Last fall, I listened to a spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service talk about the intensity of the 2015 fire season. She referred to the number of resources available for fighting fires and how many more were needed to control last year’s forest fires.
Eventually I realized that she was simply talking about people. She wasn’t talking about helicopters or trucks or flame suppressant. She was just talking about young men and women who fight fires.
I remember in the past working on new projects for a corporation. One of the big considerations was “resources.”
But again, what they were really talking about was people. How many people is it going to take to get the job done? Are people currently available to work on the project or to complete the work once the planning is done? Are they already committed to other programs?
This all got me thinking about how organizations talk to employees. How does it feel to be considered a “resource”? On the one hand, it’s good to know that you’re valued and seen as something that contributes to the success of a program or project. On the other hand, how does it feel to be lumped into the same class as a laptop or a Kubota?
Bureaucratese can be boring. It can be imprecise. It can be awkward. But the worst thing it should ever be is impersonal. Whether the language is directed to front line employees or is exchanged in meetings between managers and officers, it’s important to be respectful of the time, skills and lives of those who get most of the work done. Every word counts.
As are all employees, forest firefighters are much more than resources.They are healthy, brave people who put their lives at risk.
clairecommunicationsdotnet 
I suppose it’s easier to cut jobs, reduce benefits, or any of the various things companies have to do to meet short-term Wall Street expectations when we pretend these things affect “resources” rather than real people.
Nice blog, Ms. Levine.
LikeLike
Just practicing leaving a comment! Thx for posting on FB.
LikeLike
The very thing that makes the English language so ply able for written communication is the same thing that allows verbal misinterpretation. We can define words more ways. Other languages have specific words which makes writing communication very lengthy. Which l think waters down the every word matters. Belive me I agree every word matters.
LikeLike
I don’t see it as misinterpretation – people are considered “resources” on purpose. They cost money, and all money must be allocated or reduced based on need, and resource availability.
I do agree that it is very off-color to talk about employees in this way, at any level, especially in such an emotion-laden field like forest fires. “Resources” aren’t “lost” every summer. People die. Sometimes I wish George Carlin were still here to yell at everyone about euphemisms – I guess it’s up to us, now.
LikeLike