The paradigms of “People Management”, or Personnel Management, as it used to be called before, are changing as the business world becomes more complex, challenging and changing. In this way, we have gone from the not so old days of the “Fordist administration”, where workers were considered simply as a “cost plus” of the company, to the modern labeling of “workers as investors”, with a preliminary and fleeting step of considering employees as "strategic assets" of a company. All three paradigms are likely to have been or are correct; obviously, each one in its temporal context, which always frames the types of business strategy valid in each era.
In the Fordist era par excellence, that of its beginnings, back in the first decades of the 20th century, the worker-worker was one more gear in the production process, and in general, their valuation was not very different from that of a clamp, a pliers, a lathe, a machine or any other capital good that a company had, the worker was a “cost plus”, sometimes fixed, at times variable, but nothing more than that, a simple cost, a simple number. Charles Chaplin, in the classic film "Modern Times", masterfully symbolizes the life of the Western worker in the great American factories (and the Western world in general) of the time, an alienated, routine, timed life that could lead to suicide. any postmodern man today, if a time machine transported him back to 1920-1930-1940.
Already around 1950, the union labor conquests, added to a certain flexibility of Fordism and Taylorism as "leading paradigms" of the employers, began to invade the world of labor relations and management of the time, which was making improvements the consideration of the personnel in the business strategy; And although to tell the truth, they never ceased (at that time) to be seen as simple costs, at least they were no longer exploited from sun to shade as in the Fordist beginnings, becoming "slightly more privileged costs" than raw materials. premiums and intermediate goods, since at least they had vacations, 8 hours a day and Christmas bonus, which humanized this category of costs a little more, labor costs. In Argentina, it is from the Peronist government of 1945-55, where some changes in this sense begin to be seen; and in Europe and the US, just a few years before, nothing more.
This paradigm of the “worker as a cost” lasted until approximately the beginning of the '80s, when the business world began to become increasingly complex and changing, especially since the irruption of new technologies (IT being the main one), both in processes and in products, which made change and innovation the main determinants of business strategies of the time, from IBM to modest kiosks and neighborhood stores, all immersed in the concept of “permanent change”. And parallel to this, that is, no later than the early '90s, came globalization, the Washington Consensus and the opening of markets, especially in emerging countries such as Argentina, where competition became quasi-cannibalistic.
In this way, the management gurus of the '80s and' 90s began to speak of "workers as strategic assets of the company" rather than as "simple costs"; but seeing that they fell short of the strategic function that human talent exercised and exercises today in the business world, and that determines the possibility of entire organizations subsisting or dying, of thousands of employees such as General Motors and Chrysler, among others, these gurus decided to change the paradigm and start talking about "workers as investors" instead of "as assets"; In other words, making an analogy with the stock market, placing workers as economic agents seeking the best return (salary pay, working conditions) from their investment in human capital (their training, their years of study). Thus,The management gurus felt that the metaphor of "worker as asset" did not fully express the value that individuals bring today to the organizations that hire them, nor the degree of control that they now exercise over their investment, deciding to change employers without any regrets if another arisesbetter job opportunity. That is why they modified this paradigm, and today we hear abundantly talk of "worker as investor", no longer as "asset".
However, and going from theory to practice, there is always a lag between the times of the gurus and the times of company executives, and it was very palpable in the late '80s and early' 90s, which employees hadn't even risen to the rank of “assets” yet in the mindset of most top managers, although they had all bought the books of such management and people-management gurus, who spoke in that vein. The worker was the most valuable asset of the company, the strategic asset, the Garúes said in the early '90s, while in most companies in the world workers did not feel valued in that way yet, nor now, Except for a few companies, generally multinationals, and not all of them either.
In fact, most companies at the end of the 20th century, I reiterate, immersed in the dizziness of the business world never seen before, continued to see workers as "costs that should decrease" whenever the market forced a cut in expenses. And if we go to accounting, costs are flows, assets are not, they are stocks; I mean, conceptually there is a big difference. Moreover, after this first decade of the 21st century, most companies continue to put investment in personnel behind customer satisfaction, financial performance, competitiveness and the quality of products and services, as priority objectives of a organization.
But as the gurus do not tire of changing paradigms, although afterwards the executors of their ideas take a couple of decades to implement them massively (still many companies do not go from "worker as cost" to "worker as asset"), now the question It is "the worker as investor", without a doubt, totally successful for the times of the businesses that run. The current worker, especially the one with more brain-intensive jobs, invests in training, that is, his human capital, with the aim of subsequently renting his labor services where his investment will best yield. That is, today they invest in human capital like a stockbroker does in stocks, they look for profitability, and if said company "doesn't give it to me, I go to another one", without any regrets. It is the labor market adapted to the current business world,that of permanent, accelerated and vertiginous change. And this model is not only the power of the first world, in countries like Argentina it is also clearly observed, although I reiterate, in certain sectors, especially those of professionals in brain-intensive processes (the IT industry, the main one). Today, the bond that binds brain-intensive individuals and companies derives from the ability and willingness of each party to provide benefits to the other, nothing more. This paradigm, I think, affects in the short term "the famous lifetime employment" of Japanese companies, for example, a model that is clearly being revised today, to adapt it to current times. The Japanese model, I believe, moved better in the paradigm of "worker as asset", not the current one, of "worker as investor".And this model is not only the power of the first world, in countries like Argentina it is also clearly observed, although I reiterate, in certain sectors, especially those of professionals in brain-intensive processes (the IT industry, the main one). Today, the bond that binds brain-intensive individuals and companies derives from the ability and willingness of each party to provide benefits to the other, nothing more. This paradigm, I think, affects in the short term "the famous lifetime employment" of Japanese companies, for example, a model that is clearly being revised today, to adapt it to current times. The Japanese model, I believe, moved better in the paradigm of "worker as asset", not the current one, of "worker as investor".And this model is not only the power of the first world, in countries like Argentina it is also clearly observed, although I reiterate, in certain sectors, especially those of professionals in brain-intensive processes (the IT industry, the main one). Today, the bond that binds brain-intensive individuals and companies derives from the ability and willingness of each party to provide benefits to the other, nothing more. This paradigm, I think, affects in the short term "the famous lifetime employment" of Japanese companies, for example, a model that is clearly being revised today, to adapt it to current times. The Japanese model, I believe, moved better in the paradigm of "worker as asset", not the current one, of "worker as investor".in certain sectors, especially those of professionals of brain-intensive processes (the IT industry, the main one). Today, the bond that binds brain-intensive individuals and companies derives from the ability and willingness of each party to provide benefits to the other, nothing more. This paradigm, I think, affects in the short term "the famous lifetime employment" of Japanese companies, for example, a model that is clearly being revised today, to adapt it to current times. The Japanese model, I believe, moved better in the paradigm of "worker as asset", not the current one, of "worker as investor".in certain sectors, especially those of professionals of brain-intensive processes (the IT industry, the main one). Today, the bond that binds brain-intensive individuals and companies derives from the ability and willingness of each party to provide benefits to the other, nothing more. This paradigm, I think, affects in the short term "the famous lifetime employment" of Japanese companies, for example, a model that is clearly being revised today, to adapt it to current times. The Japanese model, I believe, moved better in the paradigm of "worker as asset", not the current one, of "worker as investor".the bond that binds brain-intensive individuals and companies derives from the ability and willingness of each party to provide benefits to the other, nothing more. This paradigm, I think, affects in the short term "the famous lifetime employment" of Japanese companies, for example, a model that is clearly being revised today, to adapt it to current times. The Japanese model, I think, moved better in the paradigm of "worker as asset", not the current one, of "worker as investor".the bond that binds brain-intensive individuals and companies derives from the ability and willingness of each party to provide benefits to the other, nothing more. This paradigm, I think, affects in the short term "the famous lifetime employment" of Japanese companies, for example, a model that is clearly being revised today, to adapt it to current times. The Japanese model, I think, moved better in the paradigm of "worker as asset", not the current one, of "worker as investor".of the “worker as investor”.of the “worker as investor”.
I also believe this paradigm challenges the training model for personnel in the workplace, since with less and less loyalty between the worker-investor and the hiring company, the in-company training plans will be reduced, pending that each worker invests in their own permanent training, since a company will be able to enjoy this investment for a short time, in these times of “little labor loyalty, although I reiterate, this process is observed today only in certain industries, such as brain-intensive, and at the most skilled levels.
