Since the only way to value or quantify people as a line item entry would be to value them based on what they were paid the credit to “bluesky “assets would have to be balanced by a debit to payroll expense. Or as goodwill is many times valued at three times earnings, human captial as an assest might be valued at three times payroll. That would be an interesting fair market valuation that might not fly. I don’t think that valuation made it to the balance sheet. At least i haven’t seen human capital listed on any i have reviewed lately. And how would you quantify/account for the people who did not generate goodwill, turned out not to be an intellectual asset, tarnished the brand etc. Inventions and patents are another catagory altogether.

As asset has to be offset as or by an expense. If people were not an expense there would be no asset or reason to layoff anyone to cut costs. And if there were a layoff would there then have to be a reduction on the balance sheet to goodwill due to the layoff.

Let’s return to our personnel offices.

I personally like the term because far too often management looks at people as a payroll expense. I would rather be categorized as a human capital asset; rather than an expense.

Or we could just all return to our personnel offices.

Mom: Johnny tell us about your new job.

Johnny: I’m a (go read it i can not write it)

Mom: Oh my god, are you going to get arrested or are we going to have grandchildren?

Libby – it was all those articles about you and SWA

Those damn Strategic Business Partners started this onerous and laughable mess even when they couldn’t read the balance sheet – but they still wanted a seat at the table.

You can call it bisque, taupe, sand, shell, sandstone, barley, oatmeal, putty, khaki, wheat, mushroom, chamois, grain, champagne, clay, pebble, fawn, almond, buff, flax, cafe au lait, bare, flax, canvas, sandstone, biscuit, oakleaf, nacre, or cream but its still beige.

Do the dang job.

I’m surprised no one has as yet brought up the cultural and educational differences in language and meaning. Hmmm…

As for your statement, “Sometimes I wish I could be an ideologue, always certain of the answer before the question gets asked”, well for one, you wouldn’t ask the question and two, you wouldn’t be such a fun-loving, provoking pain in the ass.

John, Heather, I was struck by a couple things in particular in the “May It Please the Court” piece:
*how civilized (read:polite) the Supreme Court was
*the artist’s remarks about the male circumcision demonstrators – AHEM

But about the first – notice it says:
It is all about language, – the language of dissent and the search for meaning. There are faults, biases, political leanings, differences of philosophy. Unavoidable. They are human beings. But there is something else. It is friendly…the intellectual exchange of ideas. “In the court, your adversary is not your enemy.” How do people handle that? I wonder.

John, I think some of your answers are contained within.

But about the first – notice it says:
It is all about language, – the language of dissent and the search for meaning. There are faults, biases, political leanings, differences of philosophy. Unavoidable. They are human beings. But there is something else. It is friendly…the intellectual exchange of ideas. “In the court, your adversary is not your enemy.” How do people handle that? I wonder.

John, I think some of your answers are contained within.

At RBC, the all out war against words like “talent” AND “acquisition” have provided sustenance and fodder for many a writer…

In parts of the world, the definition of “marriage” is being challenged – change is eminent. Even the corporate/business world has borrowed this one.

What really is the argument here? Does someone really believe that whoever coined “talent acquisition” was referencing “people ownership”? It was just someone trying to be cute and clever like “personnel to HR.”

I can think of hundreds of words or phrases that have developed alternate meanings….
just a few:

“dope”
“gay”
“disk”
“bootstrap”
“bonk”
“chip”
“leverage”….

I am sure you can think of a few, too.

John, I enjoyed the post and it has been thoroughly “minced.”

She laughed, said her boss (young & very sharp) asked her last week what she thought about changing her title to Director of Talent Acquisition. She told him she was not comfortable with that for two reasons.
1. It was her feeling that upper management already thought that HR was a necessary but overblown bunch so coming up with a more overblown title would make for some rough teasing about did they not think they were important enough.
2. Although we look for talented people and always think when we hire them that they are and will be productive. What am is supposed to do when i have to fire someone? Walk in and say, “Well Betty, you know i am the Director of Talent Acquisition and we have decided that you are not talent so i have to let you go.”

Her boss laughed and said, “Uh, point well taken, i think HR Director is probably best left alone.” “Ouch, why didn’t i think of that”.