Dear Mumtaz,

Thanks for your sincere answer. You have provided to me many positive and helpful insights. I agree with you in some extent but some profound scholars in HR field agree that the HR concept is basically to equal human being with a commodity. "The use of these systems is designed to minimize the impact of labor on the labor process. Thus, workers are more commodity-like and more replaceable.’' (David P. Lepak et al. A Conceptual Review of Human Resource Management Systems. In Joseph J. Martocchio (ed.). Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management. (Vol. 25). Elsevier Ltd, 2006, p. 226). The words "these systems" refer to HR systems. How do you consider this strong reality in relation to what I perceive? Thanks again so much!

Dear Emmanuel

I do agree with Mumtaz that HR doesn't indicates to one person or to an individual in general rather it is the skilled peoples in an organisational context.but at the same time if you consider the people in a society they can not be treated as resource or asset because in a social context the human being is using other things as his resources rather he becomes a resources for himself. As per my information are concerns the word HR can be seen or consider in two different dimensions one like organisational point of view and other one is social point of view

Dear Manoj,

I highly appreciate your contribution. I agree that in Human Resource Management, the concept tries to look at skills and intellectual profession of the person. HR advocates for the management of people who have those skills for the betterment of the organization and the purpose of the organization. In truth, from many HR scholars the HR perception in on the whole person with skills and not on on the skills he has. Some scholars, for example those I have mentioned above prove that the HR field equalize human being with other resource. Though, the man is an intellectual resource. I know that in social context we believe in human right of equality of all people. But, I think critically that human resource management has its roots on evolution theory that makes man and all other things to come to existence by chance. By this, human dignity is not quite different from other creatures. If my thinking is not right, what is the foundational theory that HR is based,if not

evolution?

my contribution is that human being even in his/her individuality is a resource, apart from the general reference to people aspect of a work system. A resource implies something that can be improved upon ( a useful raw material) rather than the commodity like interpretation. If you read the history of human resource development from the personnel approach to people management, you will understand the immense empahsis on the immense capacity of people at work, and the need to pay more attention to human needs and motivations rather than control. "Needs were

not only understood in terms of financial or monetary incentives (management theorists) or social relationships (human relations theory/school), but on some complexities that climaxed with man’s self actualization" (Ikeanyibe,2013:17).

further more

"Man is a reservoir of limitless knowledge, skills and capabilities.

But as a rational and emotional being, the willingness in supplying

these towards the achievement of organizational objectives is

determined by a number of factors. In addition to the willingness to

behave in a particular way, there is the issue of the measure, nature of

knowledge, skills and capabilities possessed by individuals since all

human beings do not possess these in the same measure. Human

resources therefore refer to people since all persons possess some

knowledge, skills or capabilities that could be productive. A nation’s

human resources may be equated to its entire population. The

population, including a child that is born today is potentially a worker

someday."

These excerpts are from my book on Principles and Practice of Personnel Administration: A Nigerian Perspective, published by LAP. Detailed discussion in the book like in many other human resource managment tries to show that HRM is just a recongition of the dignity and uniqueness of man in the as raw material to be used for goal realization.

I never liked "Human Resources" to speak about people. A resource is something that we use and/or we compete for but people have something special that we could call a "loop":

For instance, we can be recruiting and evaluating a person as a "resource" for our company. However, we cannot avoid that, at the same time, this person is evaluating the company through our own behavior and deciding if this is a good place to work or not.

Summarizing, resources are passive; they do not answer to our actions while a human being observes us and decides...taking as an input our own behavior and how this behavior can be read.

Human being is not a resource by itself. The knowledge, education, skills etc. that a human being possess are resources. When we talk about human resources, we talk about those skills that can be used for productive purposes.

Dear Jose,

I kindly appreciate your answer. Your view is on line with my perception since I never held human being as a resource. For me a resource is all other things around us that in one way or another are used by us for our betterment. Central to the world of created living and non-living things is human being, who uses them for the sustenance of life on earth. In organization, we are all fellow human beings endeavors to fulfill certain agreed purpose(s) of the organization.

I think, the point of departure of my perception and that of the Human Resource management is founded in the theory of existence of man. If life evolved like evolution theory teaches, human being is likely to be interpreted as a resource. Why? This theory has nothing better in man than being the animal of later stages of evolution. And the theory of HR is basically the founded from evolution theory. But if man were created by God (theory of creation) and he being the climax of His creation, and he being given a mandate to rule on earth; he can never be turned to be a resource. This creation theory has something that differentiates man and other creation since man was created in God's image. This image gives man dignity that can never be compared to animals and other creation. To me, this is the great point of departure.

Unfortunately, even the logic entailed in HR is very conflicting since if a man were a resource, the all organization is the resource. Then what?

Thanks for your answer. I hope you may explain more on how you think what is the point of departure between your perception on the matter and HR.

Regards.

Dear Kisalaya,

I sincerely appreciate your insightful reply. I also have understanding that some scholars hold the view you have that what the resource is, is not man but knowledge, education, skills etc that he has. This may be partly true, but I think, after reading extensively on management literature, i am convinced that HR does not specifically refer to those items but to man in general. I believe the term "human resource" does not mean "a resource in man or a resource the man has". It always refers to man himself and what he has.

The truth of my thinking can be seen in management system or offices. Human beings are called 'a thinking resource', 'an intelligent resource or asset' etc. These terms do not directly refer to those items but to man himself. However, I think the separation of human being and what he has naturally or after acquiring or learning, is somehow confusing. There is no way, a normal human being living without knowledge, education and skills. We may differ in the quantity and quality of those items but we all have in one way and another. Trying to take them out of man, you make him 'an empty bottle' - something that can not exist in normal person. Then, what is the dividing line that can help us to know that now this is the man who is not the resource (having not those items considered as resources)?

I hope, you will provide more insights on how we can considered the HR, with separation of those items and man himself.

Thanks indeed.

Dear Okechukwu,

I have great respect to your reply.

I think the great point of departure between your views and mine is the foundational theories underlying our views. You consider man a resource, and with your own words, "a useful raw material". I think you are not far from from what I think to be the foundational theory of HR - the evolution theory. By this theory, a man is not something than other things like animals etc. If this were the case, it is likely for a man to be interpreted as resource and a useful raw material. A resource or a useful raw material can be maneuvered in any way for the profit making or the achievement of the goals of organization.

Unfortunately, Concise Oxford Dictionary defined commodity as "a raw material" and "something useful or valuable". I think the terms you use have the same effect. In the system theory, we have to have inputs (raw materials) in order to get the output (the product after a certain process of maneuvering the inputs. Thinking man in this way, degrades his humanity and equates him to to other 'raw materials'.

I do not doubt that a human being can be 'improved' in a sense of getting or learning knowledge, education or skills; but the 'improvement' criterion can never be central to definiteness of a resource. For me definiteness that distinguish a resource and a human being is not on 'improvement' but on the 'nature of their being'. Human being is a created being with an image of God - something which gives him specific and exceptional quality and nature that makes him not to be a resource. A resource is something around him, including all of his environment that is used for the betterment of human life. Human beings are not 'raw materials' but living being endowed with God's image. Our dignity lies on this distinction line. By this exceptional quality, we are rulers on earth and not resources.

Unfortunately, logically if a man were a raw material, then the all organization is comprised of raw materials (resources). Then what?

I hope hearing you clarifying more what I consider as a point of departure between your views and mine.

Thanks indeed.

Dear Okechukwu,

I have great respect to your reply.

I think the great point of departure between your views and mine is the foundational theories underlying our views. You consider man a resource, and with your own words, "a useful raw material". I think you are not far from from what I think to be the foundational theory of HR - the evolution theory. By this theory, a man is not something than other things like animals etc. If this were the case, it is likely for a man to be interpreted as resource and a useful raw material. A resource or a useful raw material can be maneuvered in any way for the profit making or the achievement of the goals of organization.

Unfortunately, Concise Oxford Dictionary defined commodity as "a raw material" and "something useful or valuable". I think the terms you use have the same effect. In the system theory, we have to have inputs (raw materials) in order to get the output (the product after a certain process of maneuvering the inputs. Thinking man in this way, degrades his humanity and equates him to to other 'raw materials'.

I do not doubt that a human being can be 'improved' in a sense of getting or learning knowledge, education or skills; but the 'improvement' criterion can never be central to definiteness of a resource. For me definiteness that distinguish a resource and a human being is not on 'improvement' but on the 'nature of their being'. Human being is a created being with an image of God - something which gives him specific and exceptional quality and nature that makes him not to be a resource. A resource is something around him, including all of his environment that is used for the betterment of human life. Human beings are not 'raw materials' but living being endowed with God's image. Our dignity lies on this distinction line. By this exceptional quality, we are rulers on earth and not resources.

Unfortunately, logically if a man were a raw material, then the all organization is comprised of raw materials (resources). Then what?

I hope hearing you clarifying more what I consider as a point of departure between your views and mine.

Thanks indeed.

It is an Interesting discussion... I guess ‘Human Resource’ is a tricky compound

It is simple. No complications.

Humans are the foundation (source) of all the sources. The key, the link to everything ... without humans nothing will operate / function. Nothing will be done or accomplished. In my humble opinion, 'Human-resources’ is an expression, is merely an image associated in our minds as 'handling people'. As the first, start of personnel ...handling people to data collection of the (employees, managers etc.).

The bottom line is: It is very important to know that these ‘HUMANS’ no organization what so ever can or could exist or survive without them.

I would like to add that your not wrong in questioning the school of thought on HR management--I agree that a human being is not a resource, yet governments refer to them as "assets". Some of the U.S. corporations are renaming their Human Resources Departments--People and Culture and that may be a more suitable description for managing employees in the workplace.

Dear Teresa,

Thank you for sincere reply. The suggestion you have provided gives us strong insights on looking at man. The way we think and believe what man is, is the driving force on how we treat him/her. Management must clearly define and show its foundational theory in what it considers who man is. The concept of HR is very questionable and must strongly be doubted since in its basis man is degraded to other things.

Thanks again for your positive contribution!

Dear Dima,

Thanks indeed. I responded to you but I do not see my answer in the list.

Thanks for your positive and sincere reply. I see many people considering HR for granted thinking that it means 'handling people'. I agree with this concept, but the matter is not on management per see but on 'Who is man' in HR theory? So, we manage him/her as an asset or resource? The question endeavor in requesting HR to provide its sincere theory on the nature and position of man on earth. What is HR's foundation of the value of man in a sense of his/her dignity compared to other creatures?

Resource is a source or supply from which benefit is produced. Typically resources are materials, services, staff, or other assets that are transformed to produce benefit and in the process may be consumed or made unavailable (Wikipedia, 2013)

I think, anyone can make connotations to this. The employees are also investments they are the best assets in the organization.

Dear Marion,

Thanks for your reply. Your position is the common one which i am questiong critically. You may read again my critical elaboration in above discussion. If a human being is a resource, then it turns to be that everything is a resource. Is this logic justified inversely that "Everything is a resource and a resource is everything"? if this is the case, the meaning of resource is in question again.

Dear Pablo,

Thanks indeed. I am searching for the reference you provided.

Thanks indeed.

Dear Emmanuel,

very fist idea: maybe you could also consider to think about the Latin word "resurgere" which implies that the human being could be seen a sort of spring/rock water that rises up again and again and is the basis of every life in nature (and business). At least I remember a catholic theologian to discuss your question in that sense.

Beyond this, I agree that the use of the term resource for "everythings" becomes tautological.

Best wishes.

Thanks Stephan.

Thank you for your contributive message. I will closely check with the term in Latin "resurgere". If you have a reference i.e. a work of that catholic theologian, may you please let me know!

Thanks indeed.

i value the question and investigating the very word resource. If we step back few decades of evolution of this field, it all started with Labour management, later termed as Personnel Management and now human resources. We are evolving i reckon once we question the very thought of Humans being one component of business or the nucleus around which business gets built, am sure we could come out with a new identity for this field. The past does not hurt me the present is worth challenging, the new could unfold to our liking for some time and change afterwards. The very thoughts of challenging the existing paradigm is valued.

Thank you very much for your kind contribution. As the future challenges us, we have to explore its value. The whole 'business' of human resource must critically be looked upon since it does not fairly much with our dignity.

Hi Emmanuel,

Labour is a resource when it contributes to the creation of productive uses or wealth (in the economic sense) that is produced by humans. It is purchased through wages. Perhaps a review of the resource based view will help orient your perception:

Daryn

http://ericbrown.com/competitive-advantage-and-the-resource-based-view-of-the-firm.htm

Think the word "resource" is generic term & might carry different meaning in different context to different people as stated by some scholars in this post.  Also see other people use different terms refer to the same "Human Resource Management" like Manpower Management, Human Asset Management etc.  Think when we use a term, its meaning will be clearer when we operationally define the term before proceeding to other discussions.

Dear Daryn and Han,

I really appreciate your good contribution. Daryn, is labour a resource or a human being who produces labour?" We normally consider things (living and non-living) as assets and resource, not what they produce (though there is indivisible relationship between resource and what they produce). Harn, it is 'human resource management' (the terms you have used "Manpower Management", Human Asset Management" still connotate the concept of human being). My question is very specific, "Is a human being a resource?" So, to me a clear definition has been set in my question.

Humans are the SOURCE ... everything this "source" works or needs is RESOURCE ... Emmanuel Buganga

This is an unsettling question for the HR -type setting. They are expected to group people based on what people can do (economic activity) and contribute. So they would think, humans as a resource and the entire industrial civilization is based on this premise. So workers in factory are resource, mangers are resource. Money and financial management people are resource too. This means dispensable , as resource is dispensable.

Yet, as a human , one does want to be called dispensable. So, I guess people with ideas which create actions and affect many , like some writers and authors and many more, are not a resource based on this definition.

Human beings are the most essential element in HRM simply because without an effective human resource, all other resources fail to attain the goals of the organization.

Please have a look at the attached document entitled, "Are humans resources?"

You may follow the link below:

Book Human Resources or Human Beings? A 'counterbible' of Human R...

Humans are very highly resourceful!

Interestingly I actually share your argument that human is NOT resource. Human being is the highest level of creature that God Almighty has ever created. Most of us have been traped inside capitalistic thinking framework that is seeing everything in this universe as production items/parts. Putting human being as one of resources is definetely downgrading. Let us introduce a new or revised concept addresing Human Resource Management.

In my opinion, the resources is anything obtained from the environment to satisfy human need. The human being is the user of all-natural resources, at the same time he is responsible to discover and develop these resources. Therefore, the term "human resource" should be replaced with " employ and improving the human skill to develop and discover resources".

Because of the diversities in resource aspects, I was trying to find specific characteristics or features that justifies something being a resource. I took that way in order to set the limits that could justify or unjustify HUMANS being a resource. I have read many kinds of dictionaries with no clear and specific featured or characterized meaning. At the end i got this from Collins Dictionary:

"SYNONYMY NOTE: resource applies to any thing, person, action, etc. to which one turns for aid in time of need or emergency [what resource is left us?];" (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/resource).

Now, I am convinced that even in our advanced scholarship, we still use this 'vague' meaning to a term resource. With this perception, everything will be considered as a resource. There is no way of escaping humanity imprisonment of being equal to stones, trees, money, and animals because they all could be used to bring profit. [I am open to be proved wrong].