"Here at XYZ Corp, resources are our most important asset."
Down the hall, in a training class for new managers, the students are solemnly instructed to...
"Take care of your resources and they will take care of you."
And on the motivational poster in the hallway, future leaders are reminded that...
"One measure of leadership is the caliber of resources who choose to follow you."
Yes, these misquotes are silly but think about how often you hear statements like
"Hey Bob, is Steve available? I need to add a resource to my project."
"We want to grow the organization by 15 resources this year."
"Sales were bad this quarter so we need to downsize 5 resources."
There is a very real cost associated with referring to employees and co-workers as "resources" instead of "people". It is the dehumanization of all employees. The underlying message is that the people in the organization are literally resources - just like the chairs, desks, computers and copiers. The results manifest themselves in the subtle, unpleasant ways that we have come to accept as the norm in today's corporate world.
As one of my mentors taught me, the words you use drive your thoughts and your actions. I don't believe it is possible to call people "resources" on a daily basis and still treat them with the respect they deserve. But you know what, I've been wrong before and I may be wrong now. So here is a challenge for you - prove me wrong.
Identify a true leader in our society that habitually refers to people on his or her staff as resources. Tell me about this person and how they embody all the traits of a true leader:
§ They empower their resources to take the initiative
§ They demonstrate a deep desire to help their resources grow
§ They communicate a clear vision to the resources and enlist their willing help to achieve it
§ They stand up for their resources in times of trouble
Write me a note and tell me all about this "leader of resources". But I bet you can't. Because only managers deal with resources. A leader deals with people.
Instructor Brad,
ReplyDeleteGreat posting. I really enjoy mat-chat in class, as I enjoy your web log. You have an infectious positive attitude that I value and truly appreciate.
I am taking a Biz Ethics class for my undergraduate work, and of course we talk about Kantianism quite a bit. This particular post of yours came to mind when I read the following blurb:
From http://j.mp/bEx4GY
=====
...Kantian ethics sees one's intentions as crucial to the morality of one's acts, whereas utilitarian ethics sees only the results of one's actions as relevant. One cannot, according to Kantian ethics, do the right thing for the wrong reason.
Kant says that the only thing of absolute value is a good will.
Treating Persons as Ends in Themselves is to act justly and beneficently.
To treat someone as an end in him or herself requires in the first place that one not use him or her as a mere means, that one respect each as a rational person with his or her own maxims. But beyond that, one may also seek to foster others' plans and maxims by sharing some of their ends. To act beneficently is to seek others' happiness...
===
Thank you, and have a wonderful week.