Human Capital often refers to formal educational attainment, with the implication that education is investment with returns in the form of wage, salary, or other compensation. These are normally measured and conceived of as private returns to the individual but can also be social returns. (Moffatt) .
A basic premise of the human capital theory is that firms do not own it; individuals do. Firms may have access to valuable human capital, but either through the poor design of work or the mismanagement of people, may not adequately deploy it to achieve strategic impact. (Wright et al, 2001).
The crux of this theory is that people are of value to the organization because they make it productive. A part of these productive capabilities will be lost when a company chooses to downsize. In essence, the organization has invested in people just as if it had invested in machinery, viewing them as an additional type of capital. Productivity levels are the result of investment in human capital in the past. The investment in Human Capital will be lost because the jobs are being eliminated. Because knowledge of older technologies becomes obsolete and because people forget, human capital is subject to depreciation. The short return period and the depreciation of human capital leads to a declining human capital at the end of the (working) life, unless the level of learning-by-doing is higher than the depreciation rate. (Alders, 1999).
Downsizing means dispersal of assets and resources, particularly with regard to human resources which embody firm-specific skills and knowledge. Which types of resources are lost in this process is critical to the eventual success of such endeavors. With downsizing, the ability of large firms to transform themselves via internal learning may be lost. Dynamic learning implies information scale economy exploitation, and to the extent that critical mass is reduced through downsizing there is lesser diffusion of information and knowledge.