7 ms·

I had to read this sentence twice before understanding that a "report" is a person. Maybe that has become accepted terminology in some circles. I hope not. It's

by troymc 7y ago

I had to read this sentence twice before understanding that a "report" is a person. Maybe that has become accepted terminology in some circles. I hope not. It's terribly dehumanizing.

jghn 7y ago
What word would you prefer to use for "person whom a manager manages"? If one just uses "person" it is unclear if it's any arbitrary person or a person under a manager's umbrella
- yepthatsreality 7y ago
  “Directs” is another common word I hear used by managers.
  - devin 7y ago
    Yes, as in direct _report_.
  - jghn 7y ago
    Which makes sense as the formal phrase is "direct report". While it was unintentional in my original post, "report" seems to work better than "direct" here as IMO my statement holds for a manager's indirect reports as well and thus "report" covers both direct and indirect. But now I'm just amusing myself with word games :)
- rgoulter 7y ago
  I've probably seen 'subordinate' used in the same contexts. 'managee' is awful but is at least analogous to 'employer/employee'.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    "Subordinate" seems even worse to me. That institutionalizes the power differential and the idea that managers are "above" their direct reports.
    - buckminster 7y ago
      Yes, you might as well use "underling" or "minion".
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      But they are. Like, my manager and I have a good relationship that is usually highly collaborative, but at the end of the day, I'm judged based on doing the things he wants me to do. Why shouldn't we recognize the power differential? It clearly exists.
      - nostrademons 7y ago
        So I've had perhaps unusual work experience in that when I've worked for other companies it's been either small startups or Google in its engineer-driven growth phase and the rest of my working life has been on my own startups, but I've found that the best managers think of themselves as facilitators. Their job is to ensure that 1) you're working on projects where your success will lead to the company's success; 2) you're happy; 3) your successes are visible to their management so you get promoted and 4) you don't have any roadblocks in your way. That and to handle the various nitty-gritty administrativa like managing vacation time; family emergencies; conflicts between team members; and performance management. In companies where management has to explicitly direct the activity of their employees, something has gone seriously wrong. Either the company is not working on something useful to the market and so management is trying to motivate employees to do something pointless anyway; or the company's vision & strategy hasn't been successfully communicated by the CEO so that everybody knows where they fit in; or a manager on a power-trip was promoted into the position; or my values don't align with the company's and I'd be better off elsewhere. In any of those cases the answer is to leave (or if it's my company, fix the problems before hiring more people) and find a company that there's actually a reason to work for. You have one career and there are ~20 million businesses in America to work for (and you can always start your own if no suitable one exists); make it count.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        I don't really disagree with this, but I don't think it addresses my point. When values are in alignment, the power imbalance shouldn't matter much. But when there are disagreements within the team, the manager is the one who defines the rules of conflict resolution, or in extreme cases decides the result. When values are out of alignment vertically the report is left with 3 options: adapt, escalate further, or leave. The person you escalate to has more power, otherwise it would be pointless to escalate to them. Ignoring that fact seems silly.
- bjelkeman-again 7y ago
  I strongly believe the language we use influences how we think about things and situations. I use the word “people” all the time, even if it means a longer sentence. Being slightly more efficient in expressing my relationship to a person that works for me is not worth the effect of being called a report/resource/direct.
monocasa 7y ago
It's better than "resource" at least.
astura 7y ago
It's standard terminology and has been standard terminology across the board for my two plus decades in the workforce. It's not dehumanizing. It's usually written as "direct report" to differentiate from your boss's boss, who you indirectly report to. From the OED: noun: report; plural noun: reports 4.an employee who is supervised by another employee.
cmdshiftf4 7y ago
It's not really though, it's just a description of a formal relationship within the business context. I'm a manager, I report to someone (my manager, who also reports to someone) and likewise I've people who report to me (my reports). It doesn't change that we're all people, with our own quirks, personalities and emotions.

by troymc 7y ago

I had to read this sentence twice before understanding that a "report" is a person. Maybe that has become accepted terminology in some circles. I hope not. It's terribly dehumanizing.

jghn 7y ago

What word would you prefer to use for "person whom a manager manages"? If one just uses "person" it is unclear if it's any arbitrary person or a person under a manager's umbrella

yepthatsreality 7y ago
“Directs” is another common word I hear used by managers.
- devin 7y ago
  Yes, as in direct _report_.
- jghn 7y ago
  Which makes sense as the formal phrase is "direct report". While it was unintentional in my original post, "report" seems to work better than "direct" here as IMO my statement holds for a manager's indirect reports as well and thus "report" covers both direct and indirect. But now I'm just amusing myself with word games :)
rgoulter 7y ago
I've probably seen 'subordinate' used in the same contexts. 'managee' is awful but is at least analogous to 'employer/employee'.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  "Subordinate" seems even worse to me. That institutionalizes the power differential and the idea that managers are "above" their direct reports.
  - buckminster 7y ago
    Yes, you might as well use "underling" or "minion".
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    But they are. Like, my manager and I have a good relationship that is usually highly collaborative, but at the end of the day, I'm judged based on doing the things he wants me to do. Why shouldn't we recognize the power differential? It clearly exists.
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      So I've had perhaps unusual work experience in that when I've worked for other companies it's been either small startups or Google in its engineer-driven growth phase and the rest of my working life has been on my own startups, but I've found that the best managers think of themselves as facilitators. Their job is to ensure that 1) you're working on projects where your success will lead to the company's success; 2) you're happy; 3) your successes are visible to their management so you get promoted and 4) you don't have any roadblocks in your way. That and to handle the various nitty-gritty administrativa like managing vacation time; family emergencies; conflicts between team members; and performance management. In companies where management has to explicitly direct the activity of their employees, something has gone seriously wrong. Either the company is not working on something useful to the market and so management is trying to motivate employees to do something pointless anyway; or the company's vision & strategy hasn't been successfully communicated by the CEO so that everybody knows where they fit in; or a manager on a power-trip was promoted into the position; or my values don't align with the company's and I'd be better off elsewhere. In any of those cases the answer is to leave (or if it's my company, fix the problems before hiring more people) and find a company that there's actually a reason to work for. You have one career and there are ~20 million businesses in America to work for (and you can always start your own if no suitable one exists); make it count.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        I don't really disagree with this, but I don't think it addresses my point. When values are in alignment, the power imbalance shouldn't matter much. But when there are disagreements within the team, the manager is the one who defines the rules of conflict resolution, or in extreme cases decides the result. When values are out of alignment vertically the report is left with 3 options: adapt, escalate further, or leave. The person you escalate to has more power, otherwise it would be pointless to escalate to them. Ignoring that fact seems silly.
bjelkeman-again 7y ago
I strongly believe the language we use influences how we think about things and situations. I use the word “people” all the time, even if it means a longer sentence. Being slightly more efficient in expressing my relationship to a person that works for me is not worth the effect of being called a report/resource/direct.

monocasa 7y ago

It's better than "resource" at least.

astura 7y ago

It's standard terminology and has been standard terminology across the board for my two plus decades in the workforce. It's not dehumanizing. It's usually written as "direct report" to differentiate from your boss's boss, who you indirectly report to. From the OED: noun: report; plural noun: reports 4.an employee who is supervised by another employee.

cmdshiftf4 7y ago

It's not really though, it's just a description of a formal relationship within the business context. I'm a manager, I report to someone (my manager, who also reports to someone) and likewise I've people who report to me (my reports). It doesn't change that we're all people, with our own quirks, personalities and emotions.