Det er tilsyneladende et misforhold mellem HR og Økonomi.
Økonomi vil gerne hjælpe (eller belære) HR til at få styr på tingene. Se debat om dette på Lars Kolinds blog:
'Vågn op HR-Chefer'.
Jeg mener dog at der er noget ustyrligt over mennesket, og jeg er bange for at økonomerne ikke rigtig forstår endsige anerkender dette. Mennesket er som ikke en økonomisk teori. Mennesket er ikke som en vindmølle. Det ustrylige er et grundvilkår. Det er ikke et problem, der skal bekæmpes, men tværtimod en enorm ressource, hvis man kan forholde sig til det på en konstruktiv måde. Det er bla. fordi mennesket er ustyrligt, at det er istand til at lede sig selv. Fjerner man ustyrligheden, fjerner man også selvledelseskompetnecen.
Nu ved jeg godt at økomoner ikke nødvendigvis er interesseret i at lytte til en forvildet teolog som mig. Men så er det godt at deres neoliberale ledestjerne nobelprismodtager
Paul Krugman har sagt noget tilsvarende. Ganske vist taler han ikke om HR, men han taler om at økonomer har særdelse svært ved at forholde sig til det ustrylige og kaotiske.
Under overskriften
How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? skrev Krugman bl.a.
"Economists will have to learn to live with messiness" (NY Times column 2 September 2009.) Dette tror jeg faktisk de kan lære af os i HR.
(Ganske vist viste det sig at Krugman ikke rigtig mente hvad han skrev i 2009. Det forstår jeg ikke, for hvis vi alligevel ikke når det komemr til stykket vil lære af finanskrisen, så kommer den vel igen en dag.)
----------------------------------------------
After outlining the causes of economics' failure to foresee the crash, Krugman writes:
"It’s much harder to say where the economics profession goes from here. But what’s almost certain is that economists will have to learn to live with messiness. That is, they will have to acknowledge the importance of irrational and often unpredictable behavior, face up to the often idiosyncratic imperfections of markets and accept that an elegant economic “theory of everything” is a long way off. In practical terms, this will translate into more cautious policy advice — and a reduced willingness to dismantle economic safeguards in the faith that markets will solve all problems."
Towards the end of the piece he writes
"Economics, as a field, got in trouble because economists were seduced by the vision of a perfect, frictionless market system. If the profession is to redeem itself, it will have to reconcile itself to a less alluring vision — that of a market economy that has many virtues but that is also shot through with flaws and frictions. The good news is that we don’t have to start from scratch. Even during the heyday of perfect-market economics, there was a lot of work done on the ways in which the real economy deviated from the theoretical ideal. What’s probably going to happen now — in fact, it’s already happening — is that flaws-and-frictions economics will move from the periphery of economic analysis to its center."
.... and
"So here’s what I think economists have to do. First, they have to face up to the inconvenient reality that financial markets fall far short of perfection, that they are subject to extraordinary delusions and the madness of crowds. Second, they have to admit — and this will be very hard for the people who giggled and whispered over Keynes — that Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions. Third, they’ll have to do their best to incorporate the realities of finance into macroeconomics."
Sakset fra:
http://quotesjournal.blogspot.com/2010/01/economists-will-have-to-learn-to-live.html
