I'd like to give my reaction to this question. First, words often carry a
connotation and it is true that the term resources has a full array of
emotions for different people. I think we need to be sensitive in the use
of the term and ensure that our audience understands what we mean when we
use it. We would not use it if we knew the audience might be hostile
towards the term especially if we were trying to achieve important
outcomes with the audience.
Second, I don't agree with Ray's definition that resources are things to
be exploited and disposed at will. I think resources are to be treasured
and used wisely, to be re-used and recyled. While I agree with Charles
Handy that people ARE the organisations, it is NOT people alone that are
the organisations but the complete environement.
However, people are our most valued asset (resource) and everything that
occurs in our world should reflect this. I don't consider that the term
downgrades people.
Francesco Sofo
At 8:17 PM 6/11/97, Ray Evans Harrell wrote:
>Gray, this is a good point. I would be interested in Tom Stewart's take
>on this since he wrote the book on Intellectual Capital. If he is still
>on the list or lurking out there somewhere.
Francesco Sofo (PhD)
Head, Human Resource Development / Adult Education Program
University of Canberra
PO Box 1
BELCONNEN ACT 2616
AUSTRALIA
Phone: (61 - 2) 62015123
Fax: (61 - 2) 62015057
Email: franks@education.canberra.edu.au (Francesco Sofo)
--franks@education.canberra.edu.au (Francesco Sofo)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>