Here’s the TL;DNR (too long; did not read) for this post: The term man-hours is outdated and politically incorrect.
This week, more than 4.47 billion people wanted to know the meaning of “man-hours.” Google Trends shows fairly regular search traffic for it over the past five years, and my original post about it in 2016 has been one of the most-viewed on this blog.
I first ran across the term while interviewing a client’s internal expert about a recent maintenance shutdown, and it stopped me in my tracks.
When the expert mentioned how many “man-hours” were involved, I asked if his crew was all men, and he said no, there were a few women. Pointing out that I, too, was female, I asked if he would object to using a gender-neutral term.
We laughed – although I was serious – and he agreed that an alternate would be fine. Work-hours or staff-hours would be my preference, or you could also use the more awkward person-hours.
It may seem like an overreaction, especially to men, but “biased language distorts perceptions,” says Words That Count Women Out In, a publication produced by the Ontario Women’s Directorate. “When they read the words ‘man’ or ‘he,’ people of all ages tend to picture males.” It subtly suggests only males can perform certain work or hold certain jobs.
Gender-neutral terms include the whole audience, like business executive instead of businessman or supervisor instead of foreman. They also remove the subtle bias in terms like man-made (try artificial) or forefathers (ancestors).
Why add “man” to “hours” anyway?
The term apparently reflects more than 60 minutes of work, or reflects actual time spent on a task, which might be 5.6 hours in an eight-hour work day. One formula I found was based on 10 hours per day times five working days times the number of employees on the job, with adjustments for holidays. The term also seems to cover possibilities and estimates (emphasis mine in the follow definitions):
- “An hour regarded in terms of the amount of work that could be done by one person within this period.” – Canadian Oxford Dictionary
- “An industrial unit of production equal to the work one person can produce in an hour.” – The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
- “The amount of work done by one person in one hour. It is sometimes convenient in costing a job to estimate the number of man-hours it will take.” – Oxford Dictionary of Business and Management
- “A unit of one hour’s work by one person that is used especially as a basis for cost accounting and wages.” – Merriam-Webster
- “…the amount of work performed by the average worker in one hour. It is used for estimation of the total amount of uninterrupted labour required to perform a task” (uninterrupted meaning no coffee or other breaks) – Wikipedia
So, maybe a “work-hour” is useful for forecasting. But it seems the more accurate answer to my question about how much time a job took would be a certain number of actual hours, days or weeks, don’t you think? Especially for an employee newsletter article.
By the way, my latest search for man-hours turned up this question: “Is ‘man hours’ politically correct?” Instead of “No, it’s outdated and politically incorrect,” I was stunned to see this answer: “Yes, the term ‘man hours’ is gender-neutral, and appropriate for the workplace.” Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Also, the publication I mentioned earlier was produced in 1993. Why am I still lobbying for other terms besides “man-hour”? And who’s with me?
This updates the original 2016 blog post about man-hours.
Related reading:
Find handy options for inclusive language in this post
Another post about inclusive language and why it’s important, also inspired by “man-hours”
An issue of my newsletter talks about inclusive language related to disabilities
Thanks to my IABC friend, PR teacher and artist Yvonne Callaway for this comment (which arrived by email):
“A-person, sister. I only refer to person-hole-covers when passing sewer coverings. It is silly, cumbersome and funny. Also draws attention to man-centric language. NO! More than half of us are female on some level!
Thanks Sue, this conversation is necessary!”
This comment from Twitter friend and PR professional Sheri Cardo:
“Me, too. How are we STILL having to have these conversations? Work-hours for man-hours, staffing for manning, humankind for mankind, … it’s not rocket science. It. Is. Essential.”
And another comment from Twitter friend, writer and comms project manager Molly A. Walker:
“I’m with you. ?”
Not disagreeing and certainly not condoning language that is offensive or irritating to some, i.e., I do try to catch myself when hold habits emerge (e.g. man-hours) and end up looking for alternatives such as suggested here (this webpage).
Anyway, we should all be aware of historical and alternative perspectives. I searched ‘when did man become an acronym for human.’
Excerpting: “The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mann- “person”) and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age. In traditional usage, man (without an article) itself refers to the species or to humanity (mankind) as a whole.”
Thanks for commenting, John. Many words have their origins in a time where they were acceptable, and “man” as stand-in for “human” of every sort is certainly a classic. Times change.
I feel like the author is over-focused on the “estimate” or “potential” part of the definition and glosses over the more important “one person” part of the definition. If we have 5 people working on a project from noon to 5 PM, then we could say “The project took 25 man-hours” or “it took 25 person-hours”: the singular “man” or “person” emphasizes that we’re talking about hours x employees (of course, this concept implicitly assumes that 25 people could finish the task in 1 hour, 1 person could finish in 25 hours, etc., which could be silly in some settings). “Hours” by itself implies we’re talking about the clock: the task took 5 hours. Similarly, if we read “staff” as “the personnel who assist a director in carrying out an assigned task” (Webster), then the answer could also be “5 staff-hours”. In short, the author makes a compelling case for “person-hours”, but “staff-hours” and “hours” are NOT synonymous with “man-hours”.
Thomas, if the more important part is truly the “one person,” then surely you don’t have an objection to making that “one person” gender neutral?
Came across this while trying to find a good term to use… Have been using engineer-months or person-months or developer-months… none of which has a nice RING, making it harder to displace “man-hours, man-years”. etc
And Thomas’s point is spot on – the original article fails to understand the primary use of this kind of term for planning projects with multiple people, and “person-hours” is a UNIT OF MEASURE like Ft-lbs of torque. The terms are multiplied.
“this is a 10 person-year effort…. we’ll need 20 engineers to get it done in the 6 month timeframe”
Hi Mike,
Thanks for commenting. I disagree that I “failed to understand” the term for planning projects, although I did have to search to find why it had to be so complicated. I can see that it is a unit of measure. My objection is adding “man.”
I’m a translator, and I have an ethical question. I’m not an active English language user, but I have to translate documents into English and adapt myself to English-speaking cultures. In the meantime, while a better term for “man-hours” is coined, should I feel guilty if I keep using it?
Yes.
Thank you, Sue, for making me feel guilty! Hahaha!
The good news is that my company was glad to hear the suggestion for using “person-hours” for the translations I’m working on.
So that’s one small step for one man and a giant leap for “mankind” (Mmm…?).
Haha, sorry/not sorry! I am on a mission to stamp out “man-hours.” So, thank you for your small welcome step, Maurice.
“Person-hours”, although clunky, is the only real valid option here. If I have a 20-person staff, “staff-hours” might imply that the unit of measurement is time worked by the entire staff rather than each individual staff member’s hours. “Work-hours” is similarly vague (even though it sounds better).
I appreciate the write-up. I’ve been looking around for a way to update the language in our contracts and will be using “person-hours” going forward.
Thanks for commenting, Jamie, and for using the alternate”person-hours,” however clunky it certainly is!
Interesting Article
In a lot of cases just using ‘hours’ is fine. E.g. That’s about 60 hours work. There is no need for a prefix in many cases. In a similar way Chair(wo)man => Chairperson => Chair.
Andy, I agree. And in the original situation that sparked this, I asked how long a project took — it wasn’t necessary to qualify it as “man-hours” or “person-hours,” just actual hours.
“person” is a threat in itself. Wake up sheeple!
per-son , “son” is unacceptable, i suggest we say perbody.
Now you’re just trying to stir things up!
Many U.S. government offices changed from “man-hours” to “labor-hours” decades ago.
Glad to hear it, Mike! Surprising how the term lives on elsewhere.
I ran across this while wondering in an idle moment if the language crusaders had gotten around to this yet. Now I know. Incredible.
Thanks, yes I and the others who notice that “man-hours” is not gender neutral *are* incredible! (Tongue in cheek as I am sure you don’t mean to give me a compliment.)
Absolutely absurd language policing. Man-hours is universally understood for what it is. Get a job.
Thanks for your opinion, which many do not share!
Comments are closed, thanks.