Friday, November 01, 2013
Employees are Colleagues, Not Assets
Engagement content from IndustryWeek: A lot of organizations claim that employees are their greatest assets. To many this seems like a very profound way to view the employees. I disagree. I think that this terminology can be very harmful to organizational culture.
The word asset means “anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value.” When this definition is dissected, there are two words within it that are cause for concern. The word "owned" means “to have or possess as property” and the word "controlled" means “to exercise authoritative or dominating influence over.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
This article is making a big deal out of something that doesn't need to be. In one of the comments, a different definition of asset is offered, which I also found on Google: "a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality". This doesn't make a company calling their employees their best assets seem like a bad thing. Companies who call their employees their greatest assets clearly value their employees, and as such, higher-ups within those companies are more likely to view their employees as colleagues, anyways. Any good CEO knows that their company can't function without its employees. The author of this article shouldn't be picking a fight with those CEOs or companies that call their employees their greatest assets, but with those don't express that sentiment, or express the value of their employees in any way. The connotations of "ownership" and "control" should not be automatically associated with the word "asset". Like many words in the English language, the word can be used in many ways, and it's not fair for this author to assume that companies always mean to use "asset" in the controlling sense.
I agree with Shannon. There is such a huge sector of the job market whose administration treats them poorly that I don't think we should quibble about the word choice of those who do value their employees. These soundbytes are also frequently gathered as responses to interview questions like "what is your company's greatest asset". In that case, I don't think it expresses any sort of ownership or domination, but an understanding and lauding of the individuals of which the company is made up. Articles like these often feel as though they are taking away valuable brain space and time that could be spent addressing issues that impact a wider swath of the job market in a more profound way.
I felt the same way as Shannon and Lindsay, the definition of asset which the author used maybe a valid one but, it was not what the phrase was based off of. The english language is a very fluid thing and the definition of words that exist in dictionaries, are not sometimes the meaning of a word used. For example this phrase Employees are a companies greatest assets is not stating that people are own just that people are the great thing a company can have be apart of it. Hate speech is also a great example where social context and mean are separated and different however I won't get into that. I feel this author does however have a good phase but referring to people working in an organization as equals. I feel that we always see a hierarchy in places we work instead of different people with different experiences and ability to bring forth different things. And like what I think this author is trying to do it would be great if we could acknowledge it and remove hierarchy from the work place.
Semantic arguments are for the lawyers, but the discussion over how we should think of our co-workers or employees is essential. There is a tendency in our business, and I think even more foolishly in our department, for us to think hierarchically. We often break down productions into organizational charts and describe job functions based on who is below and beneath you on the chart. Especially for our institution, this is wrong-headed in my opinion. The over-riding truth in a Conservatory such as ours is that we are all equals, because we are all students. Some of us have more or less experience, some of us have more or less schooling, but when it comes down to it, everyone is here to learn something. I think it sometimes gets confusing for people when they are given positions of authority within the framework of a production where they are in charge of disseminating tasks to colleagues to meet the needs of the production. I often hear people use the language, "I need this or that done," when what they really mean is that the Production needs something done. I know I have made this mistake myself. I know it sounds like a small thing, but over time, when tasks are linked to the needs of an individual instead of the needs of the production, one gets the impression that they are working FOR someone instead of WITH someone. We all work very hard, and the reward of that work needs to be something more than the perceived needs of someone who thinks they have authority over someone else (otherwise I think we should all go do something else and make money). We work for the Production, not the Production Manager or Project Manager or anyone else, and I think we should try to remember this in every interaction with our colleagues. A successful Production is such an amalgamation of effective use of different skill sets that we must all think of our colleagues as not only valuable but essential. I think that's what this article is really getting at, despite the semantic obfuscation.
I completely agree with what Shannon and Andrew have said in their comments. The definition that Shannon mentioned is the first one that I also saw when I googled "asset". I do think that employees should be seen as colleagues also, but I don't see what the problem is with them being colleagues and assets. The article had some valid points, but the basis of the arguments weren't solid enough.
In the industry we work in, we tend to think of employees (or labor) as a resource that we budget, just like money. While I think that this article makes a good point that the word colleague also accurately defines those who work with/for us, I think it begins to create a familiarity, which, unfortunately, is not really conducive to our way of working.
I’m not suggesting that all managers (entertainment or otherwise) need to be completely detached from their colleagues. It’s great to think of all human resources as colleagues and fellow workers. That being said, this type of familiarity can start to affect the way we plan and execute our work. In the end, treat people like people, but also as the resource that they are.
This article really gets hung up in terminology and presents the term “asset” from a one sided perspective. The term asset is probably best known for its financial connotations, so let’s examine it in that context. As a prospective investor or wealthy individual, I invest something of value into an asset in hopes that that asset will retain or grow in value, to be of benefit to me later. While yes, financially I have direct ownership and a certain amount of control over that asset, it is something that I invest in because I believe in it, it will pay-off in one way or another in the future. While drawing parallels between the financial world and theatre/creative endeavors may seem a little heartless, we must examine why it is so. In theatre, we work with the same individuals again and again and again, often involving long hours. Similarly, we become one with our ideas, collectively becoming a bit vulnerable so as to create art that may or may not succeed. There is a risk involved. We become family. Naturally, we want what’s best for each other. Even so, when assembling a creative team, you look for individuals you have faith in, in theatre, that happens to mean a faith in their ideas, or their ideological mission coincides with yours. You empower them with a creative professional trust that they will follow through and deliver. You challenge their ideas as a way of refining them, and more often than not, effective leaders are those that are constantly asking how they can better help their team. Yet as a head collaborator, weather the director or artistic director, you must always be cognizant of the best interest of the production, and even larger than that, the company. Using the term asset retains a certain understanding and creative pressure on your team, they must consistently put their best foot forward. As an investor, you want them to do their best work, and out of both a care for them and a desire to protect your investment, you will do everything in your power to help them do that. Even so, if they become dead weight, you also must know when to cut ties.
This article is definitely getting stuck on words. English is actually one of the weirdest languages out there and what something means varies entirely by context. Calling employees assets doesn't matter, what matters is how the manager/supervisor/boss/CEO says it. Do they say it like they care for their employees and value their work and what they bring to the company? Or do they make it seem like they only care about what the employees output? That is where the difference lies.
Post a Comment