We’re proud to have supplied the first guest article at the weknowmore.org blog – and similarly proud of their favourable opinion of our contribution. We’ve published a synopsis – which, like the parent article, explores the conundrums in defining human value in organisations – below, but you can read the full article online at their website.
While you’re there, we’d also suggest you take in two other very interesting and thought-provoking articles:
- Ten ways how leadership can influence and promote interpersonal trust in knowledge management behavior and processes
- Personality and Knowledge Management Behavior [The Big Five Theory of Personality]
For what it’s worth …
Robert Terry, Managing Director, ASK
When it comes to deciding the worth of human capital, our achievements – the good stuff on our CVs that gets us the job interview – undoubtedly matter. Like a Profit & Loss Account or a Balance Sheet, however, they are primarily historic evidence of our ability – a snapshot in the rear view mirror. Unlike their fiscal counterparts, they are also self-edited: where we are ‘in the red’, the metaphorical Tippex can be discreetly applied. Those to whom we sell ourselves buy us on a combination of a basis of this historic “evidence” and of their estimate of what they expect us to be able to do for them in the future. They are – quite literally – punters.
But it seems that organisations genuinely do struggle to value people in a positive sense. Part of our value as workers and employer is in our skills, our attitudes and behaviours, our experience and particularly our knowledge. Even knowledge may not be the best word here: wisdom – knowing when to use which knowledge and in which way – may be closer. Wisdom and knowledge are abstract commodities: we can assess then by implication – by measuring productivity, by using psychometric tools to identify potential strengths and weaknesses – but we are groping at outlines rather than drawing sharp definitions. Human capital has no single definitive unit of measure.