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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
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?
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.
