Why People Are Not Resources... and why it matters

I never liked the term "human resources" and lately its use is expanding in a troubling way. On hearing "we need to put a resource on that," and “we won’t get any more resources in that department,” for about 30 minutes of a meeting, I asked what kinds of resources were needed? Long pause... confused, uncomfortable looks. Finally the director seated next to me took pity and whispered "more resources… more people." 

This shook me. I thought of George Orwell and felt his loneliness. Here was a room full of bright, high-achieving adults acting on an unstated agreement—with airtight consistency—not to use the word they meant; instead substituting an impossibly awkward euphemism. Why? Is there something threatening about "people"? What could explain the staff's noteworthy discipline in avoiding the word in that meeting, despite repeatedly meaning it?  

Why care? 

Because substituting "resources" for people isn't just grating to the ear. It suggests bigtime failure in how we think about people and about business.

How are people not resources?  Let me count the ways.

1. Ethically. Resources are means to an end. People are ends in themselves. They have their own individual purposes… unlike coal or timber. People commit and strive to our organizational purposes to the extent that we engage their individual sense of purpose. Coal and timber don’t make that choice each day. People reach into their creative energies as far as their organization can translate them into results and reward. Psychologists used to call it "self-actualization."  Great organizations thrive on it; lesser organizations miss it. You can’t get it from coal or timber. Or money.
2. Usefully. Units of a resource are all the same: a ton of coal is a ton of coal; a dollar is a dollar. One is replaceable by any other, without loss. Is this what we think of our people?  What organization became great—or even good—by thinking this way? Why are we using language that does? Beyond the dehumanization, it’s disturbingly wrong about human capabilities and how they combine for success. Steve Jobs said, "I found that there were these incredibly great people at doing certain things, and you couldn’t replace one of these people with 50 average people… and so I have spent my life trying to recruit and retain and work with these kind of people." (Notice Steve said "people" whenever he was talking about people.) Hey HR: find me a ton of coal that performs 50 times better than other tons of coal. If people are resources, then recruiting and retention are hugely wasteful practices! Let's mechanize them and cut out a ton of overhead. Unless... people aren't resources.
3. Physically. Resources get used up.  We consume them in our processes. That's totally cool because they're resources—it's what they're there for. Not so with people, who show up to contribute to our organization for mutual benefit. It's not okay to use them up. Doing so wouldn't benefit the organization; we need them to be strong for their families and communities on which our enterprise depends. We want them to spread the word about our great organization. Do today's leaders resent this? Does it ask too much of us? Would we rather consume workers by the trainload, like the labor camps of the 20th century? If not, it's strange to imply it so vigorously.
4. Linguistically. “Resource” is a general term, describing anything that is useful. It has no specific meaning. So it’s not that it shouldn’t mean "people" or "person". It’s that it can’t. To use such a vague category in place of a known specific—let alone one as insipid as "resources" for one as important as "people"—is outrageously odd. To do it consistently is beyond odd. It's brazen.  What on earth are we hiding? Why the ungraceful contortions to avoid saying “people” when we’re talking about people? Want to break down barriers and build trust in your organization? Start by saying what you mean. Try it with "people".
5. Professionally. Respect for people: every organization says they have it. Really? How respectful is it to equate a human being to a board-foot of Douglas Fir? And we move from that to talking about "leveraging our talent" and "creating synergy" and [insert MBA-school cliché here] yet we wonder where the eye-rolls come from? Yes, great organizations really do reap the compounding effects of creativity, cooperation and passion; the things that don’t come from resources. They only come from people. They don't come at all to organizations at war with the distinction!  Using language that assaults that distinction isn't merely odd or creepy—it's disrespectful of people. That's unprofessional.
6. Managerially. Resources can be managed. People can’t. Yes, that’s what I said. Because people aren’t commodities. They can be a real pain in the backside to organizations that treat them that way! People choose whether and how deeply to plumb their energies on an organization’s behalf, and that decision makes or breaks the organization. That’s why people need leaders. Admiral Grace Hopper told the Pentagon in 1983, “You manage things, you lead people. We went overboard on management and forgot about leadership.” Jack Welch put it like this, “Managers slow things down. Leaders spark the business to run smoothly, quickly. Managers talk to one another, write memos to one another. Leaders talk to their employees, talk with their employees, filling them with vision.” Try that with coal.