When did "Resource" or "Coder" Become 4 Letter Words?

I was recently involved in a conversation where it came up that the term “coders” when used to refer to software developer was dehumanizing, offensive and inappropriate as it was indicative of a state of mind of the interchangeability and essential sameness of all software developers. This is not unlike the ongoing discussion that says the same thing about the use of the word “Resource” or “Resources”. Those that find these terms wrong base their opinion on the premise that referring to those that work on a project as resources reduces them to interchangeable cogs within a machine where if one gets sick or leaves they can just be replaced like a lego brick.

I have a problem with this line of thinking. I tend to hold that it is sometimes required to refer to groups of people with a term that differentiates them from other groups of people. This might be Software Developer, Coder, Systems Analyst, Technical Writer, Accountant, etc. Is the use of any of these terms offensive? Is it the term used or the fact that ANY term is being used? If ANY term is acceptable then would it not also ‘reduce’ the group in the same way? If so how does one refer to a group of people with a similar set of skills? Is it possible to do so?

It seems to me that a manager that treats the people working on his\her project as interchangeable is of course not doing a good job of being a manager. But does a manager that treats their people with complete respect as individuals reduce them by referring to them by their job title or skill?

I always put more stock in actions and intentions than in the pure use of a word. I mean a manager could use all the “right” words but still treat their people with no respect. This is because they have no respect and their intent is wrong. But if a manager has full respect for their people but uses the wrong term and has no intent to dehumanize them are they a bad manager?

I'm fully ready to hear that I'm way outside the envelope of reality here. Maybe I'm just not getting it. Set me straight. I know I'm not seeing it but maybe a comment here can word it in a way that I have not seen before. Up to now the explanations I have seen all seemed like political correctness for it’s own sake.

Comments

[Ad]

Worrying about such terms, unless they are overtly offensive, is neither useful nor productive. Ensuring the group/individual is treated with respect is the only thing you should concern yourself with.

The evolution of job titles is usually driven by the demands of employees for greater status. Thus 'clerk' goes from being a perfectly respectable job role in the 1800s to a (generally perceived) low level position today. At the other end of the scale, Vice-President is now becoming a meaningless title due to its ubiquity and may well end up with a similary low level stigma as clerk in two hundred years time.

But human resources might still be considered a tad dehumanising. What was wrong with 'personnel'?

[Glen B. Alleman]

Brian,

I suspect that those who object to "resource" aren't on the project finance side of the room. We who are have a column in the cost system for "resorouces" or "Full Time Equivalents" (FTE) that contains the labor burden value for the project as a function of type.

Project has a Resource Sheet and Resource loading tools. To be refered to as a "resource" probably means you have an assigned set of tasks and a role on the project, and likely a paycheck on Friday.

[Mike Griffiths]

Yes, I can see that "coder" could be deemed offensive. Such job titles did exist with coders filling in the lines of code in a program designed by a programmer or analyst programmer - particularly back in the days of punched cards when getting the syntax correct in a program was a time consuming and rather dull activity. We do try not to use words that may be seen as dehumanising in our every day relationships so should avoid them in working situations.

[Treb Gatte]

I can see where coder might touch on some sensitivities, especially in organizations where outsourcing/offshoring is being examined. It creates a low level job perception which leads people to believe it's easy to replace. Software developer more accurately describes the full breadth of the job.

As a PM, I wouldn't like being called Chart Maker as there's more to my job than that. :-)

I don't get the resource term angst though. I have no idea what other term you would use to collectively refer to your people, materials and other things used to deliver a project. Resources seems to allow reference to the intended audience in a nice short term.

My $0.02.