7 ms·

When talking about kindness, start by not referring to people as resources.

mooreds 4y ago
I agree, I thought that was a bit discordant. A better title, imo, would have been "Kindness, Tech Staffing and Employee Allocation".
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Being kind does not mean you have to put your head in the sand and ignore actual realities. Workers are a resource. They are also humans. Facts are not in conflict. An important to keep both of them in mind
- quesera 4y ago
  Time, money, and people are all resources that must be applied to a project. If people feel diminished by being compared to money (capitalism yes? but fungible perhaps) or time (clearly the most important thing that any individual can allocate), then I am not sure how to comfort them. I try to avoid using the word. It's easy enough to do. But I've never understood the objection.
  - bjornsing 4y ago
    I think that’s simply wrong. A company can be reasonably sure that they will stay in control of their money, and damn sure that time will pass. But at the end of the day they have no control over people. People are free to leave, and you can’t do much about it. So in my mind a headcount is a company resource, but a head isn’t. And that’s important to remember.
    - quesera 4y ago
      As I said, I avoid using the word because other people feel strongly about it. I try to be a resource to the people I work with. I supply knowledge and energies for the benefit of people who are upwards, downwards, and sideways in the org chart. I count on other people in the same directions to do the same. This does not minimize them, or pretend that they are interchangeable. Some resources go dry. Some are redirected. Some expire. I think those who object to "resource" are adding some connotation to the word that does not need to be there. Resources are good and valuable things. They are not to be wasted or abused or taken for granted.
      - bjornsing 4y ago
        > I think those who object to "resource" are adding some connotation to the word that does not need to be there. I think it’s in the meaning of the word plain and simple: it implies a level of control. I think it’s fine if you have that control. But if you don’t then you’re abusing both the word and those of your coworkers that dislike it. I think it’s also detrimental to the business. In my experience it’s not the average joe or low performer that takes offense.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        This take is so strange to me that I'm having trouble groking it. I agree it implies some level of control. I also think that some level of control exists as long as workers are selling their time and labor. Calling in my resource doesn't negate the fact that they could walk away. That would simply be your source of resources drying up
        bjornsing 4y ago
        If so then isn't it just the meaning of the word you have trouble groking? We agree that it's a word that equates people with things like money and materials? You have heard of the concept of objectification, "the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object"? Why would it surprise you that people take offence when they are linguistically lumped together with objects?
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I guess my trouble is understanding the mindset of people that can't separate the resource they provide to a company from their self worth and personal identity. It just seems fragile and delusional when the basis of the relationship is objective in nature. I love my spouse and wouldn't want them to objectify me. I don't pretend my employer pays me because of a deep appreciation of my individual character.
        quesera 4y ago
        I would go with "directed, valued, respected" over "controlled", for any member of set "resource". But if you boil it down, the resource we're talking about here is an employee's time and energy, which they offer to an employer in freely-chosen and equitable exchange for compensation. Not about the employee as person. So it's also reasonable for an employer to expect a measure of control over how that time and energy is used. And if they need more of that time and energy, it's reasonable to think about it as a limited and valuable resource. Again, the connotations of the word are entirely positive in my opinion. Others think differently, so I avoid the word in the human context. But it's a good word.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  I disagree. To me a resource is something the company controls, e.g. money, materials or, yes, a headcount. But no, the company does not control an individual person. Employees are free to leave and the police will not help you bring them back. Thus I think it’s sloppy to think of or refer to engineers as resources in most context, unless of course you are capable of replacing them with someone else at a moment’s notice.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Interesting position. I think of resources simply as inputs needed to make a product. You might need electricity, material, or labor. The company doesn't control the worker anymore than they control the supplier of their electricity or materials. If you have sold your time and labor to accompany it is their resource until you decide to stop supplying it. I don't think anyone on either side is under the misconception that the police will hunt down Rogue workers. Who is concerned about this confusion and why? There are lots of resources that are difficult to obtain more of and or replace. On the other hand, I don't think calling workers people instead of resources does anything to address a belief that they are fungible, if in fact they are not.
    - bjornsing 4y ago
      > I think of resources simply as inputs needed to make a product. You might need electricity, material, or labor. Sure, if that's a fair description of the situation then I don't have any problem with the word resource. But the word implies that this is a fair description of the situation. I think most people who do take offence with the word would also consider that description of their work degrading and incorrect. You can't write a great novel just because you have enough labor, and you can't write any innovative or interesting software either.
uoaei 4y ago
Engineers are hyper-literal. They would appreciate the formal, technical term: "human capital stock".
- bjornsing 4y ago
  It’s called “intelligent”. ;)
- kbatten 4y ago
  i think it's now "human capital restricted stock unit"

I agree, I thought that was a bit discordant. A better title, imo, would have been "Kindness, Tech Staffing and Employee Allocation".

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Being kind does not mean you have to put your head in the sand and ignore actual realities. Workers are a resource. They are also humans. Facts are not in conflict. An important to keep both of them in mind

quesera 4y ago
Time, money, and people are all resources that must be applied to a project. If people feel diminished by being compared to money (capitalism yes? but fungible perhaps) or time (clearly the most important thing that any individual can allocate), then I am not sure how to comfort them. I try to avoid using the word. It's easy enough to do. But I've never understood the objection.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  I think that’s simply wrong. A company can be reasonably sure that they will stay in control of their money, and damn sure that time will pass. But at the end of the day they have no control over people. People are free to leave, and you can’t do much about it. So in my mind a headcount is a company resource, but a head isn’t. And that’s important to remember.
  - quesera 4y ago
    As I said, I avoid using the word because other people feel strongly about it. I try to be a resource to the people I work with. I supply knowledge and energies for the benefit of people who are upwards, downwards, and sideways in the org chart. I count on other people in the same directions to do the same. This does not minimize them, or pretend that they are interchangeable. Some resources go dry. Some are redirected. Some expire. I think those who object to "resource" are adding some connotation to the word that does not need to be there. Resources are good and valuable things. They are not to be wasted or abused or taken for granted.
    - bjornsing 4y ago
      > I think those who object to "resource" are adding some connotation to the word that does not need to be there. I think it’s in the meaning of the word plain and simple: it implies a level of control. I think it’s fine if you have that control. But if you don’t then you’re abusing both the word and those of your coworkers that dislike it. I think it’s also detrimental to the business. In my experience it’s not the average joe or low performer that takes offense.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        This take is so strange to me that I'm having trouble groking it. I agree it implies some level of control. I also think that some level of control exists as long as workers are selling their time and labor. Calling in my resource doesn't negate the fact that they could walk away. That would simply be your source of resources drying up
        bjornsing 4y ago
        If so then isn't it just the meaning of the word you have trouble groking? We agree that it's a word that equates people with things like money and materials? You have heard of the concept of objectification, "the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object"? Why would it surprise you that people take offence when they are linguistically lumped together with objects?
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I guess my trouble is understanding the mindset of people that can't separate the resource they provide to a company from their self worth and personal identity. It just seems fragile and delusional when the basis of the relationship is objective in nature. I love my spouse and wouldn't want them to objectify me. I don't pretend my employer pays me because of a deep appreciation of my individual character.
      - quesera 4y ago
        I would go with "directed, valued, respected" over "controlled", for any member of set "resource". But if you boil it down, the resource we're talking about here is an employee's time and energy, which they offer to an employer in freely-chosen and equitable exchange for compensation. Not about the employee as person. So it's also reasonable for an employer to expect a measure of control over how that time and energy is used. And if they need more of that time and energy, it's reasonable to think about it as a limited and valuable resource. Again, the connotations of the word are entirely positive in my opinion. Others think differently, so I avoid the word in the human context. But it's a good word.
bjornsing 4y ago
I disagree. To me a resource is something the company controls, e.g. money, materials or, yes, a headcount. But no, the company does not control an individual person. Employees are free to leave and the police will not help you bring them back. Thus I think it’s sloppy to think of or refer to engineers as resources in most context, unless of course you are capable of replacing them with someone else at a moment’s notice.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Interesting position. I think of resources simply as inputs needed to make a product. You might need electricity, material, or labor. The company doesn't control the worker anymore than they control the supplier of their electricity or materials. If you have sold your time and labor to accompany it is their resource until you decide to stop supplying it. I don't think anyone on either side is under the misconception that the police will hunt down Rogue workers. Who is concerned about this confusion and why? There are lots of resources that are difficult to obtain more of and or replace. On the other hand, I don't think calling workers people instead of resources does anything to address a belief that they are fungible, if in fact they are not.
  - bjornsing 4y ago
    > I think of resources simply as inputs needed to make a product. You might need electricity, material, or labor. Sure, if that's a fair description of the situation then I don't have any problem with the word resource. But the word implies that this is a fair description of the situation. I think most people who do take offence with the word would also consider that description of their work degrading and incorrect. You can't write a great novel just because you have enough labor, and you can't write any innovative or interesting software either.

uoaei 4y ago

Engineers are hyper-literal. They would appreciate the formal, technical term: "human capital stock".

bjornsing 4y ago
It’s called “intelligent”. ;)
kbatten 4y ago
i think it's now "human capital restricted stock unit"