Competitiveness is a word that is currently in vogue, being expressed in all languages and in all settings; It is present in the scientific and technological, cultural and economic, educational and business sectors. It is mentioned in infrastructure activities and in the environment, in communications and in health, financially and in state entities, in the peace process, in citizen coexistence and in business studies. In other words, the term competitiveness, as a notion and / or concept, for better or for worse, has sensitized, in one way or another, the feeling of all that survival in the free market society implies.
In this sense, official workers, some state officials, and private company workers attack it, anathematize it, and the unions revolt. For competitiveness, the State and the private entrepreneur are racking their brains by reinventing themselves, applying reengineering and restructuring. Professionals and experts make insinuating contributions, intellectuals strive to theorize, positively or negatively. This is the case of Michael Porter in the Competitive Advantage of Nations, who with the study of 10 nations, elaborated his own theory of competitiveness,investigating "why do companies based in certain countries achieve international success in clearly differentiated segments and sectors"? whose search focuses "… on the decisive characteristics of a nation that allows its companies to create and maintain a competitive advantage in certain fields…"
Competitiveness is promoted by business leaders; the mediocre are scandalized and the idiots do not take notice of their existence. Some praise it, others deny it; some know it, others have only heard it mentioned. The last Bolsheviks blame it for the communist disaster, and the capitalists do not agree on it. "The productive sector has contradictory opinions on national competitiveness." (See Mónitor report, Medellín Chamber of Commerce, 1990).
The concept of competitiveness is so verbose and so broad, that for some it is the product of "Neoliberalism." Such is the case of Ernesto Samper, who blamed the Economic Openness for being "… the cause of all the country's ills…" (See the time of May 8/99). While for others it is the best thing that has happened to humanity "OMG what a fantastic time to be alive!" That is what John Naisbit states in his book Macro Trends. For the Church, competitiveness is “savage capitalism,” in short, competitiveness has become the “shock” of the present, as it is a controversial word that gives rise to debates; it is a topic of forums; it is cause for strikes; it is the element of intellectual constructs; lends itself to newspaper articles;It is a raw material for writers of international stature and is accepted as a capital resource.
But competitiveness is there, waiting to be sustained as an advantage, with techniques and technologies, generating concepts and producing expectations and results. Competitiveness resists all attacks, some foolish, others sensible and, above all, it is demanding and contributing.
Demanding: In commitment, effort, paradigmatic changes and business and cultural transformations; hence, "Quality, characteristics and innovation in new products are decisive in advanced sectors and segments… Companies will not achieve success unless they base their strategies on improvement and innovation, on resolute will to compete, and an understanding of their national environment and how to improve it. " Michael Porter, in The Competitive Advantage of Nations, pages 46, 58 and 59.
Competitiveness is also demanding in dynamics, vision, mission, creativity, added value, qualified human talent, promotion of research. Competitiveness is very demanding in results and leadership, factors without which, competitiveness is meaningless. These demands of Competitiveness are perceptible from the perspective of globalization and the strategic nature of leadership, according to the proposals of Bennis Warren and Nanus Burt in their book The Four Keys to Effective Leadership, page 2. “If there ever was a moment that required a global and strategic vision of leadership… it is the present moment. ”
Competitiveness not only demands but also contributes in concepts, in development models, in orientations and in paradigm changes. In these fields Michael Porter is convinced, and in faith that, also creates the need for conviction about believing that “The theory of comparative factor advantage is also frustrating for companies, because their assumptions bear little resemblance to the real competition. A theory that overlooks the role of the company's strategy, such as improving technology or differentiating products, leaves few outlets for companies. ” (see The Competitive Advantage of Nations page 37)
The previous approaches coincide with John Naisbit, who makes a very accurate description of the paradigmatic changes developed, from the perspective of competitiveness, on page 7 of his book Macro Trends. Changes that have been radical for society and have promoted a new business culture, thus: “From an industrial society to an information society; from forced technology to high technology; from national economy to world economy; short-term to long-term; from centralization to decentralization; from institutional aid to self-help; from representative democracy to participatory democracy; from hierarchies to work networks; from north to south and one of two multiple-choice options. ” As can be seen, these changes are of such magnitude that there is no institution,entity or organization that can declare itself unscathed.
Faced with these changes, the current business world has to rethink its actions to place itself in the context of quality, and adapt to the empire of competitiveness, if it is to remain in the market and develop activities with sustainability within a sector. definite.
Critics of competitiveness want us to believe that Economic Openness is bad because it requires competitiveness, as if competitiveness had not existed since man appeared. Historically, man has been a competitor, has regulated business forms, has thought about how to overcome his environment, has been transformative and has transcended the everyday, however, in logical terms, it could not be said that this is why all men, in their individuality, they are competitors or transformers or transcendent.
In Colombia we have always been afraid of competition, because we always expect immediate results, because we have always been given to mistreat the client, because we have always been protected by paternalism, because we have always been cultivators of clientelism, so we have not been specified to be competitive, from the point of view of the differentiation of productive segments and sectors.
Closed markets had no scope to transcend borders, depriving the world of what we produce and denying the country the possibility of accessing new and better products. In other words, the closed economy became an unapproachable neighbor. This inaccessibility of the internal market to the outside world prevented the country from converting, being highly productive, and above all, demonstrating quality in management and productivity.
For the businessmen, the shock caused by the Economic Openness may have been hard, because accustomed as they were to working behind bars, looking inward, engrossed and without strong competition, they found themselves overnight with the door open and with the house is poorly organized, often without what to show at the level of technology, value added, customer service and perhaps without any projection at any time.
Economic and managerial theories, prior to Competitiveness, from the Theory Z of the Japanese William Ouchi, through the theories of Total Quality and Reengineering, have been causing Economic Openness, but many did not understand that this was part of the Black Box theory, as stated by Stafford Beer in his book "Cybernetics and Administration", page 28:: "The behavior of the Black Box is studied discovering the logical and statistical relationship that is between the information that enters the Box black and the instructions that come out of it ”Very few were logical to assimilate the information that came to them and they were waiting for instructions, which did come, but disrupted the existing, because nobody had dared to do it.It was not understood that the economic system is embedded in a universe of systems, each contained in a larger one.
Already in 1990, Idalberto Chiavenato had foreseen it, when in the Introduction to the General Theory of Administration, page 13, he said: “The administrative task in the coming decades will be uncertain and challenging, since it will have to be achieved by a number of variables, changes and transformations… "
Our economy, on the contrary, instead of expanding to encompass a broader perspective, was simplifying and reducing itself to the smallest business version and the least expression of competition. So when the Opening was demanding with the industrial reconversion, only the lament and the questions of how could it be heard?
With the door open, we began to see that the neighbors were in better conditions than us, we began to notice that if we did not put ourselves in a position of competition and quality, our markets would be taken over by the neighbors, but with high technology and proven quality.
