Are Humans Resources? LO15843

Benjamin B. Compton (bcompton@enol.com)
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:03:20 -0700

Replying to LO15823 --

Just a couple of observations about this thread:

-- It is typical of a thread that last for more than three of for replies,
in that most people participating in the thread seem to become very
interested in espousing their views and feelings. There are, thank
goodness, those who are willing to inquire into the thinking and reasoning
of others (thank you Rol for leading by example!).

-- No particular conclusion has or probably will be drawn from the
conversation. I don't view this as wrong or wasteful. The point, I think,
is to encourage reflection on our own beliefs and values. It is, in a
certain way, exciting to see this thread, like so many others, bring out
so many different beliefs.

-- People are closer to agreeing than what is at first obvious. For
instance Rol is determined to go by the definition of "resource" in his
dictionary; At, on the other hand, has his own interpretation of the word.
And so there is an exchange. A conversation, wherein semantics become more
important than meaning. I appears, on the surface, that the has moved past
the subject, and become clouded by inference. (Because I can't read body
language it is difficult to know, but I sense some defensiveness from some
and annoyance from others as this thread continues.)

-- With no conclusions having been reached, and the topic discussed
thoroughly, people begin to lose interest. That's OK, however, because in
a few months we'll be talking about the same subject, going over the same
ground, in nearly the same manner. There will be new participants the next
time around, and we'll get new perspectives and insights. But we still
won't draw any conclusions or reach any agreements. Or will we?

-- I find it amazing how well this community functions despite the fact
that people rarely agree with other people in public. (In my case I find
people agree with me much more in private E-Mail. I wonder why? Sometimes
they're people who post regularly; sometimes I get messages from people
I've never seen post. It is an interesting thing.)

I conclusion let me just say, yes, people can be viewed as resources. And
according to the dictionary that would not be a demeaning or dehumanizing
categorization. That isn't the point, I'm afraid. The point is:

1. How do managers interpret the word "resource"?
2. How do employees interpret the word?

The dictionary has little to do with either of these two questions. We're
talking about perception, which inevitably leads to action. Given the
Newtonian and deterministic approach to management I think it is a
dangerous thing to categorize people as "resources." It does lead, I'm
afraid, to what At fears: Slavery! It does imply, in the minds of
shareholders, managers, and employees "ownership."

I think most people are vaguely (sp?) aware that their managers or
shareholders think they own or controll them. And they just accept this as
the price of working for an organization. Which, frankly, in the Western
democracies is baffling since freedom is such a cherished thing! The day
will come, I believe, that a new way of talking about employees will
emerge -- a way that is congruent with human potential and organizational
potential. We're just not ready for it yet! God speed the day!

-- 
Benjamin B. Compton
bcompton@enol.com

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>