> If this is the new term for "employee", I'm out.
Can you please explain what's that offensive about calling somebody an Individual Contributor?
It's a little bit of weird jargon, but it acknowledges 2 important things (they're a person, and they're actually working) which is infinitely more respectful to the people that actually do the work than "Resource" that also gets used.
To me, using the word "Resource" to refer to people is by far the most dehumanizing term I've seen seriously used in an office.
Individual Contributor is problematic in that it implies that contributions are primarily made by individuals rather than team efforts. It also implies that manager roles are not contributing which is also often not the case.
It's quite individualistic. Much like "talent" which is the latest attempt to imply people are resources without using the word resources.
Can you please explain what's that offensive about calling somebody an Individual Contributor?
It's a little bit of weird jargon, but it acknowledges 2 important things (they're a person, and they're actually working) which is infinitely more respectful to the people that actually do the work than "Resource" that also gets used.
To me, using the word "Resource" to refer to people is by far the most dehumanizing term I've seen seriously used in an office.