The new is always a challenge to established ideas, and to daily compulsive practices and habits, although in this case the issues related to the so-called Human Capital, and the discipline of Organizational Learning that we are dealing with have been developing for a few years now. But the “new”, such as the new theories of growth, does not necessarily correspond to progress, so that here we can find ourselves, and in fact, we find ourselves, with a double challenge; interpret and analyze the new, and assimilate the positive and develop it from their own positions.
These concepts and their instrumentation arise and develop in a moment of revision of the parameters of competitiveness, and technological and productivity development seeks explanation based on the capacities for innovation and accumulation of human capital.
Although our interest is to stop briefly at the organizational level, it is not possible to ignore the fundamental approaches from the economy, political economy, administration and cognitive theory, their interconnections, trying to avoid or limit economic or technological determinism, and reductionism. monodisciplinary many times present in writings and proposals on these topics. But, above all, it means the links between policies at the macro and meso levels and the policies and practices at the level of organizations that develop productive and competitive capacities (Alhama, BR and García, BJ (2006).
As Herrera, R. (2005) said: "The theory of endogenous growth was born within the American intellectual establishment, from the impulse of committed authors who once made themselves known by launching the decisive offensive against Keynesianism." They appear at a time of necessary mutations of capitalism. According to Herrera, R. "these models do nothing more than import and revitalize micro-neoclassical concepts, such as externality, and introduce the belief in performance and technical progress, but do not provide any collective dimension."
The questions and answers delve into complex issues, little or nothing traveled by the disciplines in the practice of organizations, although with a certain theoretical development, more likely to stay within the themes and traditional borders of each of them.
Pero, una cosa es cierta, y es que si se quieren desarrollar organizaciones en “transformación permanente”, exigencia de la dinámica actual que impone el conocimiento y aprendizaje como factores fundamentales del desarrollo de organizaciones del conocimiento, de la economía del conocimiento, o como prefieren algunos autores para significar la importancia de la dinámica, de la economía del aprendizaje, hay que romper con paradigmas de administración, de dirección, de organización, de gestión establecidos, pero sobre todo con la visión del individuo despersonalizado, como parte de un colectivo humano que forma el sistema social complejo que representa cualquier organización, incluida la empresa.
The renowned author of The Fifth Discipline, Senge, P. In an interview some time ago, he defined himself as an “anti-human resource”, and defined the current policy followed by companies as “carcinogenic”. He points out that "people are not resources of the organization, they are the organization".
If any evolution has had the development of Human Resources (HR) approaches in the last half century, as it is sometimes said, it has not been from personnel administration to knowledge management and learning organizations. Nor has the HR paradigm been overcome, on the contrary, it has been deepened as a cost, as an investment and as an asset (intangible).
So the first thing that must be clarified is that if the HR have been converted into Human Capital (CH), given as a positive advance by some, that is, assets owned by a person, which they count as company assets, It has been precisely because an attempt has been made to define its competitive cost more accurately, the effectiveness of services has been related to the productivity and efficiency of the company, which have ceased to be services to become a functional or strategic area or activity of the first order, insofar as objective, measurable measures have been proposed in financial terms of their contribution.
Absolute positivist dominance, the numbers speak, the quantitative prevails over the qualitative, and human needs, which should be the essence of any organizational system, continue to be in the background.
This, from our position, is not an advance for human management from the humanistic ethic, and from the position of considering the company as something more than an economic cell, but as a social organization, It is a functional overvaluation of the human as a resource, whose instrumentation has nothing to do with the idea of what Fidel expressed at the event on the occasion of the first graduation from the Latin American School of Medicine, when he pointed out that: “Human Capital implies not only knowledge, but also and very essentially, consciousness, ethics, solidarity, truly human feelings, spirits of sacrifice, heroism, and the ability to do a lot with very little ”, sets guidelines for not considering it in its most extended and applied definition, that is, in terms of“ knowledge and skills ”. Precisely for this reason,it is necessary to continue delving into the subject, because otherwise the change from human resource to human capital is only in name, with little of the human essence, of the main human.
But CH is identified with the stock of knowledge, with abilities, with skills, which in turn must be materialized, therefore new theoretical and functional tools are developed, become input-competences, that is, they must be materialized, such that human resource management, or management by competencies, becomes "management by human capital competencies". It is the selection of the most capable, the survival of the most capable of Spencer.
Regardless of the positive of the original theoretical approaches or the practical intentions of motivational theories and behavior modification with an impact on productivity (Barnard, Mc Clelland, Pritchard, Boyatzis, Hammel, Leboyer, among others), they are still relegated in practice, to the background or the needs are unknown, in the broadest sense of the concept, and thus, in no way can one go beyond the traditional job analysis; and the competitions, every day, are carried out in a more aggressive, more exclusive way, and constitute one of the main sources of work stress.
Assuming labor competencies does not mean a superior step to the treatment of human resources, and the approach to human capital, without considering needs, is the same approach to human resources, with new tools.
Because, functionally, it is about looking for best practices, and "learning" and "apprehending" behaviors, which leads to a vision perhaps even more mechanistic than the previous vision of the organization. It is clear that everyone cannot, and does not, have to do things the same way; The expected results, which is nothing new, can be reached in many ways. It is not about identifying weaknesses, but talents, and strengthening these. But, talents may or may not be identified with competencies.
It is Engels (1974), in the first half of the 19th century, in his work “The situation of the working class in England” who writes: “Competition is the most perfect expression of the war of all against all, which rages on modern bourgeois society ”.
Almost daily we verify that “knowing how” is not enough, and that it does not materialize if the components “wanting to do” and “being able to do” do not have a positive sign. So it is essential to understand and work "the organization as a collective", but the subject as an individual as well.
It is repeated over and over, that what matters, above all else, is superior job performance according to the organization's strategic objectives, but the individual's objectives and needs are postponed; first the organization, then the collective, then the individual. There is an unsolved problem here, and it is the hierarchical relationship of the satisfaction of individual and collective needs; If collective needs are permanently hierarchized and individual needs are neglected, this can result, in functional terms, in the dysfunctions of the organizational system, and the treatment of the subject as the object of the organizing subject or the state subject. A conjugation of needs is imposed, even with temporal priorities at the level of the superior system that can strengthen the system,but always attending to individual needs; and when needs are said, we refer to needs of being and having.
This implies a cultural change that breaks with old compulsive forms, and social relations of the complex system of the organization in which horizontal relations are not determined by vertical relations; an organization and relational configuration that coherently integrates the organizational structure with the decision structure, but on the basis of broadening the social base of management.
Make no mistake, human resources management, strategic management, or competencies, are still conceived fundamentally, and in most cases in practice, as assurance of the "human resource" to the productive business activity. And from the technical-conceptual point of view, the functional approach predominates, and the focus on the job (remember that Parsons' proposal to consider results instead of qualities arises at the time when job analysis was promoted from requirements-requirements).
This is far from a holistic approach, and when processes, technology and people become interrelated, personal and social characteristics are not fully considered, since this implies cultural changes that break with compulsive forms.
Here are the concepts of knowledge management and learning of organizations, as a proposal to have results both in the personal growth of workers and in the development of the organization. The affectations for one or the other side of the equation, or for both, have often been highly negative and sensitive; not only at the individual or organizational level, but also at the social level, not only for work but for employment.
So if there has been any evolution, it is in the traditional measures of the HR function, which have gone from statistical terms or behavioral terms to financial terms, thus finally entering, what has historically been criticized, to be connected the business like the others, doing well what Drucker said: “You cannot manage what you cannot measure”, or what Harrington said: “Measuring is the key. If it cannot be measured, it cannot be controlled. ”
So that thought-knowledge-subject-individual-society become objects, merchandise, objects of calculation and value speculation, in competitive factors, with increasingly instrumentalist, more efficient and productivist proposals. We must have answers for current technological development and productivity, which seeks explanation based on the capacities for innovation and accumulation of human capital, but the quality of work life (QWL), which is an essential part of human capital, continues to be postponed..
What does not change for the different proponents to substitute human resources for human capital?
It goes without saying that, from the developed capitalist societies of the proponents, the general questions that are the basis of the particular questions do not change, and even maintain a logic; The worst thing is that we make our own the private proposals of others, which will be systematically colliding with our philosophical and ideological bases, with our policies, and this can lead to a conceptual vacuum and in the absence of our own principles.
The capital-labor relationship does not change, in that capital capitalizes all the determinations, among them labor, to reconfigure society and organizations. In Marx's words "it completely and radically revolutionizes the technical processes of work and social groupings", so that the approaches and models serve the valorization of capital and its antagonistic realization with work.
These relationships and determinations in which we also find education, the labor force market and the situation of the worker and the relationships between them, cannot be addressed only by economics and political economy.
The relations between the disciplines do not change, nor does the (Inter) disciplinary treatment, which follow compulsive forms, both at the level of organizations and at the level of the individual, this by much treatment of the "I", of the subjective, does not lead to the solution of social and organizational problems; It is not on a personal level that they will be solved.
Collective motivations and organizational behaviors do not change, which even innovators continue to operate fundamentally with compulsive forms imposed by past experiences, because it is a faster and safer response. This cannot be addressed only by administrative and organizational disciplines.
It does not change the treatment of Organizations as a social system, in their social relations, in their relational organization, which is essential if the performance of work is not to appear as a loss of reality for workers, according to Marx. Organizing people into work groups or effective units has always been an objective of the administration process and the work organization function. But the management of social relations has not been the object of sufficient and necessary attention. As Marx said, the concept of productive worker does not include, therefore, in any way only a relationship between action and useful effect, between worker and product of labor, but also a specifically social relationship of production, historically emerged… ".In our society it goes through the urgent need to expand the social base of the management and organization of the processes; which includes, among others, the dynamic learning capacities in organizations. This could not be addressed only by Sociology.
Lastly, and without this, the above is difficult, the treatment of the subject as an object, be it the Capital subject or the State. The intersubjective relationship and its link with collective actions, does not go beyond the fascination with the subjectivity of the collective actors, but it is not taken into account that intersubjectivity not only modifies each of the subjects but also constitutes them, and that the relationship not only accounts for the way in which the subject constitutes its objects, but also the way in which they shape their activity, including the subject himself, that is, both are constructed and delimited in, and through, the relationship. Then you have to work it, manage it. But this cannot be addressed only by Psychology.
So, neither the tactics nor the vision of the farmer, nor that of the cosmonaut, are enough by themselves, both are necessary. Neither the farmer, looking at the land in the furrow where he walks, advances beyond it, nor the astronaut with his broad vision, will be able to advance without the farmer's help.
What are the dynamic learning capabilities that lead an organization to learn?
It involves a context, a modified social process, and a qualitatively superior, interrelated dynamics that cannot be ignored in any way. It implies new social relations in the organization, because it breaks with the continuity management and imposes an innovation management with prioritized treatment of the person. But, it is also necessary:
- Collective will, autonomy and a high degree of collective responsibility; above the development of key generic and transversal competences, individual and group, so that they can be used (Alvesson, 2004) Stimulate the adoption of systemic thinking as a result of: Motivating staff knowing the proposed goals; Making explicit the prevailing mental models or ways of perceiving the world, placing them on the surface and challenging them; Build a shared vision among all the members; Facilitate the integration of work teams, the development of group skills and attitudes, as opposed to individualism (Senge, 1992).
These elements could then shape the behavior of a learning organization, as Nonaka said.
In the words of Lage, A. (2006): “Obviously the issue of the transformation of knowledge into an economic resource and especially its concrete commercial realization is a very complex issue. The knowledge economy is being born and in nothing that is born there is experience. It will take a long road of diversity of strategies; trial and error. "
“The accelerated and knowledge-intensive economy of our time clearly requires more flexibility and less standardization than that of the age of large-scale industrial production. This, in turn, will require a high degree of decentralization of operational decisions towards the high-tech companies that emerge, full cycle, we add. And at this point in the organization and management of knowledge generating entities, there is not much clarity between us ”(idem).
But in this matter, the greatest concern is in relation to the possessors and creators of knowledge, and the treatment of this as object, consequently of the person as object.
In the measurement of intangibles and the treatment of knowledge as a human act, as an action, as a dynamic human process, as a collective process, and not as stock, object, thing, merchandise, which in no way differs from the treatment that was formerly given to physical abilities, yes there are problems not solved by us, and there are more questions than answers.
For this reason, in this short article, we try to establish the importance of social relations, of organizational relations, of the links between the organizational structure and the decisional structure for the full development of the essence of human capital; conscience, ethics, solidarity.
Bibliography
Alhama, BR and García, BJ (2006): “Organizations in Learning and Knowledge Management”. Site www. CubaSiglo XXI
Engels, F. (1974): The situation of the working class in England. Social Sciences Publishing House, Havana.
Fidel, C. (2005): Speech at the First Graduation of the Latin American School of Medicine, Carlos Marx Theater, August 20, Havana.
García Brigos, JP (2005).: “Human capital, dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction”, “Marx Ahora.
Gerald, AD (2003): Human Capital in the theories of economic growth, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua. Eumed, net, Malaga.
Herrera, R. (2005): The State against the public service? The hidden face of endogenous growth. Marx Now International Magazine No. 19.
Lage,A. (2006): “Propiedad y expropiación en la economía del conocimiento” en El Economista de Cuba.
Mertens, L y Palomares, L. (2006): “Capacidad Dinámica de aprendizaje en las Organizaciones ¿gestión de la ambigüedad y dilemas base de la economía de aprendizaje?”, Seminario Internacional Globalización, Conocimiento y Desarrollo. UNAM, México.
