the perspective of enhancing capabi

the perspective of enhancing capabilities (Giovanola, 2005,
2009). Imagination (the traditional madwoman of the house)
helps persons find original solutions to contingencies they are
faced within daily life. This possibility has always disturbed
rationalists who, at best, saw it as an aesthetical side to the mind
and, at worst, an irrational aspect that must be eliminated through
rigor and logic. Yet, imagination implies the possibility of moving
forward, creating, innovating, and being visionary. Human
beings are able to gravitate toward an ideal even if they cannot
fully attain it and, what is more, they seem to be able to question
received ideas. Persons, as creative beings, are also intuitive and
base their actions on impulses, which lead them to reach their
goals (Shlien, D’Arifat, & Ducroux-Biass, 2007). Although their
actions are turned toward the future, which is to say toward their
goals, they are not mechanical. Being creative is more an instinctive
process, set apart from the intellect (Bergson, 1946). It is true
that “a creative mode of thought operates outside of the visible
limits of a problem. It requires a sense of freedom that enables a
person to focus on a problem by using his or her imagination”
(Shlien et al., 2007, p. 78). Persons are therefore subjects, which
imply that they are free, notably free to act in a creative way in
any given situation and according to their own views. As bureaucratic
organizations tend to foster hierarchical procedures where
creativity is anathema, at least when it comes from below, this
poses a serious problem for anyone wishing to standardize and
control human behavior from above. In practice, the underlings
have the unfortunate habit of behaving unpredictably at times,
which leads to elaborate contraptions to control this nefarious
tendency. In that controlling sense, HRM could be seen as one of
the best models to date. Last the notion of “human richness”
(Giovanola, 2005) offers us a range of varied possibilities that
are tangibly embodied within capabilities, as meant by Sen
(2009) and Nussbaum (2011). It seems preferable to find all possible
means to enable people to express their abilities in society
and within organizations and to try to reduce inequalities instead
of waiting for the perfect system, which may never come to exist.
It appears that, in its actual form, HRM is incapable of enabling
the full expression of human capabilities, whence the importance
of evolving toward persons management.
Oriented Toward Other, but Strategic Rather
Than Egoistic
Human resources, if we follow economic lore, are individualistic
and selfish. More realistically, Flahault (2008), like
Morin (1973), demonstrates that a person can be altruistic and
selfish, as well as nice and mean to others. Consequently, it is
possible for selfishness to inhabit a person who is nonetheless
opening up to others. Instead of denying this phenomenon,
being aware of it and taking it into consideration might be
preferable. Human nature, as a concept, seems to condition a
person’s ethical standpoint and moral behavior. From a
restricted view, human nature becomes onedimensional,
whereas, from a broader view, human nature
can expand in a more complex and realistic fashion (e.g.,
Jonas’s ethics of responsibility or Morin’s ethics of complexity).
To be open to others, a person should follow certain rules
(Mounier, 1952): going out of the self—the antithesis of egocentrism,
narcissism, and individualism; understanding—
stop seeing things from your personal point of view and try
instead to see them from the point of view of others, while
remaining yourself; taking upon oneself—sharing the destiny,
the trouble, the joy, or the task of one another; feel what
others feel; giving—a person’s economy is an economy of
giving, not an economy of compensation or calculation; and
last, faithfulness. In fact, a person’s trajectory is a constant
adventure, even though a person’s general state continually
changes (Bergson, 1946). This faithfulness does not mean
being bound to a restricting agreement, but agreeing to a sustainable
relationship. These rules are similar to those described
by Melé (2009c). In this respect, the “Golden Rule” or “ethics
of reciprocity” require persons to put themselves in someone
else’s shoes (Maxwell, 2003). Melé (2009c) also develops the
principle of human dignity: One can neither use nor treat persons
as objects. Others are treated like objects when they are
treated as absentees or used in an instrumental fashion. To
treat others as subjects, as a presence, means acknowledging
that they can neither be defined nor classified for good, that
they are inexhaustible and filled with hope (Mounier, 1952).
The value of openness to the Other was developed by Levinas
(1972/2006). He explained that openness to the Other can be
understood in three different ways. In the first, openness
relates to the essence of a human being opening up to be seen.
In the second, openness refers to consciousness opening up to
the other’s presence. In the third, the one Levinas (1972/2006)
develops, “openness is the skin made vulnerable by insults
and wounds” (p. 105). This openness relates to sincerity,
which means “to embrace vulnerability, let go, and surrender.”
For this reason, one cannot ask someone else to sincerely
open up to others in this fashion, this process can only
be part of a very personal journey. Being open toward others
can encourage others to open up. Faÿ and Albert (2005) distinguish
the logic of closing up from the logic of opening up
to others. When a person closes up, exchanges and reasoning
patterns become robot-like (Faÿ, 2004). Thus, closing up
becomes an impediment to persons management. This sincere
openness to others can reflect a humanistic leaning,
which focuses on the wealth that develops within relationships.
In this context, a person, the whole person, develops
actions that can be endlessly renewed, an approach that cultivates
long-term closeness and friendship (and not only calculated
trust).
Consequently, moral foundations depend on the wholeness
of a being, that is, of a person. According to this perspective
(Morin, 2004), ethics is rooted in the human trinity
of “person-society-species.” A person is a psychological
being who voluntarily develops an ethical standpoint through
which to view the world. A person is also a member of a
given society that influences this person’s very being and
moral standards. Last, a person is a complete biological