5 ms·

I wouldn't blame this on MBAs. The fault lays in the culture of the Board Room. There used to be a time that the board cared about the welfare of employees and

I wouldn't blame this on MBAs. The fault lays in the culture of the Board Room. There used to be a time that the board cared about the welfare of employees and the good of society as a whole. I know this is hard to believe in contemporary times.

amarant 10mo ago
Aren't contemporary boardrooms generally stuffed to the brim with MBA's though? Or is that just my preconceptions talking?
- slashdave 10mo ago
  The Board represents shareholders, at least in principle. More celebrities really.
exasperaited 10mo ago
I struggle to find things in the modern business world that cannot be blamed on the culture of the MBA. What you are talking about — boards not caring about the welfare of employees — is a fundamental result of the culture of the MBA, which has suffused through all business thought in a way that casually depersonalises and humiliates. I used to work for a small business and I decided I would have to quit one day when my boss said, on the phone to a client, "yes, I've got a resource for that". There were four of us.
- coldpie 10mo ago
  > when my boss said, on the phone to a client, "yes, I've got a resource for that". Hahaha, I got hit with that, too, also working for a small company. Luckily it was the client who called me "a resource", not someone from my company, but good lord what a way that is to talk about human beings.
- quesera 10mo ago
  This one trips me up. Why are we sensitive about the word "resource"? Literally nothing about the word "resource" has negative connotations for me. Resources are finite and precious. They are protected and important. Sometimes they are exploited and undervalued, sure. What isn't? Certainly not humans or employees. Every project requires resources. Some of them are human. It's just a category. Would you be less bothered if he said "I've got a human for that"? Or "I've got a worker for that"? "The staff to handle that need is available"? I don't use the word, and the first time I heard it, I thought it was a little impersonal. But then I thought about it more, and I just don't understand the strength of reaction. It might help that, in general, my goal is not to be seen as a living human being with real human complexity and needs and desires, at work.
  - dogleash 10mo ago
    >Why are we sensitive about the word "resource"? It's simple dehumanization. It's not outlandish or anything, it's just really easy to notice. And the sophistry to try make them equivalent terms is also easy to notice. For a business to need resources it means a category of stuff that can include people, tools, raw materials, etc... Using the name of a category to mean one thing inside it instead of explicitly naming that one thing is concealment. Just like how I might say "fertilizer" instead of "cow shit." The better question is why we started concealing it. Why are we so sensitive about the words person, employee, or personnel?
    - frm88 10mo ago
      Because starting from the 1980's corporate organisation was focused on managing resources, of which humans were a part that had to be dehumanized to fit with the rest of the theory. There was a brief phase where it was called HCM - human capital management, but that never caught on widely; so HRM it is with a focus on managing as opposed to organising and supporting. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolution-hr-terminology-why-matters-ojotule-opaluwa-alagbe-7vrhf https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolution-hr-terminology-why-...
      - exasperaited 10mo ago
        Human capital is even worse!
  - exasperaited 10mo ago
    > Would you be less bothered if he said "I've got a human for that"? Or "I've got a worker for that"? "The staff to handle that need is available"? "I've got a worker" is still somewhat dehumanising. "I have the staff for that" is somewhat less dehumanising. But, for example, "yes we have someone here that can work on this with you" is so obviously less dehumanising. I find it surprising that people would ever be confused about this. Perhaps it is because I am British and that sort of language is impolite, rude and arrogant. Or perhaps it is rejection-sensitive dysphoria (a real problem for me) making me sensitive to descriptions of myself and people I care about that reduce us to interchangeable allocatable units. But again, the basic thing here is: there were four of us. Only one of us was ever going to do that job because there were four of us and we had four different jobs. So why ever lurch towards the language of interchangeability, in earshot. Four people in a small business cannot really ever be a "category". And you should never use a word for a person that can also be used for a photocopier or a dictionary. A person can be resourceful; they are never a resource.

amarant 10mo ago

Aren't contemporary boardrooms generally stuffed to the brim with MBA's though? Or is that just my preconceptions talking?

slashdave 10mo ago
The Board represents shareholders, at least in principle. More celebrities really.

exasperaited 10mo ago

I struggle to find things in the modern business world that cannot be blamed on the culture of the MBA. What you are talking about — boards not caring about the welfare of employees — is a fundamental result of the culture of the MBA, which has suffused through all business thought in a way that casually depersonalises and humiliates. I used to work for a small business and I decided I would have to quit one day when my boss said, on the phone to a client, "yes, I've got a resource for that". There were four of us.

coldpie 10mo ago
> when my boss said, on the phone to a client, "yes, I've got a resource for that". Hahaha, I got hit with that, too, also working for a small company. Luckily it was the client who called me "a resource", not someone from my company, but good lord what a way that is to talk about human beings.
quesera 10mo ago
This one trips me up. Why are we sensitive about the word "resource"? Literally nothing about the word "resource" has negative connotations for me. Resources are finite and precious. They are protected and important. Sometimes they are exploited and undervalued, sure. What isn't? Certainly not humans or employees. Every project requires resources. Some of them are human. It's just a category. Would you be less bothered if he said "I've got a human for that"? Or "I've got a worker for that"? "The staff to handle that need is available"? I don't use the word, and the first time I heard it, I thought it was a little impersonal. But then I thought about it more, and I just don't understand the strength of reaction. It might help that, in general, my goal is not to be seen as a living human being with real human complexity and needs and desires, at work.
- dogleash 10mo ago
  >Why are we sensitive about the word "resource"? It's simple dehumanization. It's not outlandish or anything, it's just really easy to notice. And the sophistry to try make them equivalent terms is also easy to notice. For a business to need resources it means a category of stuff that can include people, tools, raw materials, etc... Using the name of a category to mean one thing inside it instead of explicitly naming that one thing is concealment. Just like how I might say "fertilizer" instead of "cow shit." The better question is why we started concealing it. Why are we so sensitive about the words person, employee, or personnel?
  - frm88 10mo ago
    Because starting from the 1980's corporate organisation was focused on managing resources, of which humans were a part that had to be dehumanized to fit with the rest of the theory. There was a brief phase where it was called HCM - human capital management, but that never caught on widely; so HRM it is with a focus on managing as opposed to organising and supporting. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolution-hr-terminology-why-matters-ojotule-opaluwa-alagbe-7vrhf https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolution-hr-terminology-why-...
    - exasperaited 10mo ago
      Human capital is even worse!
- exasperaited 10mo ago
  > Would you be less bothered if he said "I've got a human for that"? Or "I've got a worker for that"? "The staff to handle that need is available"? "I've got a worker" is still somewhat dehumanising. "I have the staff for that" is somewhat less dehumanising. But, for example, "yes we have someone here that can work on this with you" is so obviously less dehumanising. I find it surprising that people would ever be confused about this. Perhaps it is because I am British and that sort of language is impolite, rude and arrogant. Or perhaps it is rejection-sensitive dysphoria (a real problem for me) making me sensitive to descriptions of myself and people I care about that reduce us to interchangeable allocatable units. But again, the basic thing here is: there were four of us. Only one of us was ever going to do that job because there were four of us and we had four different jobs. So why ever lurch towards the language of interchangeability, in earshot. Four people in a small business cannot really ever be a "category". And you should never use a word for a person that can also be used for a photocopier or a dictionary. A person can be resourceful; they are never a resource.