Earlier this week, as I sat in the waiting room at my
doctor’s office, I was looking for anything to occupy my time with. I had already browsed through the well-worn
golf and wellness magazines and had moved on to reading my admittance
paperwork. While it was far less
exciting than reading yet another article on how to correct my slice (none so
far have helped), I found myself intrigued by the language on the form. In particular, I found one field interesting. It was labeled “Resource” and next to it was
the name of the physician’s assistant I was about to see. It conjured up images of a world in which
people are just cogs in a system where one can simply be replaced by
another. It also reminded me of the
importance of language and how we overlook some very simple leadership
principles every day in our business dealings.
In this case, the use of the word “resource” was viewed by some form
designer as the simplest way to label field and ignored the fact that a person’s
name is going to be filled in there.
Too often, people use the word “resource” when they really
mean “person”. It may seem like a small
thing but leadership is made up of many “small things” that are brought
together to create something great. As a
leader, I simply cannot afford to ignore the person that is represented by that
name. I can’t simply relabel them as “resources”
and pretend that they are interchangeable commodities. While that form designer
likely thought that using the word “resource” was an efficient way of handling
the form entry, I would argue that we will be better off if we avoid the use of
overly generic terms like that for people.
Save those non-human descriptions for things that really are not human. Here are a three reasons why we should always
refrain from using the term “resources” when talking about people.
People don’t like being treated like numbers
It has been shown that people respond better to relationship-based experiences than to purely contractual arrangements. In fact, the most important characteristics
of leaders, according to those being led, are things like authenticity, trust
and respect. When people’s names are
replaced by “Resource A” and “Resource B” the personalities that underlie those
names will respond accordingly. Those
“resources” will still show up for work and they may even accomplish the amount
of work defined by your project plan.
However, they are less likely to be driven by loyalty or any kind of
shared vision. What happens when your
project encounters challenges that require that extra bit of effort or when
that “resource” has a choice between doing something that is easy or something
that is right? By treating these people
as replaceable things, we degrade our ability to motivate without resorting to
coercion or formal authority. We reduce
our ability to rely on the trust and respect that is so important for leaders.
People are not interchangeable
If we are staffing for success, we cannot simply move people
around expecting one person to perform the same as the next. We recognize this fact when we hire, promote
and reduce staff but somehow this fact is lost when some project plans are
created. By using terms like “resource”
to mean a person, we risk losing sight of the fact that each team member comes
with a set of skills, raw talent and personality that is unique to them. All of those things that make up a person
make them well qualified in some roles and not as much for others. If we lose
sight of that uniqueness we are putting the success of projects and the firm at
risk.
Your career advancement could be slowed
The first two reasons above focus on the success of your
work streams and the organization but this last one is really based on our own desire
for growth and advancement. If we accept
the idea that good leadership skills will help drive our career forward and we
also accept that leadership is based on people and relationships then it stands
to reason that reducing people to numbers and things will not be great for your
career.
Above we discussed the impact on the people on the
team. The impact on your career is a
natural result of that impact and it works on two levels. On one level your career will be impacted by
the success or failure of the various efforts you lead. If your language negatively impacts the team
and the work they are doing, it is likely that it will create drag on your
career.
Secondly, there is a less tangible component in your career
advancement that involves relationships you maintain with those around you. Positive personalities that foster strong
relationships will typically be more successful than others. (I know you are thinking of all the negative
jerks that you’ve seen succeed but keep in mind that we are focused on the
typical and not the exceptions.) Using
language that classifies people as “resources” does not inspire the type of
relationships that lead to success. It
does not inspire the respect and trust that is crucial to good leadership. People will reciprocate with the same
formality and you will develop transactional relationships that lack in
personal connections.
Words matter
It may seem trivial but words matter. Unfortunately, too many project and process
management methodologies have tried to reduce our language down to a dry
scientific subset of terms in an effort to create a common language. The problem with this is that this, too
often, ignores the people involved in the methodology. By taking small steps such as using better
words to describe people we will be reminded of the human nature of what we all
do, and show, in a small way, that we respect the people on our teams.
