Rol Fessenden wrote:
> You said,
>
> " I have long described "human resource management as a logistical and
> risk management function. I consider the learning organization, though,
> as a model--and I don't believe that the term, human resources, describes
> the nature of the relationships between people and organization within the
> parameters of that model. "
>
> Can you please expand on the last sentence? This sounds like a
> potentially rich learning opportunity, at least for me.
thanks for asking, Rol--
Peter Senge shares some wonderful thoughts at the conclusion of the Fifth
Discipline, about leadership, relationships and complexity. He describes
relationships among people in organizations that are based on
collaboration, cooperation, emergent leadership, team work, shared vision
and personal mastery. These concepts infer relationships that transcend
the traditional relationships that have existed between employer and
employee for many years.
The term "human resources" derives from those old relationships that grew
from the advent of industrialism, when people truly were a resource to the
organization, with all of the sense of property that belongs to that word.
Of course, in most organizations, they still are (and will be for some
time to come), simply robots, or thinking/creating machines. For many
people, that model is much easier to work with.
Maynard and Mehrtens (The Fourth Wave) describe some of the changes to
society they envision (building from Toffler's 3rd Wave). They see
cocreation as the basis for relationships. Authority is fully
internalized, and power seen as within the person. Values are focused on
the integration of life and responsibility for the whole. Security is
viewed in terms of personal inner trust. Decision making recognizes the
centrality of intention. In this Fourth Wave society, I won't come to work
with you in order to be used by you. I will come to work with you to help
create (to transform) something greater or better than myself. Many people
work for these kinds of reasons today, but find themselves "treated" as
resources which, essentially, dehumanizes the relationship.
I hope that I've expanded my thought satisfactorily enough to share it
with you. I've really enjoyed the sharing that's gone on in this list
about this topic. I admit to "wincing" just a little, though, at some of
the mechanistic and reductionist responses I've read. I think that they
are authentic, and demonstrate current reality, though.
> Also, you said, "I'll admit that Tom Petzinger's challenge to using the
> word empower (was that on this list?) renervated my dislike over using the
> term, human resources. "
Ahhh. A slip (and in writing, slips are so glaring, aren't they?). This
should have read "that Tom Petzinger's challenge to using the word empower
(was that on this list?) enervated my satisfaction [renergized my dislike]
over using the term, human resources." However, in my rewriting, I
scrambled words, and simply didn't catch the error. Forgive me.
regards,
Doc
-- "Criticism should awaken our attention, not inflame our anger. We should listen to, and not flee from, those who contradict us. Truth should be our cause, no matter in what manner it comes to us." --Marquise de SabliRichard C. "Doc" Holloway Your partner for workforce development Visit me at http://www.thresholds.com/community/learnshops/index.html Or e-mail me at <mailto:learnshops@thresholds.com> Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2361 Phone: 01 360 786 0925 Olympia, WA 98507 USA Fax: 01 360 709 4361
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>