Or is referring to your staff as subordinates a bit shit?

[buckeejit]

Have a review this morn & one of the questions is 'effectiveness of developing subordinates'. Who wants to be referred to as a subordinate?!

Is this as awful as I think it is or standard?

It's fine.

Standard I guess. 'Underlings', 'little people' or 'lesser beings' would be offensive.

It's shit. Why can't it use the phrase 'direct reports' or just 'staff'. Really poor choice of language.

It's fine, it's a normal, formal way of referring to people who report to you.

Once had my boss's boss ask him to get one of his "bunnies" to do something for her. Now that did cause offence!

Sounds like a normal professional term to me in this context. I wouldn't say 'you are my subordinate' to someone.

In that context it is absolutely standard.

it makes sense, as it clearly refers to all staff at a junior level to the position, not just direct reports. So, for example, the manager at a supermarket would be expected to show effectiveness of developing all staff who work there, not just their management team.

I like minions.

I think you should reword it

Total control and efficiency when commanding and bidding minions.

Subordinate comes from the Latin for 'under' and 'order'. It means someone who is under your control/direction - which is what subordinate is to their manager. What's so contentious about that?

There is someone who my DP used to work with (the guy moved to a higher job somewhere else) and he said that everyone under him was "his minions" and he moved job and said "atleast I won't be a minion I will have my own minions to run about for me" I found it very disrespectful of others tbh.

It's shit.

In forty years of teaching, I have never heard any staff ever referred to as subordinates. Staff is quite sufficient.

Towards the end of my last line management post, I could no longer bring myself to refer to staff whose work I managed, as my/mine, and balked when referred to in this way by the HT.

So appropriating. Fuck right off.

But staff can apply to everyone, subordinate is a correct term for those you directly and indirectly manage.

In that context it's fine. It just means people whose development you are responsible for.

To get upset over it I think you'd have to have a major inferiority complex.

It's correct in the context but sounds a bit off nevertheless.

Staff is indeed sufficient. Where I work it's staff, managers, senior managers. The latter two are never referred to as staff, there's no room for confusion.

Ah boo, one less thing to complain about. Will just say it's irrelevant for me as I've no minions! ☺️ doesn't feel very 'team' friendly though

It may be the correct terminology, but I agree OP it sounds shit. I think it is the 'sub' part of it, it sounds really negative, like substandard or something. 'Direct report' sounds better.

Agree that it's fine in that context - and also very specific, which is helpful. You are responsible for developing subordinates - the people reporting to you - and not for any other/all more junior staff.

In that context its standard.

OP do you provide any guidance or help others 'lower' than your designation? Subordinates doesn't have to be limited to direct reports, maybe that's why its been worded like that as well, to see if you feel you provide guidance to the wider business.

For info the review form has been taken directly from the personnel agency that we've employed & is much more relevant to factory work/structured office environment than us as a small charity.

The personnel firm ok'd interview questions which included 'how many days off sick did you have last year?' So I'm not convinced of their abilities. I would never have used the term subordinates in my previous managerial positions & would have said team or staff.

No major inferiority complex & it won't be keeping me awake at night!

I looked under a thesaurus, the trouble is that there is not another word to simply describe people who you work with who directly report to you, that isn't this wordy.

The word IN subordinate means defiant of authority; disobedient to orders ect and so forth.

The word subordinate therefore (in my mind at least) tends then to feel like a description of a subservient person. A servant. A cap wringer. Not technically correct - but language is like that.

I wouldn't use the word to describe my staff.

Another one saying it is standard.

It is a descriptive term which indicates a relationship within a hierarchical structure at work.

Team and staff mean different things and require different relationships and different skills. (They can and do overlap of course)

It's bad! Almost as bad as one of my colleagues who referred to her manager as her "work-daddy". Formal terms like subordinates are probably put in place to counter that kind of sentiment.