“The world of work has changed” is the HR understatement of our lifetime. Even without the pandemic, how work works was on a fast-moving train to some new land. The pandemic gave work an urgent pause to figure out how to help employees and organizations navigate the unknown. This unexpected pause in tradition can, and arguably should, be a call to redesign many of our processes, programs, and approaches that have ruled the work world for decades. While the thought of a complete overhaul is likely daunting, a great place to start is with the words and phrases we use in the workplace. The world of work is filled with intelligent, responsible, grown-ups and the language we use at work should reflect that reality.
Best Practices: The origin of the term best practice is usually attributed to the early 1980s in the context of business processes and technology optimization. Since then, its use has expanded to all facets of business. Unfortunately, the use of the word “best” implies singularity, that there is one best way forward for any given situation. In the real world of work, there is rarely a single best practice. Many “best” practices are ideas or notions that might work in isolated situations or work in controlled conditions, but the real world is rarely controlled. The real world of work is contextual and unique. There is no one best practice. There are next practices but not best practices.
High Potential: Designating an employee as “high potential” assumes that one employee has a highly distinguishable amount of innate potential compared to another employee. Of course, that’s not really true. Each employee has unique gifts and talents to offer up to our organizations. High potential should not be a title to be bestowed upon someone. When you’re not one of the chosen few, does that mean that your opportunities for growth are limited? Organizations can make differential investments in an employee’s growth. Those investments should be situational and personal depending on the organization’s and the employee’s needs. Organizations should focus on helping each employee contribute their unique best, not try to determine a universal definition of potential.
Manager: The Britannica dictionary defines the word manager as a) “to have control of;” b) “to take care of and make decisions about;” or c) “to direct the career of.” Although b) isn’t quite as bad as a) or c), none of them are a great fit in the context of people. People can’t and shouldn’t control other people. Yes, leaders should “take care of” their team members, but the notion of “making decisions about” implies control and a lack of collaboration. Careers ought not be decided on by managers but by the employee themselves. Perhaps the word manager should be confined to processes. How about team leader? They don’t direct or control; they support and guide.
Human Resources: There is a renewed conversation around the term “human resources” used to describe the organizational department that has responsibility for all things people related. This group often has responsibility and oversight for diverse areas like compliance, talent acquisition, leader development and employee engagement. While the term “resources” might be applicable for operations-focused components of the department, creating distinction between employee operations and the more differentiating role of activating talent would help create clarity of purpose and intent. Talent, the humans that power the success of your organization, is your differentiator, responsible for ensuring quality standards are met; productivity targets are achieved; and clients, patients and customers receive extraordinary service and care. Employee operations and the related processes require management, but people deserve support, guidance and activation.
Span of Control: Merriam Webster defines control as “to have power over.” Implying that one person has power over another is not only pejorative it’s degrading, especially in the context of work. The notion of control when referring to humans at work can contribute to negative power dynamics and environments of fear. The solve is simple; remove “of control” and simply refer to the number of employees that report to a manager as their “span.”
Many of the words we’ve been using at work are simply not reflective of the cultures organizations want to create and sustain in today’s world of work. Even if you don’t feel you can change the actual process or the documented approach you have in place, you can change the words you and your organization use to describe how you activate and support your people.
