People are not assets
What is an asset? By definition, it is “a single item of ownership having exchange value.” Exchange value, as in buy and sell. Sounds a bit like slavery to me, which is still this country’s most shameful part of its history.
Why are assets on the balance sheet? So that you can value you the business particularly if you need to liquidate it. Banks provide asset-based lending and the assets are the collateral. Can your people be used as collateral? I hope not.
Jon Miller surfaced this overused business phrase “people are our greatest asset in Are Your People Your Greatest Asset? in August and I’ve been meaning since to add my thoughts. I think the answer is no, they are not, because they are not assets. And do you think people feel better being called an asset? I doubt they feel like they are being treated by respect.
I would prefer “partner”. Why? Because partnerships require that both parties get something out of the relationship. If you understand that your employees must get something out of the relationship (besides a paycheck), then you’ll do most of the right things that demonstrate respect for people.
Don’t treat your employees like assets. Treat them as partners.
Spot on Jamie you keep bringing it home on challenging the language of our modern corporate culture. The other term that has long grated on me is “Human Resources” – whatever!
What ever happened to more humanistic terms like people & personnel – at least these did not try to equate fellow team members to inanimate objects!
Thanks for the thought provoking post & the cross post to Jon’s earlier blog which I missed.
Regards,
Mike
Spot on Jamie you keep bringing it home on challenging the language of our modern corporate culture. The other term that has long grated on me is “Human Resources” – whatever!
What ever happened to more humanistic terms like people & personnel – at least these did not try to equate fellow team members to inanimate objects!
Thanks for the thought provoking post & the cross post to Jon’s earlier blog which I missed.
Regards,
Mike
Spot on Jamie you keep bringing it home on challenging the language of our modern corporate culture. The other term that has long grated on me is “Human Resources” – whatever!
What ever happened to more humanistic terms like people & personnel – at least these did not try to equate fellow team members to inanimate objects!
Thanks for the thought provoking post & the cross post to Jon’s earlier blog which I missed.
Regards,
Mike
That is a great call out, Jamie. I have caught myself thinking people aren’t assets when I hear talk about how to best use our assets, but then I use the phrase “People are our best assets.”
Partners is better and more respectful. Working at a feel good company, I am surprised we didn’t catch that here.
That is a great call out, Jamie. I have caught myself thinking people aren’t assets when I hear talk about how to best use our assets, but then I use the phrase “People are our best assets.”
Partners is better and more respectful. Working at a feel good company, I am surprised we didn’t catch that here.
That is a great call out, Jamie. I have caught myself thinking people aren’t assets when I hear talk about how to best use our assets, but then I use the phrase “People are our best assets.”
Partners is better and more respectful. Working at a feel good company, I am surprised we didn’t catch that here.
I always have struggled with being called an asset or calling people an asset but did not understand why. This is a great call out, how many ‘assets’ like this show up on a balance sheet? Probably only in COGS and SG&A.
The symbiotic nature (give-n-take) of employee to employer or vice versa is a basic economic principle that is ancient. It is a partnership or relationship that is usually painful when it is terminated. Perhaps if more companies thought along these lines we would have less labor tension and a more productive work environment?
Great Post as always Jamie!
JWDT
I always have struggled with being called an asset or calling people an asset but did not understand why. This is a great call out, how many ‘assets’ like this show up on a balance sheet? Probably only in COGS and SG&A.
The symbiotic nature (give-n-take) of employee to employer or vice versa is a basic economic principle that is ancient. It is a partnership or relationship that is usually painful when it is terminated. Perhaps if more companies thought along these lines we would have less labor tension and a more productive work environment?
Great Post as always Jamie!
JWDT
I always have struggled with being called an asset or calling people an asset but did not understand why. This is a great call out, how many ‘assets’ like this show up on a balance sheet? Probably only in COGS and SG&A.
The symbiotic nature (give-n-take) of employee to employer or vice versa is a basic economic principle that is ancient. It is a partnership or relationship that is usually painful when it is terminated. Perhaps if more companies thought along these lines we would have less labor tension and a more productive work environment?
Great Post as always Jamie!
JWDT
I like the idea of eliminating the connotation of people as an asset. Thanks, Jamie, for making me consider its use. I personally have never used the phrase…generally because I think everyone knows what you as an individual or you as your business value without even stating it.
I certainly understand where this phrase probably originated from, however. I would assume it probably came from organizations that simply wanted to emphasize that there’s nothing more important at their organization than the people within it (“Yes, we have all this great equipment and we make neat stuff, but we value people above all else”) Again, I would argue that is probably reflected in things like employee satisfaction or turnover.
I’m not sure if this is your implication or not, but “people are our greatest partners” sounds strange to me. I think your implication is, let’s value people for what they are…people! People and their contributions and ideas (and the mutual benefit gained in those relationships, as you stated) are what make a company. In fact, to emphasize the usefulness of an asset, one might say, “this machine is so important to us it is almost our greatest person!” (of course, that should never be said, but people should by default be regarded highest)
I like the idea of eliminating the connotation of people as an asset. Thanks, Jamie, for making me consider its use. I personally have never used the phrase…generally because I think everyone knows what you as an individual or you as your business value without even stating it.
I certainly understand where this phrase probably originated from, however. I would assume it probably came from organizations that simply wanted to emphasize that there’s nothing more important at their organization than the people within it (“Yes, we have all this great equipment and we make neat stuff, but we value people above all else”) Again, I would argue that is probably reflected in things like employee satisfaction or turnover.
I’m not sure if this is your implication or not, but “people are our greatest partners” sounds strange to me. I think your implication is, let’s value people for what they are…people! People and their contributions and ideas (and the mutual benefit gained in those relationships, as you stated) are what make a company. In fact, to emphasize the usefulness of an asset, one might say, “this machine is so important to us it is almost our greatest person!” (of course, that should never be said, but people should by default be regarded highest)
I like the idea of eliminating the connotation of people as an asset. Thanks, Jamie, for making me consider its use. I personally have never used the phrase…generally because I think everyone knows what you as an individual or you as your business value without even stating it.
I certainly understand where this phrase probably originated from, however. I would assume it probably came from organizations that simply wanted to emphasize that there’s nothing more important at their organization than the people within it (“Yes, we have all this great equipment and we make neat stuff, but we value people above all else”) Again, I would argue that is probably reflected in things like employee satisfaction or turnover.
I’m not sure if this is your implication or not, but “people are our greatest partners” sounds strange to me. I think your implication is, let’s value people for what they are…people! People and their contributions and ideas (and the mutual benefit gained in those relationships, as you stated) are what make a company. In fact, to emphasize the usefulness of an asset, one might say, “this machine is so important to us it is almost our greatest person!” (of course, that should never be said, but people should by default be regarded highest)
Wait a minute. Is it proper English to say: “John in sales has been a great asset to the company� Seems correct to me.
And besides, maybe I don’t mind being called an asset. If I am an asset of my company and they sell the company, maybe I can sue the company for the money they received for me (my value). I can take advantage of that salvery / ownership angle.
Hey, and what about those union workers at the auto plants. Being an “asset to the company†might have helped them get that sweet deal they got in the bail out. Let’s ask a union lawyer before we trash this “employee as a asset†idea. LOL
The Devil’s Advocate
Wait a minute. Is it proper English to say: “John in sales has been a great asset to the company� Seems correct to me.
And besides, maybe I don’t mind being called an asset. If I am an asset of my company and they sell the company, maybe I can sue the company for the money they received for me (my value). I can take advantage of that salvery / ownership angle.
Hey, and what about those union workers at the auto plants. Being an “asset to the company†might have helped them get that sweet deal they got in the bail out. Let’s ask a union lawyer before we trash this “employee as a asset†idea. LOL
The Devil’s Advocate
Wait a minute. Is it proper English to say: “John in sales has been a great asset to the company� Seems correct to me.
And besides, maybe I don’t mind being called an asset. If I am an asset of my company and they sell the company, maybe I can sue the company for the money they received for me (my value). I can take advantage of that salvery / ownership angle.
Hey, and what about those union workers at the auto plants. Being an “asset to the company†might have helped them get that sweet deal they got in the bail out. Let’s ask a union lawyer before we trash this “employee as a asset†idea. LOL
The Devil’s Advocate
Nice subtle point Jamie. I’m sure whomever says this means well, but our language can shape our behavior. I agree with Scott that “People are our greatest partners” sounds awkward. Perhaps…”People are our greatest resource” or “People are our greatest strength”.
Nice subtle point Jamie. I’m sure whomever says this means well, but our language can shape our behavior. I agree with Scott that “People are our greatest partners” sounds awkward. Perhaps…”People are our greatest resource” or “People are our greatest strength”.
Nice subtle point Jamie. I’m sure whomever says this means well, but our language can shape our behavior. I agree with Scott that “People are our greatest partners” sounds awkward. Perhaps…”People are our greatest resource” or “People are our greatest strength”.
Thanks everyone for the comments.
First, my point isn’t to replace the phrase “people are our greatest asset” with something else. I really challenge what someone is accomplish by using it at all. It has almost become meaningless, like most the answers a sports figure would say after a game: “everyone played great, it was a team effort, they played well.”
Second, I really am using the words only to expose the attitudes. The attitude needs to shift from “this thing we employ” to “someone that I work with towards mutual benefit.” Understanding what we mean when we say the words can change whether we change the words or not.
Thanks everyone for the comments.
First, my point isn’t to replace the phrase “people are our greatest asset” with something else. I really challenge what someone is accomplish by using it at all. It has almost become meaningless, like most the answers a sports figure would say after a game: “everyone played great, it was a team effort, they played well.”
Second, I really am using the words only to expose the attitudes. The attitude needs to shift from “this thing we employ” to “someone that I work with towards mutual benefit.” Understanding what we mean when we say the words can change whether we change the words or not.
Thanks everyone for the comments.
First, my point isn’t to replace the phrase “people are our greatest asset” with something else. I really challenge what someone is accomplish by using it at all. It has almost become meaningless, like most the answers a sports figure would say after a game: “everyone played great, it was a team effort, they played well.”
Second, I really am using the words only to expose the attitudes. The attitude needs to shift from “this thing we employ” to “someone that I work with towards mutual benefit.” Understanding what we mean when we say the words can change whether we change the words or not.
Recently I even witnessed attempts to apply OEE to people, called OWE, overall worker efficiency… #fail, missing the point of respect for people and having process-focused instead of resource-focused indicators (e.g., manminutes/part instead of parts/manhour: I can tell you that discussions change when inverting such a measure).
Rob van Stekelenborg
Recently I even witnessed attempts to apply OEE to people, called OWE, overall worker efficiency… #fail, missing the point of respect for people and having process-focused instead of resource-focused indicators (e.g., manminutes/part instead of parts/manhour: I can tell you that discussions change when inverting such a measure).
Rob van Stekelenborg
Recently I even witnessed attempts to apply OEE to people, called OWE, overall worker efficiency… #fail, missing the point of respect for people and having process-focused instead of resource-focused indicators (e.g., manminutes/part instead of parts/manhour: I can tell you that discussions change when inverting such a measure).
Rob van Stekelenborg
I don’t equate “asset” with slavery. Better to be treated as an asset than an expense I say.
In this vein, the current cover of HBR talks about getting the most of “your people.” That maybe implies inappropriate ownership mentalities more than the word “asset”?
Good stuff to think about though, the underlying assumptions of the language we use. “We need to foolproof that” is more offensive, for example.
I don’t equate “asset” with slavery. Better to be treated as an asset than an expense I say.
In this vein, the current cover of HBR talks about getting the most of “your people.” That maybe implies inappropriate ownership mentalities more than the word “asset”?
Good stuff to think about though, the underlying assumptions of the language we use. “We need to foolproof that” is more offensive, for example.
I don’t equate “asset” with slavery. Better to be treated as an asset than an expense I say.
In this vein, the current cover of HBR talks about getting the most of “your people.” That maybe implies inappropriate ownership mentalities more than the word “asset”?
Good stuff to think about though, the underlying assumptions of the language we use. “We need to foolproof that” is more offensive, for example.
To try to be more clear, I’m not saying using the phrase “people are our greatest assets” means that we are practicing slavery. This is part in response to those that are actually proposing we put people on the balance sheet as assets. In today’s overly-financially driven world, an asset means as I’ve described above. Behaviors associated with that include acquisition and disposition, and we see companies take often a cavalier attitude about acquisition and disposition of people (as in hire and fire).
If people are a company’s greatest asset, then they should be making sure that the people are getting as much out of the relationship as the company is. This is more than a financial transaction. This is an engagement, empowerment, and even enlightenment transaction. We shouldn’t take for granted that people give us their all.
I don’t know if we really need to use the word “partner”, but we need to think in terms of partnerships.
To try to be more clear, I’m not saying using the phrase “people are our greatest assets” means that we are practicing slavery. This is part in response to those that are actually proposing we put people on the balance sheet as assets. In today’s overly-financially driven world, an asset means as I’ve described above. Behaviors associated with that include acquisition and disposition, and we see companies take often a cavalier attitude about acquisition and disposition of people (as in hire and fire).
If people are a company’s greatest asset, then they should be making sure that the people are getting as much out of the relationship as the company is. This is more than a financial transaction. This is an engagement, empowerment, and even enlightenment transaction. We shouldn’t take for granted that people give us their all.
I don’t know if we really need to use the word “partner”, but we need to think in terms of partnerships.
To try to be more clear, I’m not saying using the phrase “people are our greatest assets” means that we are practicing slavery. This is part in response to those that are actually proposing we put people on the balance sheet as assets. In today’s overly-financially driven world, an asset means as I’ve described above. Behaviors associated with that include acquisition and disposition, and we see companies take often a cavalier attitude about acquisition and disposition of people (as in hire and fire).
If people are a company’s greatest asset, then they should be making sure that the people are getting as much out of the relationship as the company is. This is more than a financial transaction. This is an engagement, empowerment, and even enlightenment transaction. We shouldn’t take for granted that people give us their all.
I don’t know if we really need to use the word “partner”, but we need to think in terms of partnerships.
Why not just say “The people who work here ARE the company”? Depopulate any organization, and what’s left, after all? Somewhere along the way an impersonal usage of the word “company” arose (= corporation) but it started out from the same root as “companion”. What I’ve learned about work is that social issues are the most important determinants of, or barriers to success in an otherwise level playing field. “Assets” suggests a degree of fungibility that belies the uniqueness of human relationships at work (for better or for worse!)
Why not just say “The people who work here ARE the company”? Depopulate any organization, and what’s left, after all? Somewhere along the way an impersonal usage of the word “company” arose (= corporation) but it started out from the same root as “companion”. What I’ve learned about work is that social issues are the most important determinants of, or barriers to success in an otherwise level playing field. “Assets” suggests a degree of fungibility that belies the uniqueness of human relationships at work (for better or for worse!)
Why not just say “The people who work here ARE the company”? Depopulate any organization, and what’s left, after all? Somewhere along the way an impersonal usage of the word “company” arose (= corporation) but it started out from the same root as “companion”. What I’ve learned about work is that social issues are the most important determinants of, or barriers to success in an otherwise level playing field. “Assets” suggests a degree of fungibility that belies the uniqueness of human relationships at work (for better or for worse!)
Andrew – thanks for the reminder of the roots of company. This is also why I don’t believe in organizational change. I only believe that people change, and when enough people change, then the company is different.
Andrew – thanks for the reminder of the roots of company. This is also why I don’t believe in organizational change. I only believe that people change, and when enough people change, then the company is different.
Andrew – thanks for the reminder of the roots of company. This is also why I don’t believe in organizational change. I only believe that people change, and when enough people change, then the company is different.
Jamie:
Thanks for bringing up this topic (and thanks to Mark for directing me here). Since I studied Heidegger in grad school, I also take issue with the much less (overtly) insideous phrase “human resources.” They/we are not human resources to be exploited – they are human beings, first, foremost, and always. The problem with the asset relationship and the resource relationship is that they are one way and narrow. Beyond that, they do not recognize the intrinsic value of people. Rather, people are valued for and only for the profit which they can produce for those to whom they are “human resources” or “assets.” They are a means to an end, and if the end could be had without such means, the asset holders would gladly stop investing in and managing their “assets.”
These are subtlties of wording which reveal and communicate some very fundamental views on the way things are.
Would they kick me out of business school? Yes. Am I an idealist and a Lean Zealot? Yes, happily.
Thanks,
Brian
Jamie:
Thanks for bringing up this topic (and thanks to Mark for directing me here). Since I studied Heidegger in grad school, I also take issue with the much less (overtly) insideous phrase “human resources.” They/we are not human resources to be exploited – they are human beings, first, foremost, and always. The problem with the asset relationship and the resource relationship is that they are one way and narrow. Beyond that, they do not recognize the intrinsic value of people. Rather, people are valued for and only for the profit which they can produce for those to whom they are “human resources” or “assets.” They are a means to an end, and if the end could be had without such means, the asset holders would gladly stop investing in and managing their “assets.”
These are subtlties of wording which reveal and communicate some very fundamental views on the way things are.
Would they kick me out of business school? Yes. Am I an idealist and a Lean Zealot? Yes, happily.
Thanks,
Brian
Jamie:
Thanks for bringing up this topic (and thanks to Mark for directing me here). Since I studied Heidegger in grad school, I also take issue with the much less (overtly) insideous phrase “human resources.” They/we are not human resources to be exploited – they are human beings, first, foremost, and always. The problem with the asset relationship and the resource relationship is that they are one way and narrow. Beyond that, they do not recognize the intrinsic value of people. Rather, people are valued for and only for the profit which they can produce for those to whom they are “human resources” or “assets.” They are a means to an end, and if the end could be had without such means, the asset holders would gladly stop investing in and managing their “assets.”
These are subtlties of wording which reveal and communicate some very fundamental views on the way things are.
Would they kick me out of business school? Yes. Am I an idealist and a Lean Zealot? Yes, happily.
Thanks,
Brian
Nice job Jamie. I couldn’t agree more. I recently saw on a business card the title Director of Human Assets and Operation. To your point I don’t think we view people and machinery the same. At least we shouldn’t. People are individuals. I like partners or team members myself.
Nice job Jamie. I couldn’t agree more. I recently saw on a business card the title Director of Human Assets and Operation. To your point I don’t think we view people and machinery the same. At least we shouldn’t. People are individuals. I like partners or team members myself.
Nice job Jamie. I couldn’t agree more. I recently saw on a business card the title Director of Human Assets and Operation. To your point I don’t think we view people and machinery the same. At least we shouldn’t. People are individuals. I like partners or team members myself.
Jamie
Firstly I agree with you that people are not assets. Assets are something that you own, not something you hire. Neither are they a resource, their time, skills, talents, abilities, and knowledge are the resource, which are exploited by both themselves (that is how they earn a living) and by their employer.
Your suggestion of partner is correct in my opinion, simply because owners invest, resources and assets, to earn a return, and the workforce invests, their resources, in order to earn a return (their pay). Since, neither can actually gain any return without the other, they should look at each other as essential partners. If we all adopted that one simple attitude change, we would find that our work relationships would change for the better.
But lets stop and look at it from another direction, I doubt any married person (who actually wants to stay married), would refer to their partner in marriage as, either an asset or a resource. A company is basically the samething, it is a group of people that willing choose to work together, for a common goal. If we all started treating, the people we work with, like our partners in life, we would cause a major shift in human attitude that, would strengthen our businesses.
Jamie
Firstly I agree with you that people are not assets. Assets are something that you own, not something you hire. Neither are they a resource, their time, skills, talents, abilities, and knowledge are the resource, which are exploited by both themselves (that is how they earn a living) and by their employer.
Your suggestion of partner is correct in my opinion, simply because owners invest, resources and assets, to earn a return, and the workforce invests, their resources, in order to earn a return (their pay). Since, neither can actually gain any return without the other, they should look at each other as essential partners. If we all adopted that one simple attitude change, we would find that our work relationships would change for the better.
But lets stop and look at it from another direction, I doubt any married person (who actually wants to stay married), would refer to their partner in marriage as, either an asset or a resource. A company is basically the samething, it is a group of people that willing choose to work together, for a common goal. If we all started treating, the people we work with, like our partners in life, we would cause a major shift in human attitude that, would strengthen our businesses.
Jamie
Firstly I agree with you that people are not assets. Assets are something that you own, not something you hire. Neither are they a resource, their time, skills, talents, abilities, and knowledge are the resource, which are exploited by both themselves (that is how they earn a living) and by their employer.
Your suggestion of partner is correct in my opinion, simply because owners invest, resources and assets, to earn a return, and the workforce invests, their resources, in order to earn a return (their pay). Since, neither can actually gain any return without the other, they should look at each other as essential partners. If we all adopted that one simple attitude change, we would find that our work relationships would change for the better.
But lets stop and look at it from another direction, I doubt any married person (who actually wants to stay married), would refer to their partner in marriage as, either an asset or a resource. A company is basically the samething, it is a group of people that willing choose to work together, for a common goal. If we all started treating, the people we work with, like our partners in life, we would cause a major shift in human attitude that, would strengthen our businesses.
Yeah… I’d rather be termed an asset than a liability. But we could probably use a more personal touch type of term than asset.
Yeah… I’d rather be termed an asset than a liability. But we could probably use a more personal touch type of term than asset.
Yeah… I’d rather be termed an asset than a liability. But we could probably use a more personal touch type of term than asset.
Jamie:
I totally agree with you.
Peter
Jamie:
I totally agree with you.
Peter
Jamie:
I totally agree with you.
Peter