4 ms·

The clue is when they refer to their people as simply "resources"

khazhoux 4y ago
To this day I will refuse to use that term, and anyone who uses it (for some reason, many product managers) goes on my bozo-list. "We need more staffing on this project." --> OK "We need more engineers on this project." --> OK "We need more people on this project." --> OK "We need more resources on this project." --> Not OK. Go to hell.
- tomcam 4y ago
  As a guy who likes precision in language, it seems to me that the last option seems perfectly acceptable because resources aren’t always human, correct? Maybe it means additional officers, hardware, or cloud?
  - khazhoux 4y ago
    No, "resource" is not used as a catch-all like that. It means people, and I have no idea how it entered the lexicon. It's dehumanizing.
    - tomcam 4y ago
      OK thanks. I’m long out of the corporate world. You’re right, it’s revolting to call people resources.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    They mean people.
    - tomcam 4y ago
      Ugh. I sadly stand corrected.
- tlavoie 4y ago
  Or, one of the recent layoff announcements recently (forget which), that said it was "reducing X number of roles." No, you are firing people, not "reducing roles."
  - tylerhou 4y ago
    The first line of the (also automated) email I got from Google notifying that I was laid off was > We have some difficult news to share. We are reducing our workforce and are very sorry to tell you that your role is impacted and we no longer have a job for you at Google.
  - dboreham 4y ago
    There's a legal aspect to this under US labor law: if you "eliminate the role" it's different than if you fire the employee. The employee is fine, just their role no longer exists, for <reasons>.
    - tlavoie 4y ago
      That is a useful point, though I think it means that the wording difference does double duty. There is the legal aspect you mention, and the public relations improvement of papering over the human problems that arise when, "roles are impacted."
- Jensson 4y ago
  I once saw a comment here lamenting the social skills of his technical resources...

To this day I will refuse to use that term, and anyone who uses it (for some reason, many product managers) goes on my bozo-list. "We need more staffing on this project." --> OK "We need more engineers on this project." --> OK "We need more people on this project." --> OK "We need more resources on this project." --> Not OK. Go to hell.

tomcam 4y ago
As a guy who likes precision in language, it seems to me that the last option seems perfectly acceptable because resources aren’t always human, correct? Maybe it means additional officers, hardware, or cloud?
- khazhoux 4y ago
  No, "resource" is not used as a catch-all like that. It means people, and I have no idea how it entered the lexicon. It's dehumanizing.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    OK thanks. I’m long out of the corporate world. You’re right, it’s revolting to call people resources.
- Jensson 4y ago
  They mean people.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    Ugh. I sadly stand corrected.
tlavoie 4y ago
Or, one of the recent layoff announcements recently (forget which), that said it was "reducing X number of roles." No, you are firing people, not "reducing roles."
- tylerhou 4y ago
  The first line of the (also automated) email I got from Google notifying that I was laid off was > We have some difficult news to share. We are reducing our workforce and are very sorry to tell you that your role is impacted and we no longer have a job for you at Google.
- dboreham 4y ago
  There's a legal aspect to this under US labor law: if you "eliminate the role" it's different than if you fire the employee. The employee is fine, just their role no longer exists, for <reasons>.
  - tlavoie 4y ago
    That is a useful point, though I think it means that the wording difference does double duty. There is the legal aspect you mention, and the public relations improvement of papering over the human problems that arise when, "roles are impacted."
Jensson 4y ago
I once saw a comment here lamenting the social skills of his technical resources...