Replying to V&I LO8672, HR LO8688;
[Host's Note: msg linked to LO8688 on the LO web pages]
Please pardon my attempt to respond to 2 different subjects in 1 message,
but I feel the 2 are inter-related.
First of all, thanks to Anne Tyrie, Peter Marks and robert Bacal for
helping me analyse what I meant by my statements.
I am afraid my remarks were taken as being an attempt to bring political
correctness into the term "human resources." This was not my intent.
Robert Bacal writes, "What then would be the proper pristine terms that we
could use?"
And Peter Marks writes,
"I actually have no particular objection to being classified *among other
things* as a resource (it seems like a positive step for personnel
departments whose origins were in union busting). But then TJ's dig is
right on target - the accounting treatment of human resources should be at
least as sophisticated as that of machinery."
The pristine term I am looking for is any term that delineates the
difference between a material value and human value. Perhaps a People
department? I also have no personal objection to being classified a
resource. However, I am not looking at individual behavior here, but
organisational behavior. Human value is the only "resource" I am aware of
that can be altered substantially either way, good or bad. Land, minerals
and other resources are generally degraded over time with use. These can
be improved with assets(buildings, etc), but the fundamental value remains
the same or degrades with some regularity when used. Obviously farmland
increases in value when not used as it is replenished with nutrients and
new minerals are being produced by the earth each moment, but our usage
normally outstrips the ability of these resources to replenish
themselves(Just an example, I am not an eco-terrorist either).
People, on the other hand, can increase or decrease their production by a
variety of ways. People can add substantially more value to an
organisation than any material resource and, conversely, can detract more
than any material resource. People can actually create new material for
organisational use almost at will. In theoretical terms, would a universal
presence call The Creator a resource as well as the created. My point is
there is a fundamental difference and I believe that the delineation would
help with understanding and learning within organisations..
Robert Bacall writes, "I understand assets are depreciated, why do
resources need to be? Is there some accounting issue here?"
Whether resources are "depleted" and assets are "depreciated" is not my
concern. My point with the accounting principles is that business is
trying to view people as resources without the normal financial rigour of
subjecting the value to a bottom line statement(mineral resources
companies do carry the depletion on the sheets and every farmer I know
makes financial allowances for rejuvenating farmland). If people are a
resource, they should be carried on the balance sheet with the same fiscal
responsibility as the other resources. I believe that referring to people
as resources creates a halfway house that lulls organisations into the
thought that labour has a static value, even if it cannot be quantified.
When viewed as a resource, a deterioration of the workforce is not seen on
the balance sheet which keeps the organisation looking well when it is
not. In another case, substantial human performance increases will be
valued as higher performance by the material assets and resources rather
than higher performance by the people. This is where the C&C types find
their refuge in avoiding substantial change that could mobilise the
organisation without changing the numbers on the annual report. If people
are seen in their true splendour, apart from other "resources," then an
investment in people will be seen for its true value(ie, 'Our capital
equipment looks the same as last year, but that training program is paying
huge dividends). There's a statement most of us would love to hear.
I believe that human value necessarily has to be viewed as different, so
that organisations can realise and demand exponential increases in that
human value.
Answering Anne's question of presenting warm and fuzzy concepts to the
Board. I guess I am just old-fashioned, but I do not believe a journey of
candour and learning for an organisation can be embarked upon with an
assumption that the Board cannot understand candour and still make the
right choice or is not open to learning themselves. Remember Board members
are people, too!
I agree that you need to get people on board before moving forward, but if
you deceive someone of your true intentions, you have ALREADY moved
forward and they are NOT on board.
I hope I have not upset too many accountants or breached the rules of
cooperative communication.
--T J Linzy T_J_Linzy@msn.com Brightpath Leadership Training London, UK
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>