Nah, “direct report” is still bullshit. It is one of the most dehumanizing terms there is in corporate speak. It comes from the “people are things” school of management.
No, it serves a very useful purpose. Lots of people work for John, but only Niteen, Tom, and Eric are direct reports. It’s no more dehumanizing than employee, IMO, and is an important distinction to make in many circumstances.
I’m not sure what “humanizing” term could substitute anyway. “Employee” doesn’t work, as the manager is not the employer.
Underling? Lackey? Minion?
Just read the collected works of Jim Collins, Stephen Covey, and other like authors. 
Right. And people should pronounce “long lived” with a short ‘i’, but they don’t. Common words and phrases are common words and phrases, even when they’re incorrect by some standard.
I’m just an engineer in the trenches, but I’ve heard the term used since the 90’s.
Sorry, but this is English, and we do that all the time. Is “contact” a verb or a noun? It used to be one but became the other; can you guess which? How about “interface”?
“Reporters” are people who write columns for newspapers.
I’m OK with “report” but I’m willing to hear what anyone thinks would be better. I doubt it’d change anything, though – people will continue to use the common phrase.
Look, just because people use “direct report” doesn’t mean it’s not bullshit and demeaning. I find it telling that we got side tracked on this. The OP is talking about a real problem, but the terminology he or she used has either confused or annoyed a good portion of his audience, and that confusion and annoyance is starting to take over the conversation. That is not an effective way to communicate.
We are spending more time discussing the wording of the OP’s report to us (which is a written report - not a person) than we are discussing the actual problem. Which is why corporate speak is so, well, corporate.
FWIW, in my corporate world, the term ‘direct report’ was first used in our department in the early 1990s. This thread was the first instance of my seeing ‘C-level’ referring to the upper upper management types.
I have a copy of David Halberstam’s The Reckoning, (published in 1986), which repeatedly uses the term “C-level” (and I’m pretty sure it uses “direct report” as well.)
The book is about the histories of the Ford Motor Company and Nissan. Damned good read for anybody into that stuff.
I wish I knew what you were talking about!
What is a ‘direct report’? What is a ‘C-level’?
Why would you express these things on a general forum where people speak English? Can you? It doesn’t seem so!
The special snowflakes I’m required to do performance appraisals for.
I wish you’d read the fucking thread.
And it doesn’t mean it is. Since I’ve heard, used, and been labeled “direct report” my entire career I think I’d know if it was bullshit to me. Who are you to tell me it is?
How about calling them the “staff”.?
Or more jargon-esquely :“team members”?
And I don’t see why you can’t use “employee”. If you manage them, you can fire them,(or transfer them to another dept)…so they are working for you. You tell them what to do, they obey you;…that’s an empolyee/boss relationship. You may not sign their paycheck, but you do employ them.
I’m writing in response to the opening post. If you cannot grasp the fact that this is a forum for the general public who are not likely to know what you are talking about, that is tragic. You need to learn English, and perhaps some manners.
Precisely. What utter gibberish.
Yes, obfuscation!
Only if you don’t bother to learn the definition, yes.
“Direct Report” = somebody who directly reports to me. I might “manage” a department with 300 “employees”, but I only have 5 “direct reports” who are the shift managers of the other 295 “employees”. Those 5 people are my “direct reports.” The other 295 people are not.
Therefore, in the OP’s situation, it’s not one of the 295 people who are having the affair, it’s the person who directly reports to the OP. As a manager of sorts (assuming), the OP is directly responsible for handling any HR issues and fostering these peoples career growth in the company. Now one of those people is fucking the CxO. That’s more of a problem than if the CxO is screwing an hourly staff member who doesn’t directly report to the OP.
Got it?
This seemingly willful misunderstanding of an easy-to-understand term is quite bizarre.
English works better. Corporate jargon is not effective and people who say it’s simpler are just wrong. Don’t say “I have a direct report who is dating a C-level in my organization.” That’s just crap. Instead say, “Someone I manage is dating one of the chief executives”. Same exact thing, but it’s easier to understand and even uses fewer words.
Corporate jargon is pretentious as hell, but too many people are blinded by it. They think an uncommon word or phrase is more technical and precise merely because they heard it in an office.
Oh, bullshit. There’s a thread in MPSIMS (about management-speak, nonetheless) where somebody says
“I was in an anechoic chamber, working on 4-dof motion drivers, but with simple wired i/o.”
with the apparent assumption that we all knew what the hell was meant by the above.
Was this pretentious, or just somebody used to spitting out jargon?
My last job I had four direct reports. However, my staff included two people who worked for one of my direct reports - my staff was six.
My project team was about fourteen people working on my biggest project - not all reported to me. In fact…none of my direct reports were on my project team.
There were also my peers - another three people who worked for my boss. Together, the four of us, plus our respective staff, formed another team.
Direct report means something very specific - those people I directly manage (as opposed to those people who are managed by people I manage, or those people who are my peers).
It is very important to have a specific word for this - I would get communication from HR - you need to share this with your staff - that means I pull my direct reports AND theirs - together to share the information. Or you need to share this with your direct reports - that means that I share this with only those who work directly for me - and there may or may not be instructions for further dissemination to their direct reports.
The more levels below you - the more important the term direct report is. My husband has four (?) direct reports - but his staff is over 120 people - his direct reports have direct reports who have direct reports.