Rebuttal: We're not "resources"

July 16, 2008
Add Comment

Recently a friend/colleague wrote a post about how we, as workers, are not “resources”. If you click over and read his post first the rest of this post will make much more sense.

The underlying point behind his post is that people are not readily interchangeable. He gave many examples of people or professions that are not easily substitutable: Derek Jeter at short stop, Steve Jobs at Apple, Brad Pitt as an actor, Michael Jordon as a shooting guard. This point I agree with wholeheartedly. People are rarely interchangeable, at least in a thought industry, but they are still resources.

If we take a look at the semantics of the terminology “resources” we see that it has many meanings, many of which can easily be tied back to employees. Let’s step through the two most relevant of these.

1. A source of supply, support, or aid, especially one that can be readily drawn upon when needed
When viewed from the perspective of a company employees serve one purpose: to supply a service that the business needs in order to operate. How many times have you been called upon by your employer to complete a task that “just came up”? If it is more than once that you fall into the “one that can be readily drawn upon as needed” category. This definition fits pretty closely with most employees in thought industries.

2. Money or any property that can be converted into money
Employees garner a wage in exchange for a service they provide. Under this arrangement a certain amount of money is invested and tied up in that employee. This is cash the business cannot spend if they wish to continue to deliver paychecks. If the employee-employer relationship is terminated then the cash that was tied up in the employee is immediately available again. To put it another way, the employee “resource” was converted to cash.

For example, let’s say an engineering team has a budget for an engineer slot of $100,000. There are three people vying for this position. John is a mediocre programmer and will work for $55,000. Peter is a very good programmer and will work for $98,000. Greg is the programming equivalent of Derek Jeter or Michael Jordon and will work for $123,000. Greg is clearly the best choice if the team wants the best possible talent, however that option is not cost effective. So the company moves to Option B, Peter, who will fit within the budget and does a very good job. The company has now purchased a resource for $98,000 per year. If this employee discontinues his employment, the company will immediately regain $98,000 per year.

In addition, sports players (e.g. Derek Jeter, Michael Jordon, etc.) are routinely traded in order to deal with financial issues. While each “resource” is valued differently according to their ability, they are still treated as an item that can be converted to cash as needed. This definition also fits with what is found in thought industries.

If I build a fence I can choose to go with the cheapest lumber, nails, and concrete. Using cheap resources will be more cost effective but will likely yield an inferior fence that will not withstand the element for long. Conversely, I can choose the best resources and may find that it is highly inefficient financially but that the fence will still be around 100 years from now. Taking a more modest approach, I can choose median resources that make the fence durable for a long time and cost effective.This is no different for people.

If the Yankees where to pencil Mark Turansky in at short stop they would have a cheap resource but may suffer in the quality of their infield. However, if they were to choose Derek Jeter they would pay considerably more for the resource but would likely recognize a considerable improvement in the quality of their team. These people are “resources” for the reasons named above, however that doesn’t necessarily mean it is prudent to treat them interchangeably.

The problem with using the word “resources” to identify employees is that it objectifies them. This is such a broad term that it could just as easily mean calculators, pencils, or laptops as it could employees. As noted in Mark’s post, Steve McConnell “ranks ‘Weak Personnel’ as the 2nd classic mistake an organization can make when trying to build software”. The word personnel here is simply a narrowing term to indicate that the resources in question are human in nature and not of the inanimate variety. I will agree with the fact that people shouldn’t be treated as resources, even though we are just that. Our particular variety of resources comes with emotions installed, which makes it harder to blindly objectify us without some emotional responses following closely.

We are all “resources”, albeit differently valued ones that come with emotions attached.


The Worst Thing to Ask During An Interview

July 14, 2008
14 Comments

I have been involved in interviews for a number of years now and there is one recurring question that continuously irks me:

“What does your company do?”

This is a very broad and open-ended question that poses a couple problems during the interview:

1. It makes the candidate appear lazy or naive.
In our web enabled world very few companies lack a web site. The majority of these sites will have at least the basic purpose of the business if not the entire overview and history. A little research will typically tell the visitor all they need to know about the business they are interested in and will more often than not give a potential hire enough information so that they can frame some specific questions that will make them appear studious and competent. When candidates do not take the time to research such a basic bullet point it makes the interviewers question whether the candidate is simply naive or if laziness is the underlying issue.

2. It wastes the time of all parties involved.
When I have to explain what my company does I am simply repeating what can be found, in detail, on the company website. This means that X minutes of the interview, that could better be spent on other topics, are wasted on discussion of details that the candidate should have already known. This lends a disservice mainly to the interviewee. They waste precious time for valid and detailed questions and they make themselves appear unprepared, lazy, or naive.

If you are going into an interview you should always know as much as possible about the company you are going to be speaking to. If you don’t know something, be specific and avoid broad “what do you guys do” type questions at all costs.


The Art of Momentum

June 4, 2008
Add Comment

Maintaining momentum really is an art form. This came to me where most of my thoughts do, during my morning commute. There is a certain portion of the highway that routinely slows down because it junctions with one of the largest thoroughfares in our city. Traffic inevitably stops or slows here, but for the select few, there is a way to keep moving. Over the past two years I, and many others, have discovered that there is a specific pattern to the traffic flow.

Approaching the junction lane 1 slows because everyone is getting over to avoid incoming traffic and because people are trying to move into lane 2. Lane 2 slows slightly to accommodate movement from lane 1 and from people trying to get into lane 3. Lane 3 speeds up because people are exiting the highway and there are fewer cars. Leaving the junction the opposite occurs. Traffic in lane 3 slows down to accommodate incoming vehicles and because people are trying to move to lane 2. Lane 2 slows slightly to accommodate people from lane 3 and because they are trying to move to lane 1. Lane 1 speeds up because there is the least amount of resistance there.

traffic.gif

The most interesting part of the traffic though is that as you pass through the junction there is a gray (bluish) area that affords drivers the opportunity of maintaining their momentum. But there is an art to it. If you move over too early you end up sitting still because you are stuck in the red part of lane 1, however if you move over too late you find in the red area in lane 3. Either way, you are killing momentum. The ability to move in and out of the gray area on a green lane truly is an art form that takes the ability to read the situation correctly and be lucky enough to be in a position to capitalize upon it.

Finding the way to maintain momentum will vary by interchange, highway, city, number of people on the road, the time of day, the day of year, whether there are a lot of schools around, and many other variables. What stays constant is that in all cases there is either a way to maintain momentum or there isn’t. When there is a way to maintain momentum the practice is often going to be more of an art form, sprinkled with a little luck, than it is to be a skill.

Sounds like business, huh?