Foundations

The modern vocabulary of business speaks of type X companies (rational) and type Y companies (social), marking a clear difference as regards the attention given to the purely quantitative aspects of the individual-work-company interrelation (the type X ones), founded on parameters of production and marketing — a perfectly valid objective, it goes without saying, for any business organisation —, and companies that redimension those objectives by integrating the quantitative into the qualitative. That qualitative aspect, which characterises type Y or social companies, rests not only on the working conditions or the working capacity of individuals, but on the broadest human dimension that the term can connote. It is a recognition that goes beyond the condition of worker, one that singles each person out as an individual discriminated and differentiated from the rest, with needs and capacities of their own. If the field of Human Relations in the company is not new, neither is it sufficiently clear in Argentine companies. Human relations are often confused with the set of strategies devised to avoid conflict or increase production. On this point, and from the systemic-structural approach on which we base our diagnoses and our proposals for intervention, Industrial Relations and Human Development interrelate in a constant that makes up the organisation and the structure of the company.

We think of the company as we would of any social system: it possesses a culture of its own and characteristic of it, with customs, values and myths that ought to be clear and concrete as to the coherent actions they call for, thereby stimulating the sense of belonging and individual responsibility.

The organisation and the structure of the company, described in this way, appear as the result of human interactions that can be recognised and diagnosed according to clear parameters: hierarchy, subsystems, alliances or coalitions, boundaries and limits, all of them elements that make for the functionality and the excellence of the company. Whenever that structure fails, dysfunctions appear which are recognised by high rates of absenteeism, of accidents, of illness, of boycotts, of theft and of deficiencies in the work. This structural systemic approach is another way of assessing human conduct; quite simply, such conduct is considered as the product of a context — here, the organisation of the company.

The systemic structural approach is the preserve of no science and no field; that is why all those with an interest in the human resource can gain access to it.

The social takes into account the individual and their context — here, the company —, and the latter as a social body inscribed within wider contexts (the community, other companies, and so on).

Various disciplines have concerned themselves with the social (sociology, anthropology, psychology, theories of groups, and so on); each of them analyses one aspect of the phenomenon.

The systemic paradigm is an encompassing vision of the social phenomenon: starting from general systems theory and cybernetics, it accounts for the complex web of interactions in which the individuals of the different social systems take part.

The structural approach is a particular way of conceptualising the systemic paradigm, founded essentially on the recognition of organisation and structure, with a view to reorganising the parts of a system so as to produce adaptive growth and differentiation, in keeping with the demands of the life cycle — those coming from the surrounding culture as well as those of the company’s own internal calendars.

The three variables of any business organisation

We shall describe the three variables present in any business organisation.

The individual

We consider that any adult individual with a capacity for work is responsible, creative and productive. The individual overcomes death by finding a meaning to their life; it is the creature’s vehement desire to be worth something. What human beings truly dread is not so much disappearing as disappearing into insignificance. People submit to their work to the extent that they hold its cause to be a great one. Working people need, moreover, a certain control over their destiny. They need to feel connected to the whole, and to be confirmed and validated in their humanity as much as in their function. “Whoever has a why to live can bear almost any how” (Nietzsche). Human beings need to believe in others and to have others believe in them, in order to feel secure and enthusiastic about the task. They have an irrevocable need to learn and to know, in order to surpass and to differentiate themselves. That capacity does not run exclusively through the intelligence quotient or the level of schooling, but through action and function fully recognised. Human beings develop and grow in contact with the other, and it is thus that they reach their identity and their transcendence (family, school, company, community, and so on). Depending on the way they pass through those contexts, they will or will not reaffirm their human dignity.

Work

Just as, in childhood, children fulfil themselves through play, adults pursue their development through work. Work takes up a large part of their existence; it provides them with the means to subsist, but it cannot remain the sole objective: it must be a means of attaining their development, their transcendence and even their happiness. Because it is necessary to the human condition, work is a right and not an obligation. Humankind is the only animal species in nature that works: that is, that does not merely perform actions for subsistence, but for existence. Success in a job is measured not only by concrete effectiveness, in terms of production (the quantitative aspect of work), but also by its human variables (the qualitative aspects).

“We should ask ourselves whether this work suits this individual, and not whether this individual suits this work” (John Paul II).

Human nature calls for a collective fulfilment without suppressing individual differences and expectations. Work makes individual fulfilment possible on the basis of solidarity among human beings (unity and community of destiny).

The company

A structure created by the interaction of individuals who, through work, have as their objective the production of services. That structure is not the sum of the actions of individuals: the quality that emerges from it is greater than that sum.

We think of the company as a social institution, and not simply as a rational organisation that would have taken into account only the quantitative productive aspects. Without being set aside, these are redimensioned as soon as they are recognised as the product of human actions (the qualitative). Defined in this way, such a company is an open social system, permeable to change, to learning, to development and to adaptation to systems and variables outside it. Any company so understood passes, in its life cycle, through situations of crisis — crisis being understood as a possibility and not as a catastrophe. A possibility of growing, of developing and of reconstituting itself for the common good and the achievement of objectives.

Crises, culture and hierarchy

We distinguish two types of crisis: a) vital crises and b) crises of maladjustment.

In any event, that tension — created by vital crises as much as by crises of maladjustment — can and must be turned to account and directed to the benefit of the company.

The structure of the company is sustained by the key values, the customs, the myths and the legends that make up the corporate culture, which gives actions their profile.

These are the parameters of any functional social system — here, the company:

• 1. Interdependence of the different subsystems.
• 2. Adequate hierarchical ordering between the different levels.
• 3. Appropriate channels of communication.
• 4. Clear and permeable boundaries and limits.
• 5. Adequate exercise of authority.
• 6. Sense of belonging to the organisation.
• 7. Individual responsibility.

The company being so understood, all its members, from the top to the base of the pyramid, are fundamental pieces of the chain of production. In a company there are no hollow or insignificant functions: all of them are productive functions, whatever their hierarchical position.

We distinguish power from hierarchy. By power we mean the line of command, from the top to the base and in one direction only; and by hierarchy, an organisation in which, while decisions remain the preserve of management, the base is taken into account, which creates a circular form of leadership.

These concepts allow us to establish relational diagnoses of the company, aimed at improving the quality of life of individuals and at making the company functional for the achievement of its objectives, towards its excellence.

The diagnostic stage is followed by the proposals for intervention and their implementation, with objectives of concrete and verifiable change, in short-, medium- and long-term actions.