In the context of human resource development, or HRD, the Human Capability Approach, or HCA, is associated with the philosopher and economist Amartya Sen (1999). HCA argues that organisations should focus on the expansion of real opportunities provided to individuals to achieve lives that they value (Sen, 1999).
While this has been posted about before (here), with an HCA approach, organisational employees are more than just a resource for economic output. HCA focuses on the employee as an individual. Someone who has values, diverse strengths and aspirations that can be utilised to create a more engaged and motivated workforce (Sen, 1999).
Taking an HCA approach allows both staff and the organisation to focus on freedom and opportunity to develop potential - rather than just measuring development or worth based on income or productivity (Bryson & O’Neil, 2008; Sen, 1999). Additionally, HCA makes clear distinctions between an organisation’s:
- Resources such as training and what employees are able to earn
- Capabilities, which are the real opportunities offered, and
- Functionings which are the actual outcomes, whether the work is meaningful or not (Sen, 1999).
For example, if an organisation provides training for an employee (a resource), but the employee lacks the time or support to complete - or to even partake in the training - they may not be able to transform that resource into capability. This illustrates a key danger with HRD: that we can become too focused on inputs rather than if individuals have more freedom to use those inputs in meaningful ways (Bryson, 2007).
Sen’s approach is relevant to the bicultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand, as there continues to be discourse and improvement needed in wellbeing, equity and inclusive development (Bryson & O’Neil, 2008). Consider leadership programmes aimed at increasing the participation of Māori in managerial roles. If the programmes provided do not address an organisations culture or underlying bias, it is not the capability of an organisation that has expanded, only the access to training (Bryson & O’Neil, 2008).
In addition to the focus on inputs (Bryson, 2007), HCA has some additional limitations (Robeyns, 2006). It can be difficult for organisations to track measurable outcomes, as HCA takes such a wide view of development. Clear organisational metrics are needed to validate training investment when HCA is being used as a philosophical approach (Tamkin et al., 2008).
But it is still worth exploring.
Sian
References:
Bryson, J. (2007). Chapter 10: Human Resource development or developing human capability? In S. Bolton, M. Houlihan (Eds.), Searching for the Human in Human Resource Management: Theory, Practices and workplace contexts (pp. 171-192). Palgrave Macmillan.
Bryson, J., & O’Neil, P. (2008). Developing human capability: Employment institutions, organisations and individuals—Overview of findings on developing human capability [Discussion paper]. Victoria University of Wellington. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/som/researchprojects/research-projects/developg-human-capb/Overview_of_Findings_DHC.pdf
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 351–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00263.x
Tamkin, P., Cowling, M., & Hunt, W. (2008). People and the Bottom Line [No. 448, report]. The Work Foundation/IES [Institute for Employment Studies]. https://employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/448.pdf
* Sian Jones-White has kindly written this post
















