People, not resources

Welcome to part one of a three-part series on culture, looking into what impacts it, why it is valuable, and how we can change or scale it. In the first instalment, Nick Gubb ruminates on how simple language can impact how we talk about people and the wider implications it can lead to within an organisational culture.

Perhaps it's a personal pet peeve, a sign of a broader shift in cultural understanding or just a case of how language constantly evolves. Still, I have an issue when people refer to others as "resources".

Using "resources" isn't specific to IT but is rife throughout the industry, where we often hear talk about "resource planning", "resource capacity", or even the "HR Department".

It's so commonplace that I used to find myself doing it all the time. I had never stopped to think about how I was using particular words until a leader I worked with pointed it out. I was in a meeting then where four of the five people attending mentioned finding and allocating new resources to work on a project that was struggling to meet a deadline.

Recently I became aware of a conversation about a piece of work I was involved with. I found out later that other people were using the same language. And this time, I was the focus of it rather than the perpetrator.

Reflecting on it later was an enlightening experience! I felt like being treated as a thing rather than a person. It implied that someone else could replace me, and just because our CVs list the same skills, there would be zero impact on the work underway.

The people in this conversation ignored how I used my skillset, drew on my experience, or offered my perspective. It felt like I could be easily disposed of and replaced with another fungible resource at the drop of a hat.

As is tradition for any beginner writing their first blog or fine-tuning a wedding speech, I investigated the dictionary definition. Merriam-Webster defines "resource" as:

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So, a person could fit into the resource description as a means of support or, as in the last definition, "a source of information".

Thinking it over again, I'm sure the person didn't intend it in a meanspirited way. It felt extreme to label the feelings I mentioned above as "dehumanising", but the definition fits when referring to my good ol' mate Merriam-Webster (localised spelling aside):

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Every person we work with is another human being. They are individuals with their thoughts, opinions, and problem-solving abilities specific to them. Their experiences and preferences shape their abilities and how they tackle a particular challenge. This uniqueness is not considered if we boil people down to being "resources' and deprive or ignore their valuable traits and experiences.

People are the culture of an organisation. Leadership can shape and direct that culture (more on that in the coming weeks), and the company then realises the benefits of a happy, engaged, and motivated workforce.

Building and improving culture can start with minor improvements in language use, such as referring to people as people and not as swappable, fungible resources.

Culture needs to be based on treating employees with empathy and understanding, acknowledging their unique strengths, and supporting their personal and professional growth. It differs from scaling up and throwing additional processing power and memory resources at a virtual machine.

Next time you speak with your peers about the next project milestone, stop and think about whether you are talking about a resource or a person.

Other posts in this series:

Part 2: IT culture
Part 3: Culture change