![\"Lego](\"https:\/\/sidewaysthoughts.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/11\/Lego-identity-line-up.jpg\" "\\"Lego")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I recently came across this critique<\/a>\u00a0aimed at those who use the word \u201cresource\u201d to refer to people.\u00a0 The post inferred that those who use such terminology are careless, less enlightened, number-crunchers, and lacking in courtesy.<\/p>\n The blogger above is not alone in his critique. Others have taken a similar position that:<\/p>\n The last example makes it very clear that those who use the term \u201cresources\u201d are simply \u201cdoing it wrong\u201d.<\/p>\n I respect the positions above, although they take a pretty strong position against a word. Is the use of the word appropriate? Is it inevitable?\u00a0Or is the use of the word not as important as the culture and intent behind it?<\/p>\n I will come out and say it: I am guilty as charged. I will even admit to using the more callous phrase \u201cbodies\u201d, as in \u201cWe will need more [insert technology] bodies on that project in a few weeks\u201d.<\/p>\n My purpose here is not to apologise, justify, excuse or defend the practice.\u00a0 Indeed, for most of my career you could place me in the same camp as the critics in the links above.<\/p>\n Six years ago I started on a path towards an MBA, but paused after a few courses because I felt like the degree was more about the numbers and not enough about the people.\u00a0 So I switched to a Masters of Applied Social Science (Management) with a specialist psychology college. I held an idealistic perspective that if organisations took care of their people, the rest would sort itself out. It\u00a0wasn’t\u00a0until I was almost finished that I realised my degree was part of the discipline of Human Resource<\/em><\/strong> Management.<\/p>\n As I move through my fifteenth year of doing some form of management or leadership in manufacturing, professional services and not-for-profit organisations, I see three factors as to why the word \u201cresource\u201d creeps into my vernacular:<\/p>\n All that said, I like to think I am open to change and correction. As part of my ponderings here I asked the opinion of people (resources? team members? employees?) in my company. The response I received varied for and against.<\/p>\n A couple said they appreciated I was aware of the concern. Most, however, just looked at me like they were not sure what I was going on about. Some attributed a “resource” as someone who contributes, who adds value. Many viewed themselves as flexible resources, flitting from one discipline to another based on need.\u00a0 This was seen as part of the appeal of the environment in which we work, an environment created from how people are perceived in the company.<\/p>\n\n
Three reasons why it happens<\/h2>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/sidewaysthoughts.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/11\/sausage-grinder.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n
\nA client once affectionately referred to my studio as \u201ca large professional family\u201d. \u00a0A few years later faced with opportunities for rapid growth, that same client said we were a sausage factory and that more sausages were needed. I now see both perspectives.Yes, clients want the innovation that comes from people who are passionate, engaged, and feel connected. This comes when people are motivated through autonomy, mastery and purpose<\/a>. A sense of \u201cfamily\u201d results when people feel connected to those around them and when they see their DNA in the organisation.Clients also do not want to hear that their million dollar promotion is delayed due to so-and-so being sick or that additional projects must wait due to not having enough \u201cresources\u201d.A few ways to address this dichotomy are to: 1)<\/strong>\u00a0maintain your internal culture<\/a>, 2)<\/strong> acknowledge the boundary points between internal and client cultures<\/a>, and 3)<\/strong> set up processes to ensure the alignment between the two is managed<\/a>. This is a balancing act between serving the internal team and supporting client scale-ability. Energy spent on being offended at being considered a \u201cresource\u201d is counter-productive and better spent on getting it right in those three areas.<\/li>\n
\nOpen up Microsoft Project and you will see that the right-hand column is called \u201cresources\u201d. \u00a0Recruitment companies, project management methodologies and academic institutions all use the term \u201cresources\u201d to refer to people in organisations.You can understand why managers scratch their heads in confusion when they are criticised for using the term resources. It seems silly that I spent half a decade getting a degree in a discipline I can\u2019t refer to by name.<\/li>\n
\nReducing things down to abstract models<\/a>\u00a0helps make sense of the world. The more complex the situation, the more valuable it is to reduce things to a model. When I am project managing a team of five, I know each person by name. When I am responsible for the flow of 30 projects for 15 clients through six teams of three to five team members across five technologies and disciplines, I admit to thinking of people as resource types.\u00a0 The greater the pressure, the more this is the case.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nThe three faces of the \u201cresource\u201d<\/h2>\n
![\"Three-forms-of-identity\"](\"https:\/\/sidewaysthoughts.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/11\/Three-forms-of-identity.jpg\")
<\/p>\n