A Multidisciplinary Critical Approach to Measure and Analyze Human Capital Productivity

Abstract

The objectives of the article are, to illustrate the complex dimensions of the relationship between human capital management and organizational performance and to provide insight into new methods for organization development. Methods are a combination of several research areas, including system intelligence, tacit signals, quality of the working life index and the theory of human capital production function. This article presents a holistic approach of multi-disciplinary research that emphasizes the complexity of HRM-Performance and explains why, in some cases, human resource development increases business performance, and in other cases not. Development complexity is more difficult when organizational performance is measured by monetary value. The article presents human capital intangible assets' connection to monetary scorecards using human capital production function, which explains and also makes it possible to predict human resource development payback. This article's methods form a skeleton for future research and give fundamentals for effective organization human capital performance development.

Quality of working life of employees in public healthcare organization in Finland: A cross‐sectional study

“…QWL was measured with a questionnaire and method of analysis developed by Kesti et al (2016). The questionnaire consists of 15 questions to measure perceptions in leadership, management, work culture, skills and work processes (Table 1).…”

“…Kesti et al based this calculation on different motivational theories, such as those outlined by Hertzberg (1959) and Kano et al (1984). The QWL index is calculated using the following equation:where PE(x_1), CI(x_2) and OC(x_3) are the coefficients describing motivation theoretical effects in human performance, and the x‐values are the outcomes of each self‐esteem factor calculated from the survey results (Kesti et al, 2016).…”

“…The methodology of measuring QWL through factors of self‐esteem and calculating the QWL index has been proven to be reliable (Kesti et al, 2016). The Cronbach's alpha values for the factors of self‐esteem were 0.66, 0.74 and 0.77, where an alpha value of ≥0.70 is considered acceptable and ≥0.80 is desirable (Polit & Beck, 2017).…”

“…In this study, we employed a method outlined by Kesti et al (2016), in which QWL is seen as a human intangible factor of production, the development of which can promote labour productivity. Kesti et al introduced factors of self‐esteem and categories of human competencies as factors influencing QWL (Figure 1).…”

“…Physical and emotional safety is the foundation of a good QWL, while excessive stress and fear have a negative effect on employee well‐being and consequently, productivity. The collaboration and identity factor is mostly linked to group motivation, while the objectives and creativity factor refers to the positive attitude and enthusiasm of employees (Kesti et al, 2016).…”