This "paper" was presented, exhibited and published in the annals of the XXXVIII Annual Assembly of the Latin American Committee of Schools of Administration. CLADEA. Lime. Peru October 2003.
The nation. Buenos Aires Argentina
Section 4 page 2 Shows
January 27, 2003-01-28
… after having spent thirty-five years in the show business, money no longer guides Caine-. I only make the films I want to make and that is one of the most incredible luxuries.
I don't have to go to work to earn a salary. I'm only going to work for pleasure
Reportage to the actor Michael Caine about his film "The American" (The quiet American) on a book by Graham Green.
La Nación, Buenos Aires Argentina
Friday January 3, 2003 Page 10
- How did you find out about the contest in Mexico? I searched the internet and sent the novel.
It was for new authors, under 40 years old, I always thought that you have to work in whatever it takes to earn money and live and then dedicate yourself to what you like.
Report on Maximiliano Matayoshi, Winner of a literary award for new authors in Mexico.
From year to year, in order to pass the course, undergraduate and graduate students (mostly Engineering students in its various branches) of our chairs at Argentine universities, carry out final papers, monographs with research touches.
But beyond the imperfect technology applied to simple field work, it is remarkable how surprising they are to observe how some concepts that arise from the dictation of the classes are reflected in reality when, surveys in hand, they visit organizations of all
One of the subjects preferred by the students in their choice is the subject of labor dissatisfaction, that is:
- Why are people not comfortable in their work? Why do people work only to "then do what I like?"
Beyond the strong economic crisis that afflicts my beloved country, which translates into a very high unemployment rate (at least formal, because the underground economy is very important, with its sequel to "black work")
These monographs indicate that the people who work are happy for that mere fact, but deepening the interviews they find that the people who work generally feel bad because
- He is treated badly. Communications are terrible. They do not know the objectives of the organization (mission, vision) nor their own tasks. The work is uninteresting, not challenging, not "filling."
It is striking that issues such as hours or salary levels, despite the crisis, we insist, do not generally occupy the first positions of the causes of "discontent."
We recently asked our students to ask their interviewees what percentage of personal performance they think they bring to their organization.
Except for some isolated cases, this number does not exceed 70%.
Reasons?
Those wielded previously, more
- I don't get humane treatment. I don't get fair treatment. I am not being heard. I am not driving efficiently. They don't appreciate what I do. I can't suggest. They don't want me to think (they tell me they don't pay me for it) They don't ask me what I want to do
That is, if we agree, as many say, that people are the main asset of an organization, (a principle that our experience indicates that it is more declaimed than practiced - see our attached article) it turns out that the paradox of the same occurs, we don't get the return we should.
If we ask any entrepreneur, they will undoubtedly tell us that their assets must perform at their best. That is why it performs feats of financial engineering, explores markets, lowers costs, etc., etc.
The paradigm is simple: Get the most with the least.
But when we ask managers in workshops and seminars.
- But what about the assets, humans, people, that you always say are the most important. Why aren't they getting the most out of them?
The answer is generally framed in what Mc Gregor called Theory X widely known to all.
Then it is the moment that we take the opportunity to introduce our idea
- Gentlemen, the problem is not with the people who work with you. It is yours.
You have a lot of knowledge about cash flow or market niches but totally lack the ability to manage people.
They are in love with Kaplan and Norton and their scoreboard but they do not read it well and they shape their opinions on the importance of "intangibles"
Towards a new paradigm…
Comprehensive People Management
We do not want to tire the distinguished colleagues who are reading this paper with the stages of development that the function, formerly of personnel, and now Human Resources, has suffered over time.
I would just like to mention, as an important milestone, the contributions of Doctors Juan Isidro Bossa and Olga Strombolo in their book “Migrando…. (Migrating… from Human Resources to Strategic People Management. Ed. Triunfar. Córdoba. Argentina.2000).
In this work, the authors understand as basic the strategic management of people to achieve organizational objectives.
We intend to go beyond the strategic to focus on the comprehensive. (covering the strategic)
Hence our expression "Comprehensive People Management"
That people are important to the organization is said by Peter Senge to Jeffrey Pfeffer (his Human Equation is excellent)
Why then is this true axiom not translated into the reality of organizations?
What is the reason that our modest research and many years of professional practice tell us that this asset is not performing as well as it should?
For us the answer is simple. This asset is poorly managed, it is not fully managed, it is not “exploited” (sorry for the word) with wisdom.
A new paradigm.
I think that we would properly illustrate these ideas if our kind colleagues analyze the following supposed dialogue between a candidate for a position of some technical importance and the Manager of the area in charge of managing the people of a company.
- Your knowledge would really be very useful to us, Mr. González, and we would like you to become part of our working group. But first let me ask you a question: What are your main interests in life, that is, what do you like to do the most?
- It is a good question Mr. Manager and I will answer it with pleasure - answers the young applicant. - I love the mountains and every year I like to climb Aconcagua either with my friends or guiding foreign tourists.
- I understand - says the manager - the mountain is exciting… –and continues saying - That means that you, during the season, which I believe runs from November 15 to February 15, will not be with us as a whole. You will come here physically, but your mind will be elsewhere. in the mountain.
- Mr. González shifted restlessly in his seat. But this does not matter. - Said the manager. If it seems to you, we will make a special contract in which we consider the interests of both parties. González looked at him strangely. How? - He asked. Very simple - answered his interlocutor - You will work with us for nine months where you will fulfill the objectives that we establish by mutual agreement. This will then allow you to meet your objectives: For three months, the mountain.González looked at him incredulouslyMy young friend - said the smiling manager.- We are not "good" we are realistic and we try to manage people in an intelligent way. In your case, we will obtain more from you in the nine months, knowing that you will have the possibility of achieving your objectives in the remaining three, than in eleven and a half months yielding only 70% of its capacity,frustrated because you think summer is coming and the beloved mountain awaits you, but you have to be in this "damn job,.." etc. etc.
Utopia ?, Science Fiction, Crazy Dream?
Probably yes.
But how are the new paradigms built if not from the margins, from dreams, from the “let's see things differently?
We seriously think that the world will change (it must change!) And that new forms of equity, of solidarity will emerge in the economic universe. "Purifying" (or humanizing once and for all) the norms of capitalism so that it becomes an instrument at the service of man (there are already voices that are raised in this sense, ranging from the Jesuit Philosophical Reflection Team to Thurow, (See an excellent report on this author by Bruce Lloyd in Gestión Magazine. Vol3 nº1 January February 1998) Miztberg and others
Why then not conceive of an employment relationship of dependency (we could even change this expression that leads us to think of an "extreme paternalism" - I, who "suffers", I depend on my father, "boss" - for that of subordination, As the well-known Argentine labor expert, Julián de Diego, says, for another association (based on "nostrity") where both interests are satisfied and where the job is not a mere "hiring of hours" in exchange for bread, but a mutual satisfaction contract.
In all kinds of relationships? Probably not.
In all kinds of economic process? Probably not.
But man has progressed to advanced cultural forms, ascending from his state of "Nature" to other more complex stages by virtue of his ability to "try" leveraged by his "interest." (Multi-faceted eastern concept)
From there come the paradigm shifts.
How to achieve it?
So that this idea of ours of the "Integral Management of People" is not transformed into a mere statement of empty (or demagogic) content, we must find a way to translate it into reality, especially in the reality of the economic
For this we must conceive a work design in which the Greek concept of "scholè" is assimilated with the current one of "work".
If for the Greeks "leisure" was what it was worth living for since it was not only rest but "… also study, occupation of the man of studies, the product of study" as Vicente Santuc says in Work and Leisure from the Tradition. P. 327 Editorial Bonum, who later continues “Being Greek leisure time of education, time of music, of politics, of the tragedy of philosophy…” (p.330)
Why not change, through appropriate management of people and organizations, the meaning of work?
May this really be the time of "Realization" and that current leisure (almost a mere commercial niche) becomes the true rest.
After all, hasn't the end of work been prophesied? (Let us remember the impact of Rifkin's work) and perhaps the "… circumstances of a" world of work that is leaving and a world of leisure that is coming are not true… "(Santuc, p. 363)
To do this, we understand, we must start with the person and their interests.
Again the question Why not? Another utopia?
Without a doubt, this claim of ours has many and complex facets, but let's look at a concept, which we consider key, obtained from a French author: Alain Minc, which, we believe, will help us understand it.
In his book The Challenge of the Future (l "avenir en face. Editorial Grijalbo. Barcelona. 1986) the author expresses, in the chapter called" The Creative Leisure "a series of considerations on different aspects of work in his native France. In one part, under the subtitle The choice of working time: a lost opportunity tells us "… in the warehouse of utopias we only have the choice of working time as a catalyst for our ambition to find solutions" (p. 230)
Minc, together with the debate on the French labor problem, expresses ideas that seem very appropriate to us to cement our new paradigm, adding in the aforementioned chapter “… a true social progress could have been carried out, less expensive and more lasting. the right to choose the duration of work. Each worker would have chosen a weekly number of hours between zero and forty, with obviously proportional remuneration "
In order for this idea to be operational, the author continues by saying "Some correction measures would have been imposed, in order not to disrupt production…". Thus he proclaims the need for six-month advance notice for any change, the worker's commitment to respect it for at least one year, etc.)
This concept of the choice of work time is one of the basic elements of our new paradigm.
Obviously it would not be a principle applicable at all times, places, activities, etc.
Even Minc points out that the resistance to the application of this "right" as he calls it, arises from "… the bureaucracy that hides itself, as always, in the complexity of the problems to keep them under lock and key."
Likewise, it arises from “… the majority of trade union organizations, fearful that with the disappearance of a homogeneous working time, the game of mechanisms will be more difficult. of solidarity and grouping of conflicts "
And it is also, according to Minc, responsible both "… the employer that frowns for fear of the restrictions that this would impose on the organization of production." as "… the political world accustomed… to producing collective rights and no longer thinking in terms of individual rights"
Finally, the French author points out the responsibility of "… a large part of the salaried workers for whom the simple idea that two colleagues can have different working hours is absurd".
We believe that the Latin American reality, or at least that of our country, clearly fits in with these statements.
But, returning to our central topic, a worker who during the time (freely agreed) that is with us is an "asset" performing in all his potential and no other than by obligation to satisfy the most arrogant needs (such as Maslow would say) does the right thing not to be fired, that is, to become an asset whose performance only reaches, hopefully, 70%.
An experience
Some years ago, when we were serving as the Senior Human Resources Manager of a multinational company based in the United States (our activity was carried out in Argentina), we made an agreement with one of our administrative assistants.
We proposed to our employee, knowing her needs for time to study, a working day of six hours (instead of the usual and legal eight). Her remuneration, I told her, would be reduced proportionally.
Not only did the young employee accept the proposal but, miracle! In her six hours of work, she did practically the same job that she previously accomplished in eight hours.
Although “a swallow does not make a summer”, it is also true that “a button is enough to show”.
In summary
We propose a new paradigm: "The integral management of People".
This paradigm is based on the consideration of people as an asset that must be used to the maximum.
This "use" must be done respecting your dignity as a person and allowing your own interests to intervene in the conclusion of your employment relationship, giving the opportunity, for example, to agree on the time that you will "subordinate" to your principal.
This comprehensive management must also start from the generation of a new political, business, union culture and especially the management of organizations where, if we consider people as an asset, we must use all our intelligence to obtain the maximum of the same.
And this can only be achieved, not only when people "possess" the required competencies, but also when they "want" to put them into practice.
Perhaps the utopia of the "democratic enterprise" is unfeasible in our times and in those to come, but we believe the realization of that which respects the dignity of the person, especially their freedom, within them is close.
Why not?
