What species of thinking produces an expression like ‘Human Capital Management & Measurement’ and then holds a conference that devotes a whole day to the subject? To me such terminology displays arrogance in those that use it and portrays disdain for those about whom it is used.
As professionals let us be clear: 'capital' is the money or other assets owned by a company. Judicious use of such assets helps to keep it in business. 'Capital Assets' are the plant and machinery owned by the company and used in producing goods. As much as some directors and senior managers may like to think otherwise a company does not own the people who choose to work for it.
In no sense can people be counted as capital!!
Some companies, perhaps the same companies, do have the habit of referring to people as ‘assets’ or ‘resources’. Again, assets are property; people are not. The staff may have certain qualities which yield benefits to the firm (why else would they be employed? Duh!), but the qualities belong to the people, not the firm. I await the day - not holding my breathe - when a firm says, “the people who work for us did a great job last year, but there is no guarantee they will stay with us and no certainty they will remain as capable when circumstances change.”
And where ‘Human…Management’ is concerned, the best response is Steven Covey's: “You cannot manage people - you can only manage tasks. People must be led.” Inevitably, I can only doubt the capacity to lead of anyone who refers to the people on whom they depend in terms more suited to inanimate, unfeeling objects.
The same conference boasted of "developing both a talent management strategy and… effective measures of [an] organisation's human talent." Good grief.
Even if talent could be measured (how talented was Mozart? Was that an 8.7 or a 9.3?) just what particular talent - note the singular - will your business need most tomorrow? Or in 12 months time?
Do two people with the same talent double your talent score, or leave it unchanged?
Is a talented pianist worth two talented footballers, or can I swap six talented accountants for one talented plumber? And, as Network Rail struggle to complete their west coast mainline engineering works, what price talented engineers? Several million pounds I would judge, based on the £2.4 million it had to pay in 2007 for failing to complete work on a project in Portsmouth on time.
The terms we use to refer to others shape our attitudes and influence our thinking. Words are not neutral. As a professional I hope I do not treat those I work with in such a callous and cavalier fashion. People respond better and feel more motivated when they are acknowledged and recognised for the all qualities they have, rather than being taken for granted, sucked dry and then carelessly discarded when no longer of use.
If we wish to get the most from our people we must treat them as people. On the other hand, should you happen to work for an organisation that subscribes to this stack ’em, rack ’em and sack ’em approach, please put on a pair of trainers…and run like hell.
As professionals let us be clear: 'capital' is the money or other assets owned by a company. Judicious use of such assets helps to keep it in business. 'Capital Assets' are the plant and machinery owned by the company and used in producing goods. As much as some directors and senior managers may like to think otherwise a company does not own the people who choose to work for it.
In no sense can people be counted as capital!!
Some companies, perhaps the same companies, do have the habit of referring to people as ‘assets’ or ‘resources’. Again, assets are property; people are not. The staff may have certain qualities which yield benefits to the firm (why else would they be employed? Duh!), but the qualities belong to the people, not the firm. I await the day - not holding my breathe - when a firm says, “the people who work for us did a great job last year, but there is no guarantee they will stay with us and no certainty they will remain as capable when circumstances change.”
And where ‘Human…Management’ is concerned, the best response is Steven Covey's: “You cannot manage people - you can only manage tasks. People must be led.” Inevitably, I can only doubt the capacity to lead of anyone who refers to the people on whom they depend in terms more suited to inanimate, unfeeling objects.
The same conference boasted of "developing both a talent management strategy and… effective measures of [an] organisation's human talent." Good grief.
Even if talent could be measured (how talented was Mozart? Was that an 8.7 or a 9.3?) just what particular talent - note the singular - will your business need most tomorrow? Or in 12 months time?
Do two people with the same talent double your talent score, or leave it unchanged?
Is a talented pianist worth two talented footballers, or can I swap six talented accountants for one talented plumber? And, as Network Rail struggle to complete their west coast mainline engineering works, what price talented engineers? Several million pounds I would judge, based on the £2.4 million it had to pay in 2007 for failing to complete work on a project in Portsmouth on time.
The terms we use to refer to others shape our attitudes and influence our thinking. Words are not neutral. As a professional I hope I do not treat those I work with in such a callous and cavalier fashion. People respond better and feel more motivated when they are acknowledged and recognised for the all qualities they have, rather than being taken for granted, sucked dry and then carelessly discarded when no longer of use.
If we wish to get the most from our people we must treat them as people. On the other hand, should you happen to work for an organisation that subscribes to this stack ’em, rack ’em and sack ’em approach, please put on a pair of trainers…and run like hell.
No comments:
Post a Comment