+1
JP
Side note: there's a psychological benefit for corporations to think
about people as just another resource, like a pen. They're easier to
let go, hire cheaply, etc. Don't believe for a minute this is a
product of accidental application. It is insidious and intentional.
In the US, in the 50's each person's contributions and growth path was
the responsibility of the corporation versus today, there's a task
that needs to get done and it simply needs a "resource" to complete
the task. As computers become more intelligent those resources will
become more automaton and less human. In the eyes of corporations,
they need a resource to complete the task, not a person.
On Nov 23, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Rob Eamon wrote:
--- In [email protected], JP Morgenthal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ya! Well, as author of a slow selling book on semantics, let me
> just say, corporations don't seem to care all that much about them
> and while you would like to be treated in a less dehumanizing manner
> and in fact perhaps the world would be a much better place if
> corporations didn't view people as resources, for most corporations,
> humans = bag of gravel.
Your point is well taken. My objections to the use of the term usually
fall on deaf ears. People just don't care about it. When someone
says "this project needs more resources" what do you think of? More
money? More servers? More pens? Usually, one immediately thinks of
people and that's just sad. Why not say "this project needs more
people?" It's certainly more specific and accurate.
> Besides, American Heritage Dictionary definition #3 is very
> acceptable in this regard.
"3. The ability to deal with a difficult or troublesome situation
effectively; initiative: a person of resource."
This (and all the others relating to people) defines an attribute or
characteristic of a person. It doesn't define a person *as* a
resource.
Resource is insidious because it devalues people. Instead of laying
off
people, corporations "make resource cutbacks." Much more pleasant,
eh? "Resource" is a device that lets decision makers not have to
explicitly remember that they are dealing with people--which risks
more
cavalier decisions. Worse, it can make you think less of yourself, if
only subconciously.
http://www.hrmguide.net/hrm/chap1/ch1-links3.htm has some information
on the origins of "human resources." Of note are these two extracts:
"The Harvard interpretation sees employees as resources. However, they
are viewed as being fundamentally different from other resources -
they
cannot be managed in the same way. The stress is on people as human
resources."
Then why not just stick with the word we already had--people? Why
introduce confusion by calling people resources and then saying "but
they're special?"
"The Michigan model has a harder, less humanistic edge, holding that
employees are resources in the same way as any other business
resource.
They must be:
- obtained as cheaply as possible
- used sparingly
- developed and exploited as much as possible"
It is my contention that simply using the term "resource" to refer
to a
person tends to lead to the Michigan point of view.
Then companies wonder why there is a decrease in loyalty and
commitment. Stop treating people as swappable cogs in a machine and
perhaps those desired behaviours would rise.
-Rob
