What is a resource?

a useful or valuable possession or quality of a country, organization or person

Cambridge University Press

a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively

Oxford English Dictionary Press

To many, the understanding of resources has been in the context of raw materials: oil, minerals, currency and other tradable commodities. The definitions above appear vague enough to accommodate both the traditional idea of resources and more modern appreciations. If we take some liberty with the definitions I could, in fact, be “a valuable asset of an organization”. Unfortunately, the word asset itself is tricky, referring to either positive virtues and strengths or conversely, property and goods. A “useful possession drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively”? Less appealing.

In conversation, we speak of needing “[x amount of resources] for [a particular task, function or result]” eg “one barrel of oil for production of twenty gallons of petrol”. Accordingly, we could assign “eight developers and one designer for completion of this project”. This likely has roots in labor as part of the factors of production, the idea of human capital.

I am not a resource.

There has existed a “human resources” department in corporate environments for as long as I can remember. The omniscient, bureaucratic HR Department. I suspect it is an American concept (apologies). Largely, the terminology was self-contained; uninspired and only vaguely insulting. However, the idea of a human resource and application of this label has subsequently spread through software, presentations and into speeches and conferences. It has crept into everyday language, and we think little of it.

Launching a software application for the recording of timesheets, holidays, projects and budget management what might one expect to find in a section labeled “Resources”? Perhaps contextual information — available funds, calendars, time allocation or office supplies. Today, more likely a list of employees. Employees and their availability, narrowed to precise decimal percentages.

This has likely been accepted because it is removed of context. We pretend not to refer to manufacturing, energy or trading. Given such context, it feels abhorrent to address individuals as resources. This lingering association may be uncomfortable, but words constantly change context, adapt to evolving conditions. The more grievous sin lies in the application. We have begun to not only apply the term to people, but apply the underlying concepts as well. We are objectifying one another, reducing ourselves to tangible commodities.

The phrases are common enough. We are assigning resources to a project. We have resourced this person. This project is low on resources. We need to discuss your resourcing this week.

People are provided with necessary resources; are people necessary resources?

In writing this, I expected to unearth a large number of existing articles decrying the use the term. After an (admittedly cursory) search, I found few results. It’s difficult to imagine many people promoting the practice. Is the label so ubiquitous that we have become complacent?

Are we comfortable being put in parallel to material objects subject to ownership and distribution?
If the answer to that seems obvious, why is the terminology still part of our daily vocabulary? Even those who loathe the word continue to use it. It would suggest a general acceptance (or acceptance through apathy) that we are finite objects moved and managed as needed; pear-shaped pegs reluctantly hammered into uniform patterns.

Resourcing leads to numbers. Resourcing promotes cold efficiency and optimization. There are far too many variables (distractions, priorities, the creative process, unforeseen problems such as illness or unavailability) to slot people into calculations and charts. Allotting someone to tasks that neatly total 100% is a guarantee for failure.

Are we willing to agree to change course and perhaps consider alternatives that recognize us for what we are — human beings?

What are the possibilities?

If we are referring to people, I can’t see much reason for using anything other than person or individual. Consider including an individual’s job role if the former is not specific enough.

How do we engage people on a project? Perhaps by booking, reserving or scheduling.
We probably don’t wish to be allotted, arranged, programmed, contracted, or locked in.

Our language is rich with synonyms — synonyms with humane origins.

Find them, and bring them to conversation.