Inasmuch as asset can refer to a valuable person--"she proved to be an asset to the company"--I appreciate your point.
But IMO, "asset" is only marginally better than resource. Indeed, at least one definition of asset uses "resource" as a synonym. "Asset" still conjures up an inanimate object. Given the origins of the term, "sufficient goods to settle debts" and its predominant use in terms of financial aspects of a company, it would seem asset is as insidious as resource. Anything that would tend equate people with items on the balance sheet falls into the same boat as resource, IMO. "People are important to the success of this company" is far better than "people are our greatest resource/asset." I am not a resource to be consumed, nor an asset to be bartered. What is really strange is that resources are more often explicitly named than are people. For example, "this project needs more resources" invariable means more people (I have never seen otherwise). But when a project needs resources, such as money or servers, etc. they don't say "we need more resources." Instead they say "we need more servers for this project." This is bass-ackwards. The worst offenders I've seen are consulting companies. No love for the people they manage simply as "billable hours" and "skillsets." Having done such work for a number of years, perhaps that's why I seem so sensitive on the topic. Person and people. Those words are more than sufficient. View and treat people as people. -Rob --- In [email protected], "Anne Thomas Manes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes -- I prefer working for a company that views its people as > assets. Anyone interested in becoming an analyst? > I'm hiring.... > > Anne
