The key here is "always". When I'm doing high level (resource) planning, I'll refer to programmers (which includes myself) as resources, because in that context, that's what they are, part of the entire collection of people and things we need to achieve our goal.

What other term do you expect managers to use for that? "People and stuff?" Or each role filled by a human separately, "programmers, testers, designers and inanimate objects"?

For a profession obsessed with accurately and consistently naming things, we seem to be a bit over-sensitive when the "domain objects" include us...

Programmers aren't resources...not because it may be rude, but because it's totally inaccurate.

It's hard to think of people like resources in a profession where the actual number of them doesn't matter very much.

This isn't like moving a large box where you need exactly the right number of people to hold all the corners and pretty much anyone can take any corner. Instead, you want to be tracking what people know (their proficiencies, such as languages) and how good they are (their efficiencies, such as how many years experience and their track records in past projects that required the same skill). Proficiencies and efficiencies are your programming resources, not the actual people.

There are programming projects where one excellent person could shoulder the whole thing, and 10 newbies could ruin it. There are experienced people who simply have the wrong experience to be effective in a certain situation. Having some programmers "free" to work on something isn't really relevant, they have to be the right programmers.

It used to be that the part of a business that managed hiring was called "Personnel" but somewhere along the line, its name got changed to "Human Resources". In other words, all employees became "resources".

Meanwhile, "the economy" is ascribed human attributes, as if it were a person. Consider phrases like "stimulate the economy" and "the health of the economy". (In case there's any confusion, the economy is not a person. It's an abstract concept.)

This is why programmers need project managers... to shield them from human interactions which you otherwise aggravate them unnecessarily :D

Seriously, I have no problem with this. More then that, I would really really like to hear more management called this way. It should be much more ingrained in the culture that management, even more than programmers, is a "resource", and exists to provide services to the working class and to make its life easier.

For entrepreneurs it's not an unusual mindset to think that the owner is the one who empties the wastebasket, but I very much doubt this is common in the corporate world. It should be, not because emptying wastebaskets is a worthwhile thing to do, but because it encourages the ideology that management is there to pave the way between the people who work and what they have to do.

I was in a project planning meeting with the lead/manager and it was the first time I heard 'resources' being used for engineers as well as for hardware equipment. It did sound weird for a second, but it was not annoying/irritating.

However, it makes you realize you are only a "resource" and you can be replaced by a different or multiple "resource" if you quit or if needed.

Depends on the context. We have weekly resource planning meetings, where everyone is a resource, the designers, developers, project managers, etc. We make sure each project we are working on has the required resources working on it.

As long as you're not singling out the programmers as a resource I dont see the problem.

To me, it definitely is.

I find that the crippling bureaucracy usually starts when you start referring to your programmers, that did the actual work, as resources.

Programmers are not trade-able and people are not sheep.

"Resource" does NOT imply that it is not living thing.

The fact that programmers are tradeable is good for programmers, because it creates more demand for programmers.

It's jargon. Let it go.

I am getting convincing answers..!

New HR manager. Ply with liquor, seduce, slap. "Who's the resource now?" Orgasm. True story.

IMHO no, but I dare say that'll be the minority opinion. People don't like being reminded that they're replaceable.