The thread I've been following seems to be valuable in the sense that we
are dialoging about the basic "value" of the human being, and the
importance of holding that value high. We need to respect the human being
highly, and treat us like the children of God that we are.
It seems to me that one of the implications behind the thread is that
business tends to treat people like throw away objects (and sometimes we
do), which is reflected in the name of Human Resources. This implication
further implies that those in the human resources field tend to follow the
behavior, and belief, of people as things, and should get their act
together. As an aside to my thoughts, I believe HR people are the least
likely to treat people as objects. One of my bosses, a stereotypical
engineer, has spoken of people as things, and makes no bones about it. He
used the term "Human Resources" to justify his speach, which led me to
consider the term a bit.
Where did the term originate? Was it meant to mean the department provides
resources in the form of people to organizations that need it? I believe
that is Personel's responsibility. My thought is that the term relates to
the organization that provides resources FOR people, and the resources
they have are in SUPPORT of the human being in his or her life, resources
such as training, and benefits management. My experience and thoughts are
that the term Human Resources is misunderstood, and we would do well to
change our mental models of what Human Resources does. We could start by
changing the name to Resources for Humans.
The topic of the "Are Humans Resources" thread is valuable, yet the title
is somewhat misleading. It would be better stated to be "We employees are
worthy of respect."
-- John Crutcher John.crutcher@boeing.comLearning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>