Replying to LO29424 --
Hello Jason, dear reader,
People are resources or not: it might also be a bit of both (inclusive)-or
none of the above.We usually treat "the Other" as a fact, an object, an
instance and are therefore easily led to conclude they are "a resource".
It is a habit sometimes referred to as "reification". I prefer, i know i
have to see other people as an end in themselves - certainly not as means
- but on the other hand, in many situation i do treat people as a
resource. For instance when i'm being treated as a resource myself, when
people are mean (;-)) to me or when we're talking about a large group -
not individuals. In fact, i do think that it is better to call people a
resource when you "see" or "use" them as resources. And call them people,
or persons, when you do not. I have the greatest difficulty when people
are being "called" the most important part of a company or group and at
the same time are being treated as "resources", "slaves" or are kept
"dumb". This creates double binds that are very hard to tackle. Clearly we
have here an problem in communicating: the problem of communicating facts
and relations at the same time. Perhaps we might start to ask first if
"the Other" minds being treated as a resource ("Can I lease your
husband?") and instruct them to notify us when this is no longer
appropriate ("I want to end the lease now").
Kind regards,
Jan Lelie
facilitator mind@work
Jason Smith/EIG wrote:
>Personally, I dislike referring to people as "resources." That smacks too
>much of people as "inputs," which they taught me in economics class.
>People come to work with much more than their skills, strengths, talents,
>and ability to help. They also come with their goals, dreams, and often a
>few messier things like fears, and resentments. I'm for referring to
>people as people, and recognizing their wholeness.
--Jan Lelie <janlelie@wxs.nl>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.