Introduction
In our time we live with the awareness that humanism has led man to the brink of tragedy and yet it is necessary to revalue humanism, give it a new meaning. This sense is precisely directed towards organizations, focused from the theoretical point of view of humanism.
Humanist Companies, it is not a fad, it is about this new paradigm that bursts into business life with more force than any other way of understanding human relationships at work has ever done. And this new humanistic approach that is alluded to, is only authentic if it is taken as a one-way trip, because in reality it has no way back. If it had reversed, it would be talking about one more fashion.
Humanism in organizations.
According to Sotillo (2000), speaking of the new paradigms that are the object of analysis in the world of organizations has its obligatory reference point in humanism; yes, in humanism originated in its most Renaissance conception. In a new resurgence of values and a vision that places people at the center of the universe, in a new universal order in which we are immersed. And it is that business organizations are but small fragments of this universe where social models are reproduced at scale.
Organizations around the world have addressed their mission, vision and values based precisely on this new paradigm. Some without knowing exactly their concepts, others pressured by the fashion of the new motivational leadership, but yes, they all converge on the same thing: they want to be efficient companies, with a good portfolio of clients and with a good social image.
In the same way that Mc Luhan, quoted by Sotillo (2000), announced the "Global Village" a few decades ago, the new humanist approach is nothing more than the expression of a process that has found its way into the new social model that has disappeared. shaping in the new society of the XXI century: the Information Society.
It has happened or is being done by organizations where the most important thing is the result, production in an exclusive way, and it will continue to be so as long as the pressure of the markets so requires, while the law of supply and demand so demands. order.
In "Company and Society, Bases of a Humanist Economy", in various articles and seminars, J- L. Montero de Burgos, quoted by Silo in The Dictionary of New Humanism (1996), exposes the humanist position opposed to the concept of property on things. Ownership of things (in this case the company) has given power over people. Reversing this, the power of the people must give ownership to access to the income of the company and in no case should it be exercised over the people.
But where does this power come from? This power is given by the risk of both capital and work, therefore no one can own the company but must have power over it according to the tenure of the management, of the decision.
Running companies is not only managing things but, mainly, governing people. This distinction - a classic in the management literature - highlights the relevance of business management, the different approaches that can be adopted and the omissions in which it can fall. It is a distinction that can often be forgotten in the daily practice of company managers (Fontrodona, 2000).
Ultimately it depends on the conception of the company. If you think that the company is just a 'machine' - sometimes large and complex - that generates output's from some input's, it can be understood that the only function of the manager is to make optimal use of these resources, maximizing the relationship between inputs and outputs.
The theoretical discussion about the nature of the company has taken place since the origins of contemporary business and in practice we do not behave in and with the company as if it were just a gear.
The company is a social institution of the first order, whose importance has increased in the course of contemporary history, until it can be considered today as one of the basic pillars of society, along with the family and political institutions. Think, for example, about how the day is spent and it will be seen that a very important part of that day is spent at work, and it is there at work where you not only earn a salary to meet personal or family needs, but also where skills are developed, you enter into relationships with other people, you become friends, and you even meet those who in the future will play the role of spouses.
The company is a social institution and a community of people. People cannot be considered in the company as just another resource - human resources - without jeopardizing the necessary distinction between some resources that have only a medium character - machinery, raw materials, money - and others that have value in themselves. and that, as Kant already warned, they must always be treated as an end and not only as a means, so as not to call into question their dignity.
So what is the difference? Where are the new humanist organizations going? Precisely towards the same objective, the end can be similar, the means (processes) not. The differential nuance is not in production, it is in the new concept: the person who makes up an organization versus the worker-salaried employee.
The manager of companies, as we have seen previously, needs to combine very different science knowledge when making decisions. The integration of this knowledge is a task that corresponds to humanistic knowledge, not technical knowledge.
If you want to build companies, really efficient work teams, there is no other way than to generate enough motivation in people so that each one, at the individual level, has enough potential to make it possible to achieve the goals as a team. It starts from the same principle of Gestalt psychology, according to which "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" or, in a more everyday way: A film is much more than the sum of each of its frames. But motivation has been discussed before properly clarifying what this "new humanistic approach" means. Something as simple to write as complex to put into practice.
This is so because of the peculiar characteristics of humanistic knowledge. Recalling a text by Aristotle in which he warns that the method used in the humanities is different from the method of the experimental sciences, since the treatment that some and others make of reality is also different. Without going into the description of the research method of the humanities, it is possible to list a series of characteristics that humanist knowledge possesses and that make it suitable for this work of synthesis that has been claimed.
According to Fontrodona (2000), these characteristics can be listed from four attitudes that the humanities promote. These attitudes are: admiring, globalizing, political and critical.
Admirative Attitude:
Admiration is the initial state of the philosophical attitude (Aristotle, 1956, cited by Fontrodona, 2000). Admiration is the primary and original look at the world, without conditions or prejudices. Contemplation is the highest activity because it fulfills the desire to know that it is inherent in human nature. The admiring attitude is transformed in modernity into a pragmatic attitude. Bacon, for example, asserts that "what is most useful in practice is truer in science" (Bacon, 1963 cited by Fontrodona, 2000). But with it the original reference to reality is lost, and amazement is transformed into interest, which is nothing more than an axiological manifestation of the modern principle of immanence. The search for the truth requires dispensing with other interests in scientific research.In order to discover the truth, the door to contemplation must be opened, and then the existence of an intelligibility of the universe is noticed (Fontrodona, 2000, citing Artigas, 1999).
Admiration views reality as presence; she considers it from her fundamental contemplation (Fontrodona, 2000, quoting Polo, 1995), beyond the space-time limits. This openness to the universal allows reason to open up to reality, transcending the limits of its own interest, and opens up to the universal, beyond the peculiarities of specific cultural schemes, admiring itself for what different cultures have in common and not only because of what differentiates them.
The manager needs a capacity for admiration to discover opportunities where others only see problems, to be ingenious in the strategy of his business, to recognize the abilities of the people he directs. A manager who does not have this capacity for admiration will be satisfied with being towed by the circumstances, with always doing the same, and his direction will become routine. You will end up becoming a manager.
Globalizing attitude:
Philosophy is a global knowledge, it seeks synthesis, it tries to find out what relationships - real and not only logical - the ideas keep among themselves (Polo, 1995, citing Fontrodona, 2000).
This synoptic mentality (Fontrodona 2000, quoting Llano, 1988) is the one that best understands the complexity of the contemporary world. The complexity cannot be covered simply by further analysis. From the Cartesian search for clear and different ideas, the ideal of modern science is analysis. And the analysis has led to specialization. Philosophy warns us that, in addition to the study of partial aspects of reality, there is a science that contemplates reality in its entirety.
The analysis from partial perspectives is necessary to deepen the knowledge of the aspects of reality that deserve to be considered, but then it is necessary to take into account the dynamic relationships that are created between them. If it is only analyzed, partial measures are taken, it is not possible to take charge of the secondary effects that follow from the interrelation of the factors. Analysis is a tactical view of reality; synthesis is a strategic vision.
A practical consequence of the globalizing attitude is the importance of the virtue of prudence or practical wisdom. The prudent man knows how to contextualize his actions, look at his surroundings with sagacity, take charge of complexity and, above all, discover the ultimate value of his action. The prudent man does not decide based exclusively on algorithms (which would be typical of an analytical vision of the decision), but looking for the best, considering how action affects human development, broadening horizons, generating alternatives, seeking synergies, anticipating risks,… Throughout the exhibition, it has been seen how this attitude of synthesis is necessary in management, because the manager needs to relate many knowledge and many facts about reality. Today there is also the phenomenon of globalization,which requires managers to have an open mind to do business in very different places, and a broad vision when considering all the effects of an action.
Political attitude:
The characteristic of the political government, compared to the despotic government, is that it respects and favors the identity and autonomy of those who are passive subjects of that government. Philosophy as a global science is in a higher order than the other sciences (Fontrodona, 2000). It is the first philosophy, while the others are second philosophies. But its government is political: it respects the autonomy of the other sciences.
The political attitude helps the manager to know how to respect the autonomy of the people who depend on him. The political attitude seeks the exercise more in the authority of the manager than in the power that his formal position gives him. Through the political attitude -with a delegation in decision-making capacity that does not imply abdicating responsibility- the manager knows how to combine two basic principles in the structuring of society: the principle of subsidiarity -which appeals to lower the decision-making capacity to the minor possible level - and the principle of solidarity - which recalls the need to direct our actions to the common good and not only to private interests (Fontrodona, 2000).
Critical attitude:
If admiration is the starting point of philosophy, the critical attitude is the engine that keeps it moving and prevents it from stagnating in dogmatic positions. As MacIntyre (1977) quoted by Fontrodona (2000) has pointed out, the most dangerous theories are those that are uncritically accepted.
The critical attitude cannot become autonomous, but finds its meaning between a common substratum of intelligibility and a hopeful search for the truth. When one of these two aspects disappears, or because the existence of a reality beyond the subject is denied, or because truth is reduced to mere opinion, criticism becomes a "crisis of meaning." Philosophy warns that the critical attitude does not necessarily mean a skeptical attitude, but rather the responsibility to undertake a search for the truth, in which not only the scientific community is heard, but also the very reality that the investigation provokes.
The manager must be willing to criticize his own assumptions, and to encourage this same attitude among his collaborators. A characteristic of a command exercise that encourages this attitude is that command and obey go hand in hand. A company does not work well if some only command and others only obey, because the one who commands must be willing to rectify.
Aristotle quoted by Fontrodona (2000) said that sending slaves is of no interest. But, it would be added, to command free beings it is an essential requirement to be "experts in humanity." In this task everyone - companies and university; managers, teachers and students - must feel involved.
When Douglas Mc Gregor quoted by Sotillo (2000), he postulated his theories in "The Human Side of Organizations" (1960), he did so in a context in which Taylor's theses, millimetric planning, chain production, dominated, positivism, but above all what dominated was a social model still immersed in the Industrial Society, where worker represented production and salary. Now not only have sociocultural budgets changed, discarding outdated positivist models and leaning toward others with psychosocial roots, no, not just that. Now society has really changed, the needs of the individuals that make it up and that reproduce in the organizational structures of the different countries have changed.
If in the previous context the business organizations were enough with a structure of descending communication, based on instructions; In the new business panorama, there is talk of new needs, of upward, horizontal and downward communication, but that does not stop there. Now we are facing a reality in which the worker is a "person" who requires, in addition to a salary, to satisfy the needs of belonging, recognition, professional and personal development.
It is also frequent in companies to find more horizontal organization charts with different names in what has traditionally been the human resources department. It is enough to look at the corporate information of different companies of different natures to see how they come together in a common point: their human resources departments are called "human relations", "development", and so on. They have understood that people, more than a resource, are the essence, the central axis of the organization. Well, this could be a good example of the new corporate humanism.
conclusion
The new humanist current will be able to counteract the current crisis, characterized by the loss of the sense of humanity and aggravated by the prospect of global catastrophe, with all its terrifying alternatives. Therefore, the humanistic training of company managers is a valuable aid for the performance of their professional work that corresponds to the true nature of management. The humanities help the manager to carefully observe reality, to have a critical sense in his judgments, to have a broad mentality and to adequately combine the different knowledge. With the development of these capacities, the manager is more prepared to face a globalization of markets, cultural exchange between countries and, above all, an increasingly complex criterion of efficiency.in which the company has a more and more prominent role.
Bibliography
FONTRODONA, Joan. Humanism in Business Management. www.economia.ufm.edu.gt. Guatemala. 2000
SILO. Dictionary of the New Humanism. Company Society. www.mdnh.org. 1996
SOTILLO, Ricardo. The New Humanism in Business. www.capitalemocional.com. 2000.
