4 ms·

Life doesn't actually stop when you clock in. I think it's reasonable from a business perspective to realize your resources don't work 100% for you 100% of the

Life doesn't actually stop when you clock in. I think it's reasonable from a business perspective to realize your resources don't work 100% for you 100% of the time. However, if the company really want to disallow people missing time here and there to deal with family, I really hope they'd never ever ever consider asking them to work before 9, after 5, or on the weekends no matter how high priority the business tasks are. I hope they're the kind of employer that turns off email at 5. For me, the time I take to deal with my personal responsibilities at work is more than balanced by the time I take to help my employers out outside the hours of 9 to 5.

sokoloff 11y ago
> I think it's reasonable from a business perspective to realize your resources don't work 100% for you 100% of the time. I also recommend barring the use of the word "resource" when you specifically mean "person". Capex, opex, machines, buildings, presses, are all resources. Allowing your leaders to talk about people as being "resources" biases them to think in a certain way (or at least risks that). It is unfortunate that in the phrase "human resources", "human" is an adjective... ;)
- perfTerm 11y ago
  Hmm, I don't really think its off by much, especially in Westernized nations where practically every thing is governed by contracts, regulations and legalese. And especially at a management level. You allocate resources to accomplish tasks. If you have a C++ developer, that's a resource. Resource X costs Y and produces Z could be applied to JetBrains licenses or people. Maintence for licenses is quite simple requiring updated payment information, maintence for people is a lot less clear cut and requires communication, and lots of ambiguous judgement calls. It's stale but I'm not sure there's a better word to fit in its place.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    Denotation of people on salary as a "resource" is correct, and I'm even OK with including people in a collective set of varied types of resources. "We just don't have the resources to pursue all possible ideas" and the like is fine. I'm recommending a terminology change to always call people "people" as it biases your leaders to think of them as special and different from licenses, machines, money, and black boxes. (It's not my idea originally, but I've seen it play out at my company and believe it to be helpful.)
shostack 11y ago
Pretty much this. I'm fortunate to work at a place where I'm paid to get a job done, and how/where/when I do that is largely up to my discretion because they treat me like the responsible adult I am. If I occasionally work some nights or over a weekend? I might take a day or two off to avoid burnout (while making sure there is appropriate coverage in place). Likewise, if I need to have a contractor come over or something, I'll just work from home for that period of time. If I need to take care of personal things during the week where I can't work during that time, I just take care of it after hours or on the weekend as needed. That said, I've worked at places with strict 9-5:30 (but really it is 6:30+ because of the workload) and they seem to want to have their cake and eat it too in terms of getting you in at a strict start time, get lots of extra hours + weekend time when needed, and then hit you with limited vacation time and pushback when you want to take a comp day. Sorry--doesn't work that way. Maybe when I was young and stupid, but at this point in my career I've lost all tolerance for that. Fortunately it seems many companies are starting to wise up and be fair about it.

sokoloff 11y ago

> I think it's reasonable from a business perspective to realize your resources don't work 100% for you 100% of the time. I also recommend barring the use of the word "resource" when you specifically mean "person". Capex, opex, machines, buildings, presses, are all resources. Allowing your leaders to talk about people as being "resources" biases them to think in a certain way (or at least risks that). It is unfortunate that in the phrase "human resources", "human" is an adjective... ;)

perfTerm 11y ago
Hmm, I don't really think its off by much, especially in Westernized nations where practically every thing is governed by contracts, regulations and legalese. And especially at a management level. You allocate resources to accomplish tasks. If you have a C++ developer, that's a resource. Resource X costs Y and produces Z could be applied to JetBrains licenses or people. Maintence for licenses is quite simple requiring updated payment information, maintence for people is a lot less clear cut and requires communication, and lots of ambiguous judgement calls. It's stale but I'm not sure there's a better word to fit in its place.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  Denotation of people on salary as a "resource" is correct, and I'm even OK with including people in a collective set of varied types of resources. "We just don't have the resources to pursue all possible ideas" and the like is fine. I'm recommending a terminology change to always call people "people" as it biases your leaders to think of them as special and different from licenses, machines, money, and black boxes. (It's not my idea originally, but I've seen it play out at my company and believe it to be helpful.)

shostack 11y ago

Pretty much this. I'm fortunate to work at a place where I'm paid to get a job done, and how/where/when I do that is largely up to my discretion because they treat me like the responsible adult I am. If I occasionally work some nights or over a weekend? I might take a day or two off to avoid burnout (while making sure there is appropriate coverage in place). Likewise, if I need to have a contractor come over or something, I'll just work from home for that period of time. If I need to take care of personal things during the week where I can't work during that time, I just take care of it after hours or on the weekend as needed. That said, I've worked at places with strict 9-5:30 (but really it is 6:30+ because of the workload) and they seem to want to have their cake and eat it too in terms of getting you in at a strict start time, get lots of extra hours + weekend time when needed, and then hit you with limited vacation time and pushback when you want to take a comp day. Sorry--doesn't work that way. Maybe when I was young and stupid, but at this point in my career I've lost all tolerance for that. Fortunately it seems many companies are starting to wise up and be fair about it.