This moment coincides with the one in which companies are calculating their end of the year, calculating results, incentives and bonuses and planning the key indicators of success for the year 2022.
This naturally includes the areas of Human capital, who will probably be reviewing their labor cost, their restructuring programs, leadership acceleration plans and all that we left for “next year.”
And most likely, like last year, we put aside what we did not do this year or last year: serve as a lever to the development of the country through sources of employment.
If we look at the boards of directors Of the top 50 companies in the country, three things are clear: the majority are made by men, the directors generally come from the same cities and the majority are from the same universities. Now, these same companies serve a diverse market, from all parts of the Republic and which, consequently, are mostly poor.
It is not at all a class protest speech, but an invitation to action regarding what we can do from the areas of Human capital, we are somehow the ones who operate the strength of the company regarding employment. And in that, let’s face it, we have fallen short.
The university talent search Outside of the top five or six it has become an immense barrier of exclusion, not from access to companies, but towards middle management. Not a few areas of recruitment or Human Resources professionals are mandated to hire people from university X, Y or Z and with a master’s degree in 1 or 2. Furthermore, we have the public gall to do leadership programs for precisely people of these universities eliminating 96% of the professionals who graduate in the country.
Sure, for operational positions, for contact centers and the organizational base they work wonders, and they are also local. We completely ignore the need for growth of these other people and condemn companies to the same mistake as the continent: we leave the privilege to the elites.
In no way am I condemning those educational institutions, companies or professionals, I would be condemning myself. The approach is different, it is more like a challenge or challenge compared to what comes to us in the rest of the decade.
We have commented that the most important barrier to inclusion is poverty, and that the most effective mechanism to bridge this gap in a structural way is education. That is a current and clear categorical imperative, but it seems to be an understatement.
If someone manages to cross the education bridge, he encounters the implacable barrier of growth, of a class filter that, due to the origin of his education, prevents him from growing and this is passed from generation to generation.
While watching career shows and college fairs in some places, where business as usual shave the best averages for their accelerated development programs, you see empty corridors in universities – particularly outside urban centers – where there is hardly a meager job bank.
We are at a time when companies, and talent areas, must make a relevant leap towards these social problems. Our talent programs must be broad and inclusive, they must also be risky – looking for talent everywhere without pause and not being left with the simple selection of some places and the same type of professionals. There is no doubt, there are lamentable and poor quality educational centers, but that does not make people so. “
This inclusion movement generates a virtuous circle, where those same professionals, who know their peers, can bring extraordinary talent. And it is not a simple inclusion, it is a training growth plan, of acceleration, of commitment with these professionals.
I do not refer to assistance programs where it is intended that young people build future shorts with aid that are barely enough for transportation. This is one private industry work– Effectively and purposefully include professionals of all backgrounds within your managerial and leadership forces.
But we must go a step further, riskier, but certainly more prosperous: to stop demanding academic requirements to occupy positions. It sounds radical, but it is far from it. In a country where there are few professional education options, there are amounts of experience. Empirical mechanics who have operated a machine for years can certainly be supervisors; store cashiers with days and days of experience can be leaders of the same; Brand deliverers can be sales managers.
It is not about eliminating the value of education, but about understanding that you no longer only learn in the classroom, that our workforce It is informal and it learns by doing, working and persevering. It is about understanding that that workforce has a right to grow to management, leadership and boards of directors.
We are already late, but there is no need to delay.
Thank you all for your company and your opinions, may next be a year full of beautiful things for you.
Reference-www.eleconomista.com.mx