Categoria: Contributi esterni

Pubblico volentieri un contributo di Simone Caroli uno dei “giovani” più interessanti nel mondo HR che ha approfondito i temi dell’innovazione contrattuale e delle relazioni industriali   

L’inquadramento unico tra operai ed impiegati compirà nel 2022 i suoi primi cinquanta anni. Dopo mezzo secolo, è tempo di vedere se sta reggendo bene i segni del tempo. Con la sua introduzione nel CCNL Metalmeccanici, l’inquadramento unico ha avuto il merito di superare la discriminazione retributiva sofferta dagli operai che, nell’impostazione previgente, avevano minimi sindacali sistematicamente inferiori a quelli degli impiegati.

Da questo punto di vista, l’inquadramento unico è ancora in salute: nel mercato del lavoro attuale, innegabilmente, esistono profili operai di contenuto professionale e di valore aggiunto senz’altro maggiore rispetto ad alcuni profili impiegatizi. Quello che, forse, nel 1972 non era chiaro quanto oggi non riguarda però le retribuzioni: è la distanza che si è venuta a creare tra la modalità di lavoro degli impiegati, remotizzabile, rispetto al lavoro degli operai.

Il ricorso al lavoro agile nel primo lockdown 2020, per quanto imperfetto, ne è una prova molto efficace. Da un lato le professioni e le mansioni che non richiedono più lo svolgimento in presenza, dall’altro quelle che, necessariamente, hanno bisogno di uno schema tradizionale per essere rese: tempi, luoghi, e modi predefiniti di lavoro.

In questo ultimo insieme non rientrano solo mestieri operativi di fabbrica, cioè l’archetipo del lavoro del novecento. Il facchinaggio, così come la ristorazione, la cura della persona, o la raccolta di rifiuti (solo per citarne alcuni) vi rientrano a pieno titolo. Leggi tutto “I primi cinquant’anni dell’inquadramento unico: alcuni dubbi e qualche risposta…….. di Simone Caroli”

Una delle prime polemiche che hanno accompagnato la fase iniziale   della pandemia è stata : si muore “per” o “con” il Coronavirus? C’è voluto un po’ di tempo per capire quanto la domanda fosse irrilevante nella lotta contro lapandemia. Ancora oggi numeri e percentuali rischiano di non dimostrare nulla. La contabilità sia sui contagiati che sui decessi è completamente inattendibile. Così come i confronti internazionali.  

 L’unico messaggio certo che viene veicolato è di stare in casa e di evitare i contatti umani. Assolutamente giusto se proposto alle persone singole. Meno se tiene quelli che  devono decidere immobili e fermi al palo. Perché un dato  è ineludibile.

Fino a quando possiamo resistere senza raggiungere il punto di non ritorno che potrebbe compromettere irreparabilmente e irresponsabilmente   il nostro futuro?

Tutti convergono sulla necessità di prendere atto che questa crisi durerà a lungo. Non c’è picco che tenga e nemmeno un’ora “X” raggiunta la quale tutto potrà ritornare come prima. Non c’è la famosa nottata che deve passare. Ci vorranno anni. Inutile fare previsioni azzardate.

Tutti i dati confermano che il Corona è un Virus Democratico nella sua diffusione, perche’colpisce tutti, ma non nei suoi effetti letali, che sono concentrati principalmente, ma non esclusivamente, sopra una certa soglia di età. Leggi tutto “Occorre contrastare il virus senza distruggere il sistema produttivo di Mario Gasbarrino”

Di questi tempi, dove tutti sono concentrati sulla pandemia provocata dal coronavirus, è normale che l’attenzione generale sia dedicata a fermare il contagio.  Così come è altrettanto scontato che temi quali la tenuta del sistema sanitario del nostro Paese, il sacrificio di coloro i quali sono impegnati in prima linea, la necessità di rispettare l’isolamento delle persone e quindi la chiusura di tutte le attività non essenziali vengano vissute come prioritarie su qualsiasi altro ragionamento.

Il futuro, il dopo, il cosa ci sarà dietro l’angolo sembrano questioni  prive di significato. Ma lo sono davvero? Il nostro Paese, tutti noi, possiamo permetterci di non avere una visione di insieme che consideri contemporaneamente quello che dobbiamo fare oggi ma cercando contemporaneamente di capire cosa possiamo fare per non compromettere il nostro domani?

Leggi tutto “Coronavirus. Bisogna pensare al dopo. E occorre farlo ora. Di Mario Gasbarrino****”

The crisis has created, as one of its consequences, the need for an in-depth consideration of the role that lifelong learning plays for companies and its employee, especially for managers.

The premise is that we are faced with an epochal change of scenario in which the way to create value for companies, the managerial models and the skills they need to lead to this transformation are constantly evolving.

Technology and digitalization impose not only the acquisition of “technicality” but a change of approach and thinking that also touches the ways to do business.
In general, digitalization is still perceived as threatening because it is not clear how to exploit its opportunities and real potential.

Innovation is first and foremost an approach, a mentality that contemplates “try & error” and inevitably proceeds through experimentation. It is feasible to share and integrate, thinking in a “we” (versus me) optics even outside the organizational boundaries, knowing how to create ecosystems that include and enhance diversity.

The relationship with the customer is evolving towards a new balance that meets the need for customization and “experience” which are thanks to the possibilities offered by digitalization and technology.

“Traditional” organizational responses are under pressure: logic for processes and work for projects allow for greater efficiency and lower costs and organization charts, mansions, procedures, and so on. They describe less and less how they are created and who creates value in the company.

The pressure on those who have leadership roles is very high: the demand is to move in uncertainty and ambiguity, make decisions quickly and in high-stress situations.
In addition, one of the main functions of leadership is that of integrator: visions, differences, processes, etc.

Obviously, a response to such problems can only be achieved by setting different ways and by constantly listening to and involving all the actors in the system.
It is no longer the time for standardized proposals dropped from above. The crisis of business schools in almost every part of the world also comes from this.

In Italy, we have an additional problem because participation in training initiatives of Italian managers continues to be lower than our colleagues from the rest of Europe. Indeed, if the average of managers participating in training initiatives, both in their company and individually, is 30% across Europe, in Italy it is 18%.

The most advanced countries in this field are England and the Netherlands respectively with 35% and 31%. The countries we generally refer to however overcame us of at least 4 points.

There is still a long way to go. First of all, it is crucial that this awareness grows not only between managers but also in companies. Major training activities will be more and more on not just basic skills but also on new needed skills, delivered through a mix of complementary delivery ways (seminars, workshop, speech, …) and blended (virtual workshops, webinars, training pills, etc.) on demand, available on multiple devices.

Speaking of soft skills, “physical presence” will still be a key tool, which is increasingly becoming a moment of exchange of experience, co-creation and networking. In other contexts, conversely, it is possible to speak of possible “uberisation” of training.

Learning costs and technology platforms allow a different approach for economies of scale and engagement. Following the evolution of what is happening with MOOC in universities in many parts of the world, it is very likely that future millennials and companies will have different tools and contents available.

Personally, I believe that today, it is necessary to work to grow awareness that lifelong learning, from the end of school to retirement is a duty that determines professional growth, continuous adaptation of one’s own technical and personal skills and thus greater employability. The delivery methods, therefore, can also change if they are fit for the purpose.

Who provides adult training has the duty to experiment new proposals and new methodologies. Lifelong learning is a “duty” that we owe to ourselves and it is the key to face the new challenges posed by a completely new economic and social environment.

Ho chiesto a Luisa Panariello, 30 anni, blogger e nuova collaboratrice del CFMT di raccontare il business game BIG dal suo punto di vista. BIG nasce così. Dalla voglia di mettere in relazioni capacità e competenze differenti. Tipiche di generazioni differenti.

Queste le sue riflessioni…

Quando si parla di confronto intergenerazionale è facile imbattersi un una diffidenza dovuta dai pregiudizi consci o inconsci che si hanno, e ciò accade indipendentemente agli adulti così come ai più giovani.

Leggi tutto “Perché i giovani non dovrebbero avere paura dei professionisti, ma cercare il confronto intergenerazionale. Di Luisa Panariello”

---

In the past, it was easier. Companies who felt the need to acquire a new manager with certain skills asked their HR manager to fill out a job description, a precise profile of the position, and after a meeting with the trusted Head Hunter they would have a shortlist of candidates to choose from.

The market was basically transparent, managers were generally referenced and it was not difficult to get all the information needed to complete a fairly accurate picture.

Organizations were ready for inclusion because old or new managers responded to fairly compatible logic. A general manager, a sales manager, or a human resources manager had to occupy a position with well-defined boundaries both in terms of skills and competences.

They even sought candidates who would recognize themselves in the values ​​of that specific company. Even for the manager it was fairly clear. Skills and skills required by the offered position, professional path, and projects. The investment was on the long run and therefore the selection phase was very important and no mistakes had to be made.

At some point, everything has changed: more and more plain organigrams, internal employees replaced by interns with no prospect, temporary managers, downsizing of intermediate managerial levels, no chances for professional growth or career inside the company, broken promises and professional deskilling. Few (competent?) decided and many followed the instruction, regardless of the professional level.

The long season of the crisis has dictated its rules. On the market, at that point, it could be found everything and more, both in terms of quantity and quantity of resources available, and often in terms of offer by the professionals. But it is precisely the crisis that led to the need to change, to look up, to think of a different future.

In other words, to call into question both managers and companies. The goals have become increasingly difficult to define and complex to achieve, the market has become increasingly competitive and the competition more aggressive.

The new requirements are dictated by an increasingly “unfaithful” client, who do not care about slow interlocutors, and by a huge amount of data available increasingly difficult to analyze.

And so, the “traditional” answers are increasingly questioned: many companies struggle to be responsive, new organizational models are emerging in order to allow greater effectiveness and adaptability to the context, by creating value, satisfying the customer and creating true value in the company, they become the new focus also for the Human Resources Departments.

It is increasingly required to know how to move through uncertainty and ambiguity and to know how to lead, integrate, engage teams towards ambitious and increasingly challenging goals. From 2000 onwards, it has radically changed how to generate value for many businesses and for people.

The crisis of Taylorism and traditional hierarchies made of traditional organizational charts, procedures, roles, functions and careers set a new starting point: discontinuity. And this discontinuity brings with it two “new” characteristics for managers that need to be revisited: entrepreneurship and leadership.

Entrepreneurship understood as risk sharing, absence of pre-defined guarantees and professional and personal qualities similar to those required to an entrepreneur. Leadership as a capability to engage, guide and motivate coworkers even on unfamiliar situations. In addition, the manager must also build his own “personal brand” by adapting it to new business cultures.

It changes the way in which the enterprise decides and organizes with a view to producing value. Managers need to be useful to the company they work for, to themselves (career, but also the intrinsic meaning of work) and even to the socio-economic context that recognizes the function. It increases the responsibility for the manager and the companies towards all stakeholders and thus towards the overall social system.

This is also required to develop a vision of the world, the context and the society in which the company operates and interacts. From now on, new skills emerge, skills that managers will no longer be able to do without.

First and foremost, there is a need to have, more and more, the ability to build in a short time and in the context of Smart Organizations capable of responding to requests and contingencies of external change, which means for a manager, skills of ” Execution agility “(understood as the ability to accomplish its strategies faster than competition) and” Responsivity “(understood as ability to respond, even changing in style, to changes in context or market).

Secondly, there is the need for an open and dialectical mind able to interpret the complexity of the context and make it feasible, but also have the empathic ability to persuade others (within and outside the company) to be followed in the path identified. There is the need to develop a smart cooperation.

Third, it is required the ability to integrate cultural, contextual, gender and age differences to broaden the vision to elaborated which means interculturality and diversity.
They become equally important, the speed of learning, and the curiosity. So, the management of disruptive innovations (innovations that radically redefine the role of the enterprise’s ecosystem, the concept of value for the customer and the business models of the companies themselves) that developed exponentially on the market by taking oxygen to other solutions and feeding new and connected areas of growth.

Finally, there are two not less important skills: competitive intelligence, that is the ability to monitor competitors and instinct to close, which means to decide, choose and take responsibility for choices. Even when they prove to be wrong.

This is for sure a very interesting work for who trains managers and for the most innovative Human Resources Departments. But there are also many opportunities to reflect for managers and businesses. It is not possible to compete in global supply chains and new markets, as well as it is not possible take advantage of opportunities and business unless managers release energy, passion, creativity, and will accept new challenges.

But all this is possible by investing on resources, on young people, on relationships with universities, and on who can support businesses to create this discontinuity with the past. Otherwise, it is important to note the old rule so dear to Anglo-Saxon school managers, that when the speed of the external context is clearly higher than the speed of the internal organizational context, the end is inevitably begun. This is true for both managers and enterprises.

We must produce more, produce better and innovate more: this warning, also expressed by the Governor of the Bank of Italy, is confirmed by the analysis of the evolution of the relationship between supply and demand.

The lower ability to promote and absorb the medium-high skills shows all the difficulties of an economy that does not grow because it does not innovate and, for this reason, does not adequately reward the best skilled people.

From all observers emerges that the baggage of knowledge soft and hard and skills are a major economic factor: the present socio-economic situation confirms the centrality of the “human capital paradigm”.

However, the approach to human capital must consider its multiple nature, which concerns skills, experiences, attitudes and flexibility. Formal qualification and formal skills are very important, but they do not exhaust and explain all the aspects related to the “capital” that every person owns or can possess.

Measuring the performance of the skills is not easy, and furthermore it is evident that in Italy where the productive fabric is formed by a high prevalence of micro enterprises and manufacturing sector with a low share of human capital does not always show the right propensity for technological and organizational innovation.

This leads to a labor market where “skills performance” is less dynamic and it rewards workers and companies less than it does in other European competing countries.

Studies on the Italian skills mismatch show the consequences of these static nature and delay in comparison to other Member States, such as overqualification or inadequate level of remuneration for those with a higher level of skill set.

There is the insufficient effort in Italy to match highly specialized professions with high levels of education. This however, does not prevent two coinciding phenomena: higher skills reduce the risk of unemployment and also gender gap between men and women in accessing opportunities.

Even in the South of Italy, during the years of crisis, it was observed a sharp rise in the number of unskilled unemployed, while it grew the employment share of highly skilled workers.

It is also important to notice that long-term unemployment rose sharply amongst the group of low skilled workers.
The need for (continuous) upgrading of the skill level in most occupational fields threatens the labor market position of low-skilled workers who are crowded out of their traditional occupational domains.

This means that low-skilled workers are either locked up in poorly paid elementary jobs with flexible contracts that further weaken their labor market position or crowded out of employment entirely. A similar argument applies to female employees who have spent considerable periods outside the labor market to care for their children and to older employees who have outdated skills.

Many policy makers and experts argue that low-skilled workers can also benefit from the changes in the demand for skills if they receive additional training.
Participation in training may be of great relevance to increasing the labor market participation of low-skilled workers in general and of older low-skilled workers in particular.

Many studies in the field of human capital theory find that investments in the skills of workers have a positive effect on their productivity. These skills can be acquired in several ways. Both initial education and post-initial training (“lifelong learning”) contribute to a worker’s human capital.

There are various ways of post-initial learning: Workers may increase their human capital by participating in formal training courses, but also ‘learning-on-the job’ or experience appear to play a major role in acquiring the skills that are relevant for a worker’s productivity.

Other possible stimuli for improving the willingness of firms to invest in training of low skilled workers are tax discounts or exempts on training expenses, subsidized vocational training programmes, paid training leave, tax levies that oblige employers to spend a certain percentage of their total wage bill in training, or training funds from employees, employers, and public sources.

Finally, it is important to be aware of the spillover effects of R&D policy on the labor market position. As particularly in the first ‘innovation’ stage of the life cycle of a new technology the relative demand for high skilled workers will be the largest, it might be argued as suggested by Sanders years ago, that European governments might save on the tax money spent on programmes to stimulate the labor market position of the lower skilled workers, when R&D policies in Europe might be more targeted on the development of existing technologies, instead of the current focus on basic research.

L’accesso alle informazioni e alla formazione, la condivisione delle attività e delle conoscenze, il monitoraggio delle proprie azioni e le reazioni on time dei propri clienti sono state stravolte dall’utilizzo pervasivo del digitale. L’uso dei canali digitali ha cambiato il pubblico e il privato delle persone, ha modificato i modi di relazionarsi, di lavorare, di reperire le informazioni e di formarsi.

Non ci si può sottrarre a quella che i media chiamano la Digital Transformation, ovvero a tutti quei cambiamenti che veicolati dall’evoluzione tecnologica che hanno modificato e continuano a modificare le dinamiche sociali.
La Digital Trasformation ha portato con se nuove dinamiche sociali e nuove competenze talmente importanti e delle quali non si può più fare a meno che nella Raccomandazione del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 18 dicembre 2006 , relativa a competenze chiave per l’apprendimento permanente troviamo tra le competenze chiave quelle digitali.

Leggi tutto “Da mezzo… a luogo di Luigia Vendola”