3 ms·

These are awful, but the worst one for me is referring to "people" or "employees" as "resources". I feel a sharp surge of irritation every time someone does th

These are awful, but the worst one for me is referring to "people" or "employees" as "resources". I feel a sharp surge of irritation every time someone does that.

mongol 2y ago
I use to say "colleagues". That should be ok I hope.
- fghorow 2y ago
  I used to work as a scientist in a large research org. I once had the director of HR address an email to us as "Colleagues". Talk about cringe. (Colleagues in my world connote someone who might be considered as a research collaborator. Definitely NOT HR bureaucrats.)
  - mongol 2y ago
    How would you have preferred the HR director to address you in the email then?
  - benhurmarcel 2y ago
    I find more "cringe" to not consider HR employees to be worthy of being called colleagues.
nicoburns 2y ago
Yes, or "talent"
anon84873628 2y ago
Agreed! I've been deliberately substituting "personnel" instead.
datavirtue 2y ago
We have switched over to "bodies."
- ryandrake 2y ago
  "Headcount." Even the rest of our bodies are not really required.
theandrewbailey 2y ago
Or "customers" as "consumers".
yoz 2y ago
Absolutely agreed. For me, this goes far beyond incorrect use of language: it's directly dehumanising because the term "resource" primarily describes inanimate objects. Resources are meant to be used, but people should be employed or managed. In searching for the origin of this usage, I found this blog post[1] which attempts to explain arguments both for and against. But, to me, the arguments it lists under the heading "Why referring to people as resources is okay" are actually stronger arguments against. They're all about making certain management tasks easier by simplifying what's being managed. Unfortunately, this goes past simplification to homogenisation. I've lost count of the times that I've seen management treat a big set of developers as equivalent resources, free to be reallocated to projects as needed. This approach never factors in how well certain people work together or the disruption caused by splitting up a well-functioning team. It's not just that people aren't the same as objects; it's that people aren't even the same as each other. [1] https://www.retaininternational.com/blog/why-are-people-called-resources https://www.retaininternational.com/blog/why-are-people-call...
raxxor 2y ago
I learned that they did this because some though that personell or staff would be too offensive. Same thing happened in Germany, were the English term HR is now more commonly used. Whowever decided HR being less offensive shouldn't make judgement calls like that at all.

These are awful, but the worst one for me is referring to "people" or "employees" as "resources". I feel a sharp surge of irritation every time someone does that.

mongol 2y ago

I use to say "colleagues". That should be ok I hope.

fghorow 2y ago
I used to work as a scientist in a large research org. I once had the director of HR address an email to us as "Colleagues". Talk about cringe. (Colleagues in my world connote someone who might be considered as a research collaborator. Definitely NOT HR bureaucrats.)
- mongol 2y ago
  How would you have preferred the HR director to address you in the email then?
- benhurmarcel 2y ago
  I find more "cringe" to not consider HR employees to be worthy of being called colleagues.

nicoburns 2y ago

Yes, or "talent"

anon84873628 2y ago

Agreed! I've been deliberately substituting "personnel" instead.

datavirtue 2y ago

We have switched over to "bodies."

ryandrake 2y ago
"Headcount." Even the rest of our bodies are not really required.

theandrewbailey 2y ago

Or "customers" as "consumers".

yoz 2y ago

Absolutely agreed. For me, this goes far beyond incorrect use of language: it's directly dehumanising because the term "resource" primarily describes inanimate objects. Resources are meant to be used, but people should be employed or managed. In searching for the origin of this usage, I found this blog post[1] which attempts to explain arguments both for and against. But, to me, the arguments it lists under the heading "Why referring to people as resources is okay" are actually stronger arguments against. They're all about making certain management tasks easier by simplifying what's being managed. Unfortunately, this goes past simplification to homogenisation. I've lost count of the times that I've seen management treat a big set of developers as equivalent resources, free to be reallocated to projects as needed. This approach never factors in how well certain people work together or the disruption caused by splitting up a well-functioning team. It's not just that people aren't the same as objects; it's that people aren't even the same as each other. [1] https://www.retaininternational.com/blog/why-are-people-called-resources https://www.retaininternational.com/blog/why-are-people-call...

raxxor 2y ago

I learned that they did this because some though that personell or staff would be too offensive. Same thing happened in Germany, were the English term HR is now more commonly used. Whowever decided HR being less offensive shouldn't make judgement calls like that at all.