiction!” I will risk paraphrasing his very famous expression: “The crisis is not in the economy, but in the minds!” First of all, in the minds of those who manage the development of society at different levels and in different areas. At a conference of one large International Medical and Psychological Association (in 2008) regarding business policy, one of the leaders said: “Humanism is a toy for teenagers , and we have a tough business.” This strategy led a thriving company to almost complete destruction within four years. Of more than a hundred branches of the company, there are only a few centers that are barely profitable. Similar examples are given by Eduard Stack, comparing the crises of two large French companies: “In both cases, difficulties or failures were born due to insufficient faith in people and their ability to change.” The attitude of managers towards employees, only as part of a profit-seeking mechanism, leads to huge staff turnover. People leaving an organization take with them knowledge, experience and their capabilities, which, with a more reasonable attitude, could be used for the development of the enterprise. How often, when hiring, does an employer say: “You can’t get sick here”? This attitude towards an inhumane attitude towards one’s own body in a person working without sick leave, without normal lunch breaks, with a work schedule that contradicts the natural needs of the body, leads to the rapid effect of burnout, decrease or loss of performance. So why do many managers continue to focus only on the immediate benefit, risking in the long term to lose not only the benefit, but also the enterprise itself? Perhaps the humanization of relations in business is hampered by an incorrect understanding of the very phenomenon of “humanism.” Gaining the experience of socialization, people, starting with their parents’ family, then in educational institutions and enterprises, gradually learn step by step either to know themselves and others, or to build a system of prohibitions that limit development. In the first case, a humanistic perception of reality, a value-based attitude towards a person allows the individual to develop freely, showing the maximum of his abilities. In the second case, humanism is understood as softness or utopia, and the picture of the world is drawn in the colors of the experience of the struggle of the offended for justice with the expectation of an imminent apocalypse. Perhaps this is where the desire to deceive others for short-term gain comes from. What if we assume that the promotion of humanistic values ​​can lead to positive development of the enterprise? Altruism, as concern for the well-being of others, for the common good, can be an example, 2005.