Referring to human resources in Latin America is an extremely broad topic that can be approached in various ways and in a way that ranges from macro features to questions of organizational behavior. In this opportunity, I write about what I identify as key aspects to be resolved in the relationship between people and organization to be competitive, a matter of great importance that has not become very popular as a topic of analysis in the region. The aspects that I identify are not the only ones but they are among the fundamental ones and, in my opinion, both have more open questions than true answers.
- Collaboration to be resolved; contribution of individual talent and group experiential knowledge to the organization Problematic link; people's commitment to the organization
It should be noted that all that is said are opinions, as such disagreeable, and not statements. The approach is intended to be practical and not theoretical, which is the way I am attracted to writing ideas, therefore there is no academic rigor.
Focus
Keys to improve personal relationships in organizations
To be competitive
Organizations, in the current globalized economic system that governs the world, to stay current in what they do and be profitable and sustainable compete in an open world market with the requirement to be competitive, otherwise they are not profitable and do not survive for long.
Being competitive, according to Porter, who is one of the gurus on this topic, means the following:
“Currently organizations in all fields have to compete to add value. Value is the ability to meet or exceed customer needs, and also to do it efficiently. Companies must offer value to their clients, and countries must offer value as business locations ”
Value is something that is recognized by others (the market) becomes an essential question: as use value (utility that it provides or need that it satisfies) and as exchange value that is constituted when one is willing to exchange or pay for it (good, service, investments).
In the organization's perspective, the condition of being competitive is expressed in the added value of what they do, with the market recognizing or not such value. In this process of combining factors to produce what is done, no one questions that the fundamental added value is provided by people, human capital as it is currently called, above the other factors.
The value added has always been contributed by people (concept of value A. Smith onwards), only that before (industrial era and post-war) the organic composition of capital (relationship between means of production and labor) was perceived as determining in the perspective of the organization and importance of business factors: the robustness of the organization was seen much more in fixed capital than in human capital.
In the last decades, especially now in the knowledge era, the vision has radically changed, emphasizing the substantive contribution of people in generating added value that determines organizational competitiveness.
It must be pointed out that being competitive is not a matter of moment, but rather a continuous journey where there is still no moment of rest, among other things, because the driving force of business is the consumption of people who increase not only in number but also in demands on the attributes of the product, be it a good or a service, in short, they require constant and rapid innovation.
And as an additional pressure factor, not least for the rest, they are consumers who have access to vast information through open communication networks worldwide, where they find out about the latest fashion to choose and acquire the most competitive offer. the market. In today's market "the customer is King", as Marketing specialists say, and getting a hold of your mind becomes increasingly complex.
For the same reason, on the side of the organizations, of whatever they do and offer, it is a complicated panorama and not at all easy, since it is not only necessary to maintain a position with a demanding and informed client of the alternatives offered, but It is also necessary to compete against competitors from different latitudes, where many have comparative advantages in cost factors that are very difficult to face, such as the labor force in China.
So in today's business world being competitive is a permanent rhythm requirement, it is like participating in a dance competition where the music does not stop, without rest or pause or even to catch your breath, where those who do not fall are falling. they can keep the rhythm and those who manage to keep dancing stay.
It sounds perhaps dramatic and even traumatic for those who ultimately fail to survive, but for others it is part of the lure of the business challenge and is seduced by risk and striving for ever greater achievements. This is how things are in this globalized market.
In short, being competitive is a condition for staying in business and it is a continuous dynamic process that does not end when a certain competitive advantage is achieved since the duration of this is increasingly shorter because another will appear with a comparative advantage. better lagging the obtained.
A number of other questions could be indicated, but with what I have said, it is sufficient to say that organizations, due to exogenously imposed demands (client markets), constantly and increasingly need the contribution of people to improve and innovate what they do. and how they do it.
Collaboration to be solved: individual and group contribution
Following the above, we have then that organizations to be competitive constantly and increasingly need the contribution of people to improve and innovate what they do and how they do it. And that means a continuous process and of increasing dynamics that, logically, implies substantially expanding the base of creativity generation of its collaborators, that is, at every possible level, and not focused solely on teams of thinking minds and Managers as before.
The required creativity that we are talking about, in good accounts, means that the individual talents of the talented and the group knowledge of teams that has been produced from the accumulated experience achieved through successes and errors in relationships with others are needed. and interaction with systems, processes, technologies and the external environment.
Organizations, in general, have individual talents and valuable accumulated experiential knowledge, it is understood that to a different degree according to the people and operational experience of the organization. Thus, it could be said that knowledge does exist within the organization. On the other hand, it is necessary to modernize systems and processes to stay competitive, but do not start with zero as knowledge.
And if we are less in agreement with that, then what you have to do is activate the talents to obtain the desired creativity and that's it… where is the problem then?
The problem is in the collaboration of people: specifically in what they are willing to deliver through their performance as added value, as a contribution plus, beyond the established activity or what the employment contract says.
Acting on the talents of people in the sense that they are willing to give the best of themselves as a contribution plus is not an easy thing to achieve, although it may seem so, especially when what is sought is that the contribution plus - both individual and group - be constant and growing, which requires expanding the participatory base.
And it is not an easy thing because it depends on the person's attitude towards the organization, an issue that as each person's relational behavior is conditioned by various elements that circulate in the work environment: the degree of job satisfaction, the motivation they feel in what it does, the relationship of dealing with superiors and distance from power, the conversational communication that is handled, the interpersonal relationships, the gap that the person perceives between what the organization claims to be towards its employees and what it really is, etc.
As these are changing categories, due to the fact that labor relations are not static but go through different moments, from good to bad, likewise people's attitudes also fluctuate.
In the context of the work environment, as a substantive conditioning factor of the person's attitude towards the organization, there is the existing internal culture, in the sense of the effect it has on people's behavior and performance.
An autocratic, non-participatory culture, with executives or managers who are not very empathetic, distant, arrogant, without listening skills, discriminatory treatment due to skin color or social level issues -like those that abound in Latin America- are very difficult to manage and obtain the talents and creativity of the members to the desired extent.
On many occasions, the organization does manage to obtain a good dose of creativity from the people and / or teams selected as key, an attitude that it obtains by applying tangible material incentives that trigger performance of contribution plus, but these are maintained as long as the incentive is maintained and even so it tends to be decreasing proactive attitude. In the end, they do not become a process of increasing continuity under the dynamics of people, therefore for organizations it remains a matter of permanent management.
Even organizations with a non-problematic internal culture, which could be described as pleasant, are not easy or clear about how to mobilize the creative participation of people as permanent performance, which is why many resort to leadership training, coaching, teamwork, among other actions.
In Latin America, a large number of public sector organizations represent illustrative cases of a culture of minimum contribution from their employees. The reasons are diverse and with differences by country and it is not possible to reach and write down questions of total validity for all public entities. However, there are a couple of mentionable aspects, characteristic of the culture of behavior of public organizations, that strongly inhibit the proactive attitude of people.
In this sense, the following can be indicated: the scarce recognition and valuation of the capacities that are made of people since in performance, the relationship of power and influence of the political prevails, feedback and critical judgments on how things are simply done It is not something welcome, it is almost an attitude defect of the person, the little consistency of the performance evaluation system that they apply that in the end ends up being a mere administrative procedure, the existing contractual employment relationship, and other labor relations.
So what is seen in public administration as a common phenomenon more than most, is a mass of people who prefer to do what is right and precise to fulfill their drawbacks and not even try to be inventive, thus losing important accumulated knowledge and talents. individual.
The desired contribution of individual and group knowledge
Individual knowledge: Organizations are clear that they need to strengthen the contribution of added value in individual performance, which means more creative input from each person to improve what they do. That is why they invest in the development of individual skills and abilities, leadership, technical training, etc. and recently in coaching.
But these actions and others, for the most part, have failed to induce remarkable or lasting changes in people's behavior, and not because of the lack of adequate capacity-building, but because the underlying problem of the matter is not affected, which, in summary, I think it is located in what the person is willing to give more out of his own will than out of obligation.
The degree of contribution plus that the person is willing to deliver depends on something that everyone knows but not everyone acknowledges that they know: more of the human relationship that is established over time and less in the economic condition or incentives of the moment.
And in the current labor relations that prevail in Latin America, they generally deal more with the material issue than with the human relationship with people. Addressing the former at the end is an administrative management decision, while the latter involves a specialized approach, which requires a true capacity for effective leadership among the punctual. I would say the type proposed by Ken Blanchard (Situational Leadership) who, in one of his latest publications "Leading with love" (2011), ultimately strengthens the human-based relationship component.
Group knowledge: as a category it could be said that it is built from the accumulated experience that through teamwork has been generated over time, the product of interpersonal relationships that are established by interacting with systems, processes, technologies and the external environment. All this, it could be said, generates group experiential knowledge that for any organization is valuable and important, as long as it constitutes organizational knowledge.
What happens in this dimension? The experience of functioning shows that organizational knowledge is more than just the sum of what its members know.
Expressed in simple but not rigorous terms, this could be illustrated as follows: if, for example, teams A and B each have 100 of accumulated knowledge, this does not mean that the organization can consider that it has those 200 of knowledge; Availability in terms that you can schedule your full application in one process (200 per say). We are not thinking about the methods that value intangible capital, regardless of how accurate they are, but rather about the group knowledge that exists in the organization, but this cannot mean that it is organizational knowledge.
In this sense, it is clear that there is knowledge but it is not clear how to transform group knowledge to the entire organization, so that it is accumulated knowledge of programmable-available application in the organization.
It is, in any case, a complex subject that is investigated through the theory of knowledge, relational theory of communication, and other approaches that have developed important contributions in this regard. There are successful experiences in mobilizing group knowledge (Google, Microsoft and others), but as far as I am informed, there is no proven method that is transferable-implementable in different organizations, type BSC to say the least.
To conclude with the collaboration to be solved with respect to group knowledge, it can be said that it means achieving that the accumulated knowledge of the people-teams is converted or transformed into organizational knowledge through a constant internal process that is fed back under its own dynamics and growing.
So we have two aspects of collaboration to resolve, which we see as key and critical to being a competitive organization in what it does internally and externally:
Keys to improve personal relationships in organizations
Finally, in the context of being competitive, there is one more element that operates in the organization-environment relationship that cannot be ignored: it is the organization's ability to quickly adapt to changes that take place in the environment.
We refer to change not per se but as the ability of the organization to constantly adapt to the changing environment imposed by the current business dynamic: full of new products, new competitors, new customer demands…
This is what is known as change management, a disciplinary approach that operates from the recognition that commercial and financial globalization has been imposing an accelerated change of scenery in business: in short, what was valid yesterday may no longer valid today.
To detect the scope of the changing condition requires strategic-tactical analytical capacity, and to incorporate the changes that must be made in the organization, leadership capacity is required.
But the critical factor of this adaptation are the people of the organization, specifically the resistance to change that almost as a rule occurs in the change processes that entail implementing new work practices and team relationships, organizational redesign with new working conditions, incorporate new systems, processes, technologies, etc.
With the above, a basic circle of the factors that determine the organizational competitive capacity could be drawn (I do not consider that they are the only ones, in any case). A separate issue is how the cause-effect relationship is established between them.
Collaboration to solve: basic relational circle
Collaboration to solve: basic relational circle
Problematic link: commitment
The problematic link is identified in the commitment relationship of people with the organization. It is not, in any case, the only thing to be resolved in this relationship, but I do see it as a key fundamental factor to manage the collaboration to be resolved discussed in the previous point with lasting effectiveness.
There are many ways to approach people's commitment to the organization, from purely theoretical to applied, that have been developed through concepts of commitment management, competence management and other approaches.
On this occasion we will see this matter by taking a critical look at what happens in the practice of many organizations in their way of relating to employees: the paradox that arises between what the organization asks of its collaborators and what it provides them in the employment relationship.
Brief opinion of the general situation:
- Organizations are failing to activate people's talents and creativity to the extent they need for competitive performance; people bring less creativity than they could provide; the varied battery of methods to manage commitment, motivation, talents, proactive participation, etc. They have a positive but not lasting effect, they tend to “fade” after a while. The organization needs to be talented and creative, in order to be competitive, but not only at times but as a constant and sustainable process:This is mainly provided by the commitment due to its more enduring character as opposed to the motivation that is more transitory and fluctuating. People are more demanding regarding what they receive in exchange for what they give and increasingly individualistic as a result of the world economic system that governs working relationships: therefore achieving your commitment is complex
Before entering what I see as paradoxical in organizational behavior regarding the commitment they ask of people, I think it is necessary to establish what is understood by commitment and motivation.
Concept of commitment: The word commitment derives from the Latin term compromissum and refers to an obligation contracted. The definition of commitment is conditioned by each person, being an attitude of participation in what is happening.
Commitment can be seen as a responsibility assigned and accepted voluntarily by oneself that determines a behavior motivated by the desire to give one's best from the knowledge, abilities and skills available.
According to D. Mc Gregor (1960) "Commitment to goals is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement and the most important is the satisfaction of needs of the self and personal fulfillment"
I quote this definition because the fact that for a little over 52 years the knowledge of organizational behavior has had such a successful approach and that it has not been applied properly in the practice of organizational performance does not stop calling my attention.
Had it been, the commitment factor would not continue to be a critical issue for many organizations. There are a number of other good approaches as well, but they couldn't be said to have had a forceful effect on business practice.
I also include another quote about engagement, by Robert Dailey (Organizational Behavior, Edinburgh Business School), since it seems quite nutritious for understanding the subject:
“Commitment to the organization is defined as the level of employee identification with the organization. It has three components:
I. believe in and accept the objectives and values of the organization, II. be willing to put considerable effort into the organization
III. want to remain a member of the organization.
Commitment to an organization is different from job satisfaction in that it requires a broader perspective (relative to the entire organization), while job satisfaction stems from the employee's reaction to their position. Job satisfaction suffers short-term fluctuations that depend on the immediate conditions related to the job.
On the contrary, the commitment to the organization develops over time, slowly but firmly. Thus, it is possible for an employee to be satisfied with his work without being committed to the organization ”l
Commitment can be seen as a feeling of identification and group belonging and is not the same as motivation, they are closely related concepts but not synonyms. Many external consultants and trainers tend to put solutions for both aspects in the same “package”, which is a mistake, since commitment is a matter of long breath and motivation is short.
As a concept: «Motivation is, in short, what makes an individual act and behave in a certain way. It is a combination of intellectual, physiological and psychological processes that decides, in a given situation, how vigorously one acts and in which direction the energy is channeled. " (Ricardo Solana).
Motivation responds to a combination of the person's wishes (recognition, professional achievement, material benefit, power, etc.), and as such it is possible to manage through various mechanisms that to various degrees provide results: promotion in the hierarchy, better remuneration, formal recognition, awards, etc.
This is how we talk about extrinsic motives (search for rewards at work) and intrinsic (effects in themselves, such as learning or satisfaction with a task), as well as other motives, but we do not need more for our central theme.
While commitment is not something manageable in the same way as motivation, among other things, because it removes issues of the person's emotionality beyond what motivational recognition removes.
Commitment to a certain group, organization or person is created in people's minds through voluntary feelings of belonging and identification, not imposed. For example, you have a commitment to the family because you belong to that family. There is also a commitment to the religion that is practiced, to the sports or social club that one participates in, to the group of friends that one has, etc. because there is a sense of belonging and group identification.
Commitment becomes a state of the individual related to belonging, from the very feeling of value and / or aspirational identification positioned in the person's mind. Loyalty is constituted from commitment: one is loyal to those who commit and commits based on similar values, not opposed, by the way of treating relationships that generates human closeness, by beliefs, objectives, desires, shared aspirations, etc..
A good pay does not generate lasting commitment since it is perceived that you receive for what was given (work), the same a prize: it is perceived that you earned it. While commitment is more related to what is received through human relationship that reaches the person's emotionality. For the same reason, it tends to last and strengthen when the humane treatment that triggered it is maintained.
The paradox of what the organization asks and what its employees give
It is quite usual that the organization in its relationship with its employees asks them for commitment to the Company, that they give their best, of their talents and creative capacity in what they do, through verbal speeches, memos, emails and other communicational forms., through expressions that are "in their own business", that the organization "is them", etc.
But at the same time, it turns out that the rules of the game that the organization imposes on people in the employment relationship are clear to everyone: everyone knows and has mentally assimilated as something normal otherwise, that no one is essential, everyone is "changeable", the collaborator remains as long as it "serves" the organization and when it ceases to fulfill what is expected of it or no longer "serves" due to internal restructuring (a common issue due to business mergers), without further formality it tells it "Goodbye" with a gift when you have spent many years in the company or just the settlement.
The paradox in all of this is tremendous and obvious: the organization asks for loyalty and a feeling of belonging to the person, but makes it clear that they can "throw it" out on the street at any time.
That being the case, it obviously sounds very difficult to get the commitment of people to give the organization the maximum of themselves or all the talented potential they have: they deliver what they must deliver to stay in the organization even when it suits them. In this type of employment relationship, which is like a catwalk, belonging and loyalty become meaningless concepts.
Finally, when it comes to managing commitment, there are cases that border on the absurd and are even not credible. I will comment on a case that I was able to know, among others that I have known, that does not stop surprising me because it is an international European insurance corporation that operates in Chile: it turns out that the first motivational talk they provide to new sales executives who periodically recruit (as usual in the Insurance Companies), is done by the head of training, by profession a psychologist, and this, in order for the new applicants to commit themselves strongly to their work and to the organization, explained as a strong compromising argument to convince them that the The work they would do, sell insurance, was not a business but a true "apostolate" since with the insurance they would deliver security and happiness to families.What is striking about this is that he was a psychologist, that is, a professional with enough training to know the ridiculousness of his words. This message not only had no impact on vendor engagement, it was laughable.
But it is not an isolated or unique case: I have been able to learn about other nonsensical situations in large and important organizations, even in universities where more intelligence is expected to circulate since they finally transmit knowledge.
To conclude, I think that people, given the type of existing labor relationship, can mostly feel an obligation to the organization and little commitment: I think that to mobilize people's commitment to the organization, you have to do it from human relationships.
