Comments on: Team or Staff?

By: Mikkel Pates

Mikkel Pates — Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:13:47 +0000

As an agricultural journalist, I was surprised to see any link to agricultural animal teams, which have gone out of practical use in the 1950s. I think the term “team” is far more associated sports teams. I’m nosports fan. If given a choice, I’d prefer the term “staff,” but mostly I am indifferent.

By: V Soter

V Soter — Tue, 21 Apr 2020 18:49:52 +0000

Completely disagree with this concept. A team relates to sports. Teams work together for great outcomes…wins. Teams operate, hopefully, with sportsmanship. Teams receive lots of training. Teams play using strategy. The concept of team being viewed as farm animals yoked together is beyond antiquated and out of touch with messaging in the 21st century.

By: Karen Wilhelm

Karen Wilhelm — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:49:09 +0000

I have to agree about “human resources.” It implies that people are interchangeable parts. It doesn’t respect the knowledge, experience and wisdom you need from people working together to accomplish some goal. Finding a name is hard. “Personnel” management was an older term. It sounds even more remote. “People” management, or “Team” can sound really fake. I suppose that if an organization is rife with fakery, it doesn’t matter what you call things. I had an experience with an “organizational development” department that became a witch hunt and blame factory, and cringe whenever I hear that as well. Language picks up meaning through experience.

By: Richard Durnall

Richard Durnall — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:38:20 +0000

I’ve been having a lot of similar conversations lately around the use of the word ‘resource’ in the context of humans and human resources. I really hate it’s application to people. When other project managers use the term resource it cuts right through me. I think it encourages a detachment from people as being living, breathing things with feelings and leads to (often good) people thinking of others as anonymous machines. I’m strongly encouraging the people I work with to ditch the term resource in the context of people.
I think as leaders the choice of our language is key; as a consultant I’m always conscious of when I use ‘I’, ‘we’ and ‘you’. It can have a huge impact. Interesting post.

By: Karen Wilhelm

Karen Wilhelm — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:35:15 +0000

In the military, and in business for many years, “staff” and “line” differentiated between two groups. Staff, as you said, supported the general. They did maps, consolidated intelligence, developed strategies, and so on. Line officers were the ones doing the work, in charge of the combat troops, who were the ones holding the line. I don’t really know if “line” referred to the direct line of command, or the line drawn on the map the general looked at in assessing the status of the battle. I could look it up, but am going to be lazy.

In business, “line” managers direct the work being done – they are the ones on the org chart who connect with each other in the chain of command. “Line workers” are associated in our minds with assembly lines, but maybe that’s not the original meaning of the word. Line managers don’t always manage value-added work, they also can be responsible for accounting or marketing.

Doubtless a foray into the etymology of these terms will correct some of these offhand comments. But a team can exist in the line organization or the staff organization, if we still used the terms in that way. Since we don’t, Peter’s reflections on the meanings and origins of staff and team are good thoughts for how we look at work today.