UPI Study › Courses › Human Resources Management › Free lessons › Lesson 1.3 Free with a free account
Why Employees Are Treated as a Company’s Most Valuable Asset
Human Resources Management · Chapter 1: What Human Resource Management Is and What HR Departments DoSection 1.3 · lesson 3 of 9113 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Human Resources Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Human Resources Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: How an HR Department Is Organized on the Inside →← A Short History of How Companies Have Managed WorkersNext lesson: How an HR Department Is Organized on the Inside →
In this lesson
Human capital, investment, and the limits of the asset analogy.
- Separate general and firm-specific capability
- Explain why people-based capability is hard to copy
- Identify 4 ways capability is lost
- Assess the asset claim and its measurement limits
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,689 words). Read along, or search it.
Chapter 1
What Makes Employee Capability Valuable?
Calling people an organization's most valuable asset sounds straightforward, but the claim needs examination. Human capital describes capability embodied in people: their knowledge, skill, experience, and ability to perform work. The concept encourages investment thinking about hiring, development, and retention, rather than simple cost cutting. Yet employees differ from machinery in ways that change the risks of that investment. We will separate capability that travels between employers from capability valuable mainly inside one organization. That distinction explains much of the practical logic behind decisions about who receives training. We also examine why capability built around people can be difficult for competitors to copy. Then we identify four ways capability leaves, including losses hidden by stable headcount. Accounting and measurement can encourage choices that look sensible now, but weaken future capability. The final case tests a smaller training investment against a plant's dependence on one experienced technician.
Human Capital
An Investment the Employer Does Not Own
Human capital borrows the language of physical capital, such as buildings, machinery, and equipment. The borrowing encourages a manager to consider returns, risks, and value produced over time. It makes training and retention investments to assess, rather than expenses to minimize automatically. But people can leave every evening and choose not to return. A machine cannot resign. The organization also does not own the capability held in an employee's head. Employment gives the employer work output within the applicable relationship, rather than ownership of the person. A third difference concerns use. Physical capital depreciates, while demanding work generally develops a person's capability. Capability can still decay when unused, or when its methods no longer match the work required. The analogy is therefore helpful for investment decisions, but incomplete as an account of employer control. Understanding its limits makes the concept more useful, because those limits identify the risks HR must manage.
General Capability
Useful Across Many Employers
General human capital is capability valuable to many employers, rather than to just one. Examples include accounting knowledge, welding skill, another language, and the ability to write clearly. An employee can take that capability elsewhere, and another employer can pay for its value. Its portability gives the employee a market, but limits the current employer's capture of returns. An employer funding general training may create someone who becomes easier for a competitor to recruit. That risk helps explain why individuals often bear the cost of their general education. Employers may prefer recruiting capability somebody else financed, unless they need it and cannot recruit it. This is an investment incentive, rather than a claim that general development is unnecessary. The organization still needs portable skills. The question is who funds them and how the return is retained. Distinguish the skill's usefulness from its location. General capability can be essential here and still valuable elsewhere.
Firm-Specific Capability
Value Bound to This Organization
Firm-specific human capital is capability valuable mainly within the organization where it was developed. Examples include knowing how its production process behaves, which customers need particular handling, and how approvals really happen. That knowledge may have little immediate value to a competitor using different processes and relationships. The employer therefore has a stronger incentive to fund it, provided the employee remains. The employee may also earn more in the present role than in a new organization. That creates mutual dependence. Specific knowledge is valuable here, but cannot always be sold elsewhere at the same price. Most experienced people hold a mixture of general and specific capability. Neither category describes their entire contribution. The danger is organizational memory. When specific knowledge is undocumented, departure can remove what makes the work function. Training only in specific skills limits the employer's exposure, while limiting the employee's opportunities elsewhere. That is a trade-off to acknowledge, rather than a solved problem or a universally desirable training policy.
Resource-Based View
Why a Competitor Cannot Simply Buy the Result
The resource-based view links durable advantage to resources that meet several demanding conditions. They must be valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, and supported well enough to be used. Many resources fail a condition. Competitors can buy equipment, match a location, or copy product features. Capability built through people is harder to reproduce, because it rarely resides in one isolated thing. Particular hiring, training, work practices, and relationships combine to produce what the organization can do. Hiring away three individuals might therefore fail to reproduce the result those individuals helped create. The original result depended on a system, not just the sum of separate personal skills. Causal ambiguity describes difficulty understanding exactly which relationships produced the capability and how they worked. That protects against imitation, but creates a problem for the organization possessing the capability. If nobody can fully explain why it works, nobody can confidently protect it against disruption either.
Three Forms of Capital
People, Relationships, and What Stays Behind
Human capital is only one place where capability resides. Relationships and organizational routines also hold value. Social capital is value in relationships and networks, both within the organization and beyond it. A well-connected employee's departure can therefore cost more than the person's individual skill alone suggests. Customer relationships and internal working connections may leave with the person, or weaken after departure. Organizational capital is different: it resides in processes, systems, documentation, and routines the organization retains. Writing down a procedure preserves part of what an experienced person previously held only in memory. Building a checklist or recording a decision rule can serve the same purpose. This converts some individual capability into organizational capability, reducing dependence on a single person's presence. It does not capture everything about judgment or relationships, but it can preserve a reliable part of the method. When considering a departure risk, ask what is in the person, in relationships, and in the organization itself.
Capability Loss
Four Different Leaks Need Different Responses
Four distinct routes remove capability, and each requires a different response from the organization. Turnover is the familiar route: the person leaves, taking capability that was not transferred beforehand. Retention practices, succession planning, and a documented handover can reduce that loss. Disengagement leaves the person employed, while their capability is no longer fully applied to work. Work design, supervision quality, and performance management address that problem more directly than a turnover report. Skill obsolescence means capability no longer matches the work. Development, redeployment, and planning become relevant responses. Undocumented knowledge creates dependence on one person who knows how a task is done. Documentation, cross-training, and deliberate knowledge transfer reduce that exposure before a departure makes it urgent. Only the first route appears directly in a turnover statistic. Stable headcount does not establish stable capability. Diagnose the route before choosing the remedy. A retention initiative cannot solve every kind of capability loss.
Accounting and Decisions
The Visible Saving and the Delayed Loss
Accounting treats many equipment purchases differently from the cost of developing employees. A machine is capitalized, recorded as an asset with cost allocated over the years it serves. Training is generally expensed, affecting the period in which it is delivered rather than later years. People themselves do not appear as assets on the balance sheet, despite the human capital language. There is a defensible reason: the organization lacks control over future benefits when employees can leave. But the treatment has predictable consequences for choices made during a tight financial period. Cutting training can improve the current result immediately, while the capability loss appears only later. The visible short-term saving can therefore dominate an investment whose future return is less visible. The practitioner need not argue that the accounting is wrong, to question the choice it makes tempting. Explain the decision's consequences, including capability needed, dependence on key people, and the cost of delaying development.
Measurement
Count Capability, and Question the Number
Numbers help human capital enter budget discussions, but they do not remove the difficulty of measuring it. Organizations can estimate turnover and vacancy costs, or compare capability inventories with strategy requirements. They can also report workforce information alongside financial results, giving people decisions greater visibility. The first limitation is easy counting. Hours of training delivered do not establish capability gained. The second is uncertain causation. Successful organizations can afford more development, as well as benefit from it. An observed association therefore does not tell us how much influence runs in either direction. The third limitation appears when a measure becomes a target, encouraging people to manage the number. Improving a reported measure can then become different from improving the capability it was meant to represent. These measures can help reveal change within one organization over time, provided interpretation remains careful. They are weaker evidence for claiming one organization is better than another, with different work and conditions.
Assessing the Slogan
When “Most Valuable Asset” Is Defensible
The slogan about people being the most valuable asset is useful as a corrective. It pushes against treating labor purely as a cost, and supports investments whose returns arrive later. As a universal statement of fact, however, it does not describe every organization or role. In capital-intensive work, much of the value may sit in plant, land, licenses, or a brand. Standardized roles can deliberately locate capability in the process, allowing trained people to perform interchangeably. The most damaging version is a statement in a handbook that subsequent decisions repeatedly contradict. Employees compare the claim with what happens when budgets tighten. That gap can destroy credibility. A narrower statement is more defensible: some work depends deeply on judgment, relationships, and accumulated knowledge. In that work, capability in people is particularly difficult to buy and particularly easy to lose. Assess the claim against the actual work and decisions, rather than treating a slogan as evidence of value.
Composite Case
Two Budget Lines at Rivermark Foods
Rivermark Foods is a fictional food processor, used here in a composite teaching case. Its finance director approves a replacement packing line while deferring a two-year maintenance-training program. The training has now been deferred twice. Its immediate effect on profit makes the decision understandable. The director also worries that trained technicians will become more employable elsewhere. Two left last year. The HR director accepts the accounting, but questions the capability decision being made through it. Control-system skill becomes partly firm-specific when combined with knowledge of this particular plant. The plant depends on one technician nearing retirement, while external engineering costs already appear during breakdowns. They accept a smaller program covering three technicians, with a requirement to document what they learn. The documentation preserves organizational capital, while the training broadens the people able to maintain the plant. The investment case rests on concrete capability and loss risks, giving the asset concept practical meaning.
About Human Resources Management at UPI Study
Human Resources Management (Business 306) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 12 chapters, from what HR does and how jobs are designed to hiring, training, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, employment law, unions, global staffing and remote work. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses
Why take it here
Why students take Human Resources Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Human Resources Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Why Employees Are Treated as a Company’s Most Valuable Asset
What is human capital in human resource management?
What is the difference between general and firm-specific human capital?
Why are employees not listed as assets on a company's balance sheet?
How can a company lose capability even when headcount stays the same?
About the Human Resources Management course
How many college credits is Human Resources Management?
How much does Human Resources Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Human Resources Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Human Resources Management.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →