Source vs Resource: A People Leader’s Reflection

When I joined a multinational company as a young postgraduate trainee engineer more than sixteen years ago, it used to sound very injudicious and tone-deaf to me when any senior manager referred to their team members as "resources" and a high performer as an "asset." I quite frequently gossiped about this with like-minded seniors at teatime, seeing it as a highly insensitive gesture towards the employees who work for these managers. They used to agree with my emotions in principle, then they would just quietly change the topic with a quick and genuine smile. From there to today, when I am leading nearly two thousand employees at the plant that I am heading, it has become an accepted terminology for me also to refer to employees as resources in strategic and business discussions, and that includes myself as well, when I might be being discussed at the level of the board of directors in the forums where I am not present. Acceptance has come with the compulsion of corporate maturity, but that feeling remains somewhere within. I try my level best to make sure that when I deal with my team, I do not realise the literal meaning of this terminology. When I was approached this time to write on this topic, I was drawn back to that innocent time when this was not such an acceptable norm to me.

Today, when I contemplate and churn over the topic, I first wish to draw a clear line between the literal meanings of these two words, “Source” and “Resource.” The limitation of any language translation, which can only convert meanings but not the feelings behind them most of the time, applies here when we try to differentiate these two. The limitation of materialism, its inability to decipher the non-physical layers of all aspects, more prominent in Eastern philosophical and spiritual thought, again applies here when we try to differentiate these two terminologies of “Source” and “Resource.” Materialism and consumerism always see everything around humans as resources for their direct or indirect consumption. Unfortunately, it has not spared humans themselves, probably leading to the origin of this concept of Human Resource. In the context of ancient Bharatiya wisdom, everything around us is part of us and complements us. The interdependency with nature around us, including humans, has been the core concept, not ownership over others. Nevertheless, for now, keeping ourselves at the contemporary, acceptable, and easily understandable material layer, let us put it this way: Fire, air, water, earth, and space (પંચમહાભૂત) have taken different forms in nature, including all living and non-living beings, and then they act back as sources of these five basic elements through different processes, for our consumption. For example, rivers and oceans act as sources of water, but the water comes to them through a different process, so they remain as 're-source' and not the original source. Probably with this explanation, again at the material layer and not at spiritual or vibrational layers, we consider everything around us as resources, as they re-source for us and fulfil our elementary consumption needs. However, we humans are the source of something additional, which is knowledge, emotions, and behaviours. Even if these attributes come through natural or intentional learning processes and then reappear during human dealings, every individual adds an individual flavour with utter originality. At the very core of physical-layer understanding, humans remain different from other ‘resources’, and in turn, they need that level of sensitivity while dealing with them.

In all major corporates and social organisations, these fundamental differences have been well acknowledged in principle. Therefore, we have very finely tuned SOPs defined by HR professionals on performance evaluation processes, reward-recognition, career conversations, promotions and, in worst cases, performance improvement mechanisms where expected outcomes are not being met, before reaching the harsh decision of replacing or removing the employees/members. Such well-structured procedures have evolved with time for us humans, unlike other resources where there are only two options: maintaining or replacing, e.g., machinery, buildings, IT peripherals and other assets. Though such systems and processes are in place, research suggests their effectiveness remains limited. One of many reasons for this, a prime one, would be: we treat as we refer. We refer to them as resources and then, with sophisticated procedures, we expect managers to treat them increasingly empathetically. It is less likely. Slowly and gradually, HR professionals must start brainstorming on such feeling-sensitive topics to re-evaluate terms and jargon we have been using for decades. It might seem like just changing terminology cannot be so impactful, but while dealing with people no topic is small if it can touch even a fraction of the emotional fabric of human feelings.

Nevertheless, what people leaders can do at this moment, even if terminologies are not going to change around us in the very near future, is also equally important to be summarised.

No matter what level of AI advancements we bring, natural intelligence, i.e., we the people, will never lose its sole importance at the fundamental level of any operational process. The output from any process, which is of final importance in any commercial or social activity, is majorly dependent on the people who operate those processes. This is a largely unchallengeable fact. Therefore, if modern-day corporate leaders, managers and team players understand and digest this basic difference between the people whom they lead, work with or pretend to control — not as resource but as source of something originally meaningful — and the other resources whom they own or control, I think the majority of corporate problems will start finding their own effective and efficient solutions. We need to be super conscious of this perspective difference between human as source and non-human resource while dealing with people every moment.

An out of context, but interesting, matter of fact is: if we further dare to expand this perspective understanding even for non-human resources, even beyond the material layer, and deal accordingly, we tend to get closer to the solutions to all our global environmental problems as well.