How does this definition apply to that of managers of human capital ?

Today, the term 'a good manager' should be reaffirmed, politically correct, as a good manager of people'. How does this definition, however, apply to that of the management of human capital and the motivation of that 'capital'?

A mixture of both technical experience and personal traits is involved in management itself. For example, technical expertise may come in the form of an understanding of the theories of motivation and traits from understanding a good manager's features or behaviours. Taylorist-driven 'scientific leadership' for most of the 20th century It gave the impression that it was mainly (if not exclusively) technological considerations that mattered. This mechanistic approach is gradually being softened today by a greater focus on issues guided by people/values. As a key differentiator in the performance of executives who could 'tune in' to the emotional side of themselves and others, Daniel Goleman (1995) has made a strong case for emotional intelligence. The behavioural approach focuses on individuals (rather than techniques) and claims that it is individuals who make things happen; it argues that improvement is not a technological challenge, but that it is critically based on the definition and interpretation of success.

It means a transition to the 'best' when we think of change and any concept of 'better' is simply a reflection of the ideals of those concerned. It is these questions of principles that have a vital effect on the degree of individual engagement. Competence without dedication is not a solid basis for effective decision-making or organizational results.

In the end, leadership is not about sheer coercion - in many companies, people easily see beyond this and hence the high levels of scepticism. It is about making individuals genuinely believe in what they do.(pure McGregor Theory Y?’)

Management here focuses on being dedicated to employee needs (and therefore motivations) and growth, which can only be achieved if workers believe in what they do, want to do it, and understand that management is there to help them become more successful in doing it. A successful manager believes in the importance of individuals and treats them. They are formed and built equally and with reverence, hence the vital element of trust. But how often, in reality, does this happen? Management, of course, requires a mixture of what you are doing and the way it is done.

It could be argued that a people/values-driven approach is reflected in the phrase ‘human capital management’.The word, however, although it may well represent much of its spirit, is It can easily be interpreted as representing that concern, often associated with the more formalized, technological and deceptive, even cold and calculating, agendas and the terms themselves (using the words' capital 'and' management 'so close together).

This approach to human resource management is now about to be expanded into 'human capital accounting,' which some claim is a trend that is much more potentially 'dehumanizing.' Few will consider this growth (and phrase) an ideal solution, particularly when one hears a chief executive wax lyrically about employees being the best assets of the business only for people to find that they are 'virtual' and are, if not completely, forgotten in company accounts, which at all levels is even more disrespectful to the workforce.

It may not be ideal to speak about people as 'assets,' but surely it is better not to discuss them directly at all?

There are certainly better words than 'human resources' or 'human remains' or 'human capital' as one group of embittered workers found themselves and many would not hesitate to welcome it. With the use of the word 'people money' in itself, there is something wrong. Problems occur only when the fundamental culture of the company is perceived as inherently exploitative. In so many companies today, it is this general lack of confidence that ultimately makes many organizational changes extremely difficult.

Overall, the concept of 'human resource management' (and its extension to 'human capital accounting') is by no means necessarily incompatible with the term 'good people manager,' but jargon is in the way of concentrating on the heart of the real sense that we are seeking to express, namely that people and values are the keys to both successful management and organizational success.

As long as that is (and is seen to be) the driving motive behind what we do and the way we do it, it rightly becomes irrelevant to semantic arguments over language. Unfortunately, as it is very rarely the case, both the message and the messenger become language and, maybe, too frequently, there is far more behind the two separate words than is normally understood. As Lord Brown of Madingley (BP's CEO) said,' Technology can be bought; the talent to execute them is what we need.' And that takes individuals who want to do it.

References

1. (Badiou et al., 2016)Badiou, A. et al. (2016) 6. The Populism That Is Not to Be Found, What Is a People? doi: 10.7312/badi16876-007.Blvd, J. F. K. et al. (2011) Libraries in Developing Countries.Terry, H. (no date) ‘To Influence’, pp. 9–12.
2. (2019). What is Human Capital Management? - Definition from WhatIs.com. [online] SearchHRSoftware. Available at: https://searchhrsoftware.techtarget.com/definition/human-capital-management-HCM.
3. Ifs.com. (2020). Human Capital Management. [online] Available at: https://www.ifs.com/corp/solutions/enterprise-resource-planning/human-capital-management/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2021].