At present, both internationally and among ourselves, the academic debate and the problems of human resource management practices in companies and entities focus on the elements that favor innovation and integration, the impact on the performance and overall efficiency of organizations.
The work analyzes the diversity of criteria and approaches that focus on clarifying whether it is the strategy developed by the entity that determines the management practices, or it is the human resources management practices that determine the overall strategy.
The thought of whether it is the global strategy that determines some practices, supposedly strategic, or it is the human resources practices that determine the global strategy, can be as reductionist and deterministic as traditionalist thinking, also supposedly outdated, but in some way way continues to prevail.
One of the main challenges that everyone faces, due to the increasingly demanding and fierce international competition, in achieving maximum effectiveness and efficiency, as well as effectiveness, is to seek superior work performance from companies, and companies continue to set themselves as objectives priority cost reduction, high levels of profits, increased productivity.
But today, and among us, business management cannot be measured solely on the basis of profits, efficiency and productivity.
Relatively high levels in economic, productive and financial results are reached, and in the historical past, but this does not mean that they have been or are adding new value, not to say that they may have nothing to do with individual development of the person, or with an address by values that is required; in order not to delve into the trace of the enormous historical psychological and social cost that it has meant for people.
Therefore, some or other practices to manage “human resources” do matter, and each day they matter more, because integrative thinking or continuing with deterministic thinking in the traditional way, or the way and models are not the same. supposedly advanced, to manage "the person as a resource" of the previous models of management.
Nor is it the same, considering cost reduction as the main objective, or among the strategic objectives, to consider as an integral part of the growth of the entire organization, that among its motivations or objectives is the reduction of costs.
The fundamental objective of producing goods and services to satisfy the needs of the entire society, and of the workers of each organization, for which human resource management, the role of people in organizations, is the only key factor, in our country must be approached with a strategic change of thought.
But, what would the integrative thinking of the organization or management be? Since it would not be correct to say integrative thinking of human resources only, if we are really trying to carry out a systemic or integrative approach to the entire organization and not just a part of this.
If integrating thinking is advocated, one must be consistent and carry out human resource management practices (understood as human resources) different from the treatment that people receive as resources; with an elitist vision, or in any case a privileged one, since it constitutes the starting point of all thought and action from the top down and can end all thought and action from the bottom up, but always a reductionist vision even when working with techniques and modern tools; that carries within itself a rigid direction of bureaucratic and authoritarian tendencies, consequently, methods and styles well away from integrative approaches, and from the predominant individualism in the life of organizations.
| Deterministic thinking | Integrative thinking |
| People-resources | People-with goals-needs |
| Top management vision | Shared vision |
| Organizational objectives | Personal mental models-values of being |
| Individualism | Team-collective learning |
Integrative approaches and integrative thinking, which are also and often said quickly, and we don't stop to think about the meaning, much less how to carry it out. Then the mistake is made of carrying it, or trying to carry it out, with the same known previous practices.
We do not realize that a profound change of the social and the personal is required. And this is where the new practices of human resource management must be focused.
The integrative approach and thinking, as opposed to the deterministic one, must develop human resource management practices that break with the vision of the person as a resource, and that treat the "Personal Domain" or the goals that we propose, beyond the competencies and skills, which directly leads the process of change towards and in the person, at the cognitive, affective and behavioral levels.
That leads to the recognition of the "Mental Models" or ways of perceiving the world, and to the "Shared Vision" of all the members of an organization, which is beyond the "vision" of Senior Management, and which enables more reach the integration that is required.
Which leads to “Team Learning”, as opposed to individualism, and which must develop group and team skills and attitudes that go beyond the individual perspective.
The approach of an integrated and strategic management of human resources worked with a systemic approach, is a powerful tool for innovative companies, both for business management and for making the HR area a leading area. It is an advanced approach in relation to the traditional administrative and functional-organizational approaches, and implies different functions, content and strategic scope, both in its direction, planning, organization, control, evaluation, stimulation and development.
It can lead to greater and better quantitative and qualitative results, efficiency and effectiveness, economic-financial and productive, as well as satisfaction and commitment of workers, as it is more integrated into the direction and management of the company.
The alignment of the global strategy and HR, and the transformation of these into actions is the objective of academics and entrepreneurs today, and strategic maps, matrices with indicators and action plans, and software that facilitate decision-making in real time.
But these management models and the tools they use often do not reach the maturation and renewal phases, because they neglect or limit changes at a social and personal level.
Maps, indicators and software fall dramatically, when a client arrives at an organization, and from the outset they do not serve it as it should, that those who must attend continue talking, and when you call their attention, they continue talking until that they consider the topic finished.
In those moments, we realize that it is not possible to reach changes at the behavioral and Execution level, let's say Competences, or Teamwork, without having gone through the motivation and trust and commitment that Acceptance of the change should generate, even if there was initially a Reception with sufficient and necessary information.
"It is necessary, then, to consider the trajectory that the process of change in the person must follow, in order to produce a combined and articulated implementation between person and change that guarantees its achievement, its effectiveness, and at the same time its sustainability" (Maisch, E. and Tarazona, S. 2000).
From the level of Reception of change, to the level of Acceptance, you can go through rejections and resistance, but it is not possible or probable that you will reach new practices, without "working", without "managing", motivation, trust and commitment.
Then, in the plan and the execution phase, on the basis of Mental Models, Personal Domain, Shared Vision, Team Learning, the establishment and development of Competencies, whatever they may be, can be achieved in Teamwork., and Innovation.
And to integrative, systemic Thinking, which is what allows to visualize the whole of the organization, from any side and level of complexity.
| Disciplines | Personal Mastery Mental Models
Shared vision Team learning |
Planes of change in the person |
| Reception | Exchange Information | |
| Acceptance | Motivation Confidence
Commitment |
|
| Execution | Competences Teamwork
Innovation |
If this is generally accepted, where and when do things fail? Why not consolidate and develop?
We consider that the biggest problems continue to be in the ideation, in the conception and the philosophy of the organization, and the consequences that derive from it, which are the hybrids, of a supposedly integrative and comprehensive organization, with formal strategies, a global management that it remains fragmented, with supposedly global objectives that are also different from traditional organizational motivations, and of course, implementation, which in practice follows traditional causes.
Therefore, rather than elucidating if it is the global strategy that determines, and we return to determinism, the practices of human resources, or it is the practices of human resources that determine the global strategy of the organization, and that according to recognized authors leads to one path or another, it would be more accurate to speak of interrelationships and adjustments, beyond a cause-effect relationship, between strategies and practices and the effects on global results (Bird and Beechler, 1995; Delery and Doty 1996; Bennett el al. 1998).
Therefore, for a change in both the thinking, as well as the approach, as well as the strategy and practices of human resource management, it is essential “to change a culture oriented only to achieve the Efficiency of the Organization as an indicator that measures the development of the same, to a Culture of Support and constant Innovation, understanding by Innovation not only technological but that which team members can contribute when interacting, is a change so profound that it must be gradual and gradual, if they want to achieve superior results ”(Alhama et al, 2004).
“In such a way, when we express the need to evolve from the Culture of Efficiency to the Culture of Support and Innovation, we are advocating a reorientation of the Organization towards the social and the personal, towards the results at the level of the entire Organization; we are advocating differentiating "operational efficiency" from "strategic effectiveness," to remind Porter, M. " (idem); a strategic effectiveness that is much more than operational efficiency, but that includes it.
According to the systemic approach, human resource management is interrelated and interdependent with the overall management of the company. And as a subsystem, it responds to the company system. The integration of human resources management is a fundamental pillar for continuous improvement aimed at the necessary superior work and organizational performance with high economic and social impact.
Consequently, the improvement and development of integrated management must be reverted to results throughout the company. But this also includes qualitative efficiency such as staff commitment, satisfaction or competence.
The economic and social, educational and cultural transformations undertaken more than four decades ago in our country, and especially in recent years, have become increasingly important, due to the impetus of the technical-technological revolution and economic restructuring, and this is done It is particularly important for HR activities in companies and entities in general, since it demands from them greater rigor in their treatment and better results, in terms of staff development, and efficiency and effectiveness at the organizational level.
The evolution of our economy towards advanced services, with high added value, in which the empowerment and development of highly complex activities and the level of knowledge that are used and applied takes on a new dimension, which is It is necessary to underline, since only in this way do they add high value to productions and services, they impose new organizational, management and management challenges for companies and organizations.
The Integral Development of the Person, as one of the main objectives of the Strategic Integrated Management of Human Resources, should aim at the acquisition of new knowledge and skills, experiences, but also the formation of attitudes, values, and attention to the needs and personal and group motivations; all this, of course, goes beyond the productivist approach.
These human aspects, as well as organizational and management, where human resources are also present, are recognized as essential in the treatment of human resources management, which in turn is considered an essential factor of company innovation (Galbraith, 1984; López, Vidal, 1993; Morcillo, 1997).
When designing a clear vision, the use of technology, the search for opportunities, the market situation, experience and human potential, the management of human resources is placed with greater emphasis every day.
As Jiménez and Sanz Valle (2002) point out when referring to the authors who have studied the relationship between innovation and human resource management, they come to the conclusion that “there are no human resource practices that are valid and equally effective for all organizations, rather, these will be more or less adequate according to their degree of coherence or adjustment with the characteristics of the organization and, in particular, of its strategy. (Miles and Snow, 1984; Purcell, 1989; Schuler and Jackson, 1987; Peck, 1994; Wright, 1995; Raghuram and Arvey, 1998) ”.
In this direction, the best known and most widespread studies are those of Miles and Show (1984), and Schuler and Jackson (1987), in which there are coincidences, but also disagreements regarding the training and participation of workers. The former, unlike the latter, propose to resort to the market to acquire skills (resources-people?), With great flexibility in the environment and without job security, as well as worker participation and little use of the plan racing, and especially performance-oriented and incentives based on this.
Important works show the contradictions between these two models and the practices of companies, and point out, contrary to hypotheses, that entrepreneurial companies follow internal development strategies and companies with defensive strategies identify with the human resources market.
But, there is no doubt that the creation of work teams, the design of diverse task positions or a broad profile, job security and greater participation, according to the Schuler and Jackson model, are associated with innovative strategies in which RR.HH. And their practices play a preponderant role, with an integrative thought.
Other authors to consider, such as Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995) found a positive relationship between multifunctional teams and the speed of innovation generation, as well as between leadership and innovation. Jackson et al. (1995) found a positive relationship between job security and innovation; Although there are no conclusive results regarding training, Raghuram and Arvey (1998) found a positive relationship between R&D and training; in relation to remuneration Jackson et al. (1989) observe a significant relationship between the innovation strategy and less use of incentives, but Martínez-Ros and Salas-Fumás (1999) find a positive relationship between the salary level and innovation. A positive relationship with participation is found in the work of Hurley and Hule (1998),and Keng-Howe Chew and Chong (1999) find a relationship between leadership, selection and commitment to the strategic vision of innovation.
This brings us to the beginning. If HR is formally recognized as the first level of management, but there is no alignment between the entity's strategy and human resources practices; if there is little treatment in the system, and the functions and activities are based on non-integrative approaches; if more attention is paid to the phase of reception of the change, than to the acceptance, to urgently fall into the execution without sufficient and necessary preparation; If the new disciplines that allow personal integration are unknown, the phenomenon ends up affecting both the organization and the people, and it tends to return to known rigid practices: partial operational improvements and the insistence on changes in execution, without "Manage" the affective or cognitive level of people.
There are contradictions with the long-term vision, if it exists, and as much as the overall strategy of the organization may influence, there are no interrelationships or interactions with the strategy and human resources practices, then these cannot be aligned or supported the overall strategy.
Organizations must concentrate their energy, not only on the facts or on the behavioral plane, because at most they will be reactive, hardly reflective, and never generative. Dialogue and cooperation among all, collective learning, where nothing is discarded, and everything is questioned, would be, is, a way to go. But this is also decided and defined by one or the other thought.
Integrative thinking is complex, and it must be approached in its dynamic complexity, assimilating many interrelationships, and integrating the complexity of the details. This can only be done by “all” the members of an organization, because it is part of their personal Domain and of the mental Models of each one of the people.
The disagreements and imbalances between the instrumental and the preponderance of social and personal elements are excellently expressed in the following paragraph by two Latin American colleagues when they say:
“This concern put in methodological terms implies that an organizational learning exercise in these institutions must contemplate two levels of activities: instrumental activities-control, change, improvement- and practical-emancipatory activities -debate of the ends, of inquiry for social meaning. The second level should guide the first. Dynamic-systemic organizational learning clearly offers a solid platform for the first level –instrumental, but in front of the second –practical-emancipatory- there are questions that remained open and that could be synthesized with this question:? Will Systems Dynamics be a prisoner of the instrumentalism trap? The veiled echo of a Sengian phrase resounds: prisoners of the system or prisoners of our own thought? " (Sotaquirá and Gélvez, 1998).
Bibliography
Alhama, BR; Alonso, AF and Núñez, MT. (2004): New Organizational Forms. Institute for Labor Studies and Research. Havana.
Ferrari, RC (1997): Approach to advanced management. XVII National Conference. Toledo. Spain.
Jiménez, JD and Sanz Valle.R. (2001): "Human resource management and innovation in the company". XI National Congress of ACEDE. Madrid.
Maisch E. and Tarazona, S. (2000): “Path of change: from the social to the personal”. Peru Labor Magazine, Lima.
Marchant, RL (2005): Updates for Organizational Development. First Seminar. Viña del Mar. Chile.
Senge, MP (1992): The fifth discipline. Gránica Editorial. Barcelona, Spain.
Sotaquirá GR and Gélvez, PL (1998): Learning about organizational learning. http: //.sistemika. homepage.com
