Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eric Rizzo's avatar

I definitely think the change of vocabulary is not only potentially helpful, it's critical.

In the teams I've led (and even some I haven't, officially) in recent years, I've worked to squash dehumanizing vocabulary like "individual contributor" ("teammate" being my replacement of choice for that one). I've never been in management, but those seem to be the people most likely to use vocabulary like that. In fact, I don't ever remember an actual team member referring to himself or teammates as "contributors." Hmm, wonder why that is...

Similarly, when I hear HR (yuck) or management refer to people as "resources" it makes me cringe and lose some amount of respect for the person saying it.

Expand full comment
Ron Jeffries's avatar

It rather saddens me, but I think that if team success is the measure, it does make sense for teams to lose less-effective members and take on more-effective ones. (I freely state that teams may not recognize the value of certain members or member types, and might make mistakes in this process. But I think the "team success" measure means that they will try to get rid of perceived under-performers and take on perceived high performers.

I do not have an answer, other than eating the rich. And I'm not sure that would help. :)

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts