Yes -- I prefer working for a company that views its people as assets. Anyone interested in becoming an analyst? I'm hiring....
Anne On Nov 23, 2007 3:06 PM, JP Morgenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > +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 > > > > > >
