Words Matter

People are not “resources”

Is it any wonder that we have low employee engagement scores and ‘quiet quitting’ when we call those working in our organizations “resources”?

According to etymologists, one of the earliest use of the word “resource” common to it’s use today dates back to 1779 as: “a country’s wealth, means of raising money and supplies.” (etymonline.com ). Somewhere along the definition evolution, people became part of that equation because they helped generate “a country’s wealth”.

The definition hasn’t changed much since then: “Resource refers to all the materials available in our environment which are technologically accessible, economically feasible and culturally sustainable and help us to satisfy our needs and wants.” (Wikipedia).

Although an aggregation of resources that includes “workers” makes sense in profit calculations, I haven’t met an individual that enjoyed being considered “materials available” to satisfy an organization’s “needs and wants”.

Every individual in your organization has a life outside of where they work. They are a member of a family, tribe or other support system. And unlike the faceless machine on the factory floor, they have chosen where they spend their time and who they work for and, I argue, cannot be as easily substituted.

Words to use instead

The good news is, I am starting to see a shift from calling people “resources”. For example, I now see words like “Workforce planning” as opposed to “Resource Planning”. There is also a trend to rebrand Human Resource departments to “people organizations”. Although simply rebranding HR will not solve all of HR’s problems, it is the right step forward.

But, I think we can still do better. Those in our organizations are people, individuals, humans, friends, co-workers, colleagues, team members, talent, etc. Anything but resources. In your next manager’s meeting when you are discussing the project schedule, watch as the conversation shifts when you substitute “resource” with words like “talent” and “colleague”. The conversation will begin to focus not only on the project schedule but also on quality of life, skills, learning, time management, and engagement, which are the topics that should be addressed if leaders expect to meet project deadlines.

The more we can separate ‘who’ is doing the work from ‘what’ is doing the work, the more we humanize the work experience. And maybe, if we can stop calling our people “resources”, they will start feeling valued and have a desire to be more engaged.

We “train” animals, people learn

I have been advocating for the rights of learners for years, and these rights begin with evolving beyond the Pavlovian thinking that leaders and managers can ‘train’ their organizations.

Although an individual may lack the appropriate training to perform a task correctly, to imply that we can “train” them is to suggest that their behavior can be intentionally modified by outside forces into performing the task. We can train a tree to grow in a certain way by cutting off a few limbs but we cannot do that with people.

People learn.

To learn something requires a willingness to change behavior. And although we can ‘influence’ someone’s behavior, it is insidious to think that we can impose our will and ‘change’ someone’s behavior. People change their behavior because they desire to change. This desire can be prompted by factors such as pain or enlightenment, but they choose to change.

“Training” programs exercise one’s desire to change through rigorous individual practice (even if together as a group) to help the body and mind consistently do something different. Professional athletes train to focus on a skill, perfect a technique or coordinate plays together as a team. The military performs “training exercises” to coordinate individual activities and prepare their body for the rigorous demands of combat . As a musician I practice (“train”) and rehearse with other musicians to perfect our performance.

“Training programs” are not listening to a PowerPoint webinar on corporate policies.

I also believe when business leaders use words like “training programs” or “our people need training”, they mistakenly assume the burden of organizational learning. As a result, managers have become easy targets for poor performance. For example, one of the complaints we often hear from employee engagement reports is: “we need more training.” Lack of “training” is also mistakenly pointed out as a root cause for many audit issues. It is even listed as a reason for fraud or poor financial performance.

Yet, as we talk to managers and leaders, the overwhelming, and exasperated, response is that they provided “training”. The problem is, there was no learning. Eliminating the word “training” from our business lexicon, will not solve the corporate learning problem, but it will at least put the responsibility for learning where it belongs – with the learners. And managers can then focus on their responsibility of providing opportunities for learners to learn.

Words to use instead

Again, I am starting to see a shift away from using the word “training”. For example several years ago the Association for Training & Development rebranded to the Association for Talent Development. And, instead of “training programs” I am starting to see “learning programs.”

In the learning and organizational development communities we use words like “learning interventions” or “learning opportunities” to describe what is really happening during an organizational “training” event. Instead of saying “we are going to receive training on…” say something like “we are going to learn how to…”. And calling your next development opportunity an “Educational” event will help elevate the thinking behind what is expected as learners.

We “manage” things, we lead people

This one came up recently as I studied Gallup’s State of the Global Workforce 2023 Report. See this link for my summary of this report.

I pointed out in my summary a quote by Jon Clifton, CEO of Gallup.

Change the way your people are managed.

Jon Clifton, “State of the Global Workplace 2023 Report”, pg. 1

As I argue in my summary of this report, the problem I have with this statement is that thinking we have to “manage people” is the problem, not the solution.

The people that work in your organization do not want to be ‘managed’ any more than you want to be managed. They want to be led. And they want to be led by a competent, caring leader concerned equally about them as individuals as they are concerned about achieving the organization’s objectives.

How can we ever expect to engage individuals to help us achieve our vision for the organization when we talk about “managing” them as we would “manage” our finances or time.

Words to use instead

This brought to mind a quote by Admiral Hopper that summarizes the words we should use instead.

You manage things; you lead people.

Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (1096-1992)

As we talk and write about “leading” people instead of “managing” people we elevate the thinking about our followers. Instead of an “us vs. them” relationship, it changes to “we”. And “we” can become a powerful motivational message.

More to come

You will see this article refreshed over time as I update it with new phrases that also tend to dehumanize the people that work in our organizations. If you have additional examples you would like to see added to this list, please send them to me.

Changing the words we use is one of the first, and easiest things, we can do to change our thinking and humanize the work experience. I have witnessed the positive impact these simple changes can have in team engagement and you can also.