What aren't your "associates" or "cast members" telling you?

By Annie Waite, North American Editor of the Internal Comms Hub, Melcrum

That they'd cope with being called "employees", perhaps? Given that that's what they are (well, if you pay them of course). No cuddly PC-cushioning necessary, surely?

At the 2008 SHRM conference in Chicago last month I noticed quite an obvious reluctance to call employees by that term, and it made me cringe.

I wonder why, in this age of increased corporate transparency, are many companies still continuing to call their employees by other softer names, such as "associates" or "cast members"?

I understand that the idea, particularly for the latter example, is to encourage the 'performance' element of the job and organisation (in this case, Disney), but for other terms often used to describe employees, really, isn't it time to call a spade a spade? We're big boys and girls, we can handle it can't we? 

Connected with this is the issue of "masking" certain terms or realities with more agreeable language – a topic journalist and author Lucy Kellaway tackled at a Melcrum conference back in 2005.

She said the reasons people use business jargon range from a need to sound knowledgeable or "in the club" to a more sinister desire to mask the truth. Corporate communicators, she said, have a duty to use clear, fresh and interesting language.

But Kellaway also admitted that sometimes there's just no alternative - there's no quicker, more logical way to describe "benchmarking" or "outsourcing".... or "employee" for instance?

Can anyone supply evidence or feedback that suggests not calling employees employees has a more than negligible effect on a company?

Soundtrack to the blog: Nina Simone - Work Song

Comments

[Sona Hathi]

I'm with you on this Annie. I've had conversations with people who also think it's cringeworthy and almost patronising. Actions speak louder. And as you rightly say, we're all adults!

[Jon Ingham]

I agree it's about action, but if an organisation truly involves its people in decisions and relies on them for identifying and creating opportunities, then calling them employees (which I think suggests a rather reactive role) is going to look increasingly out of place.

But of course just calling employees something else where they have little proactive role in their organisation is just going to look patronising.

[Liz C-J]

Thank you for that comment, Jon. As a long term "associate" of a business that genuinely believes this is the right term for those that work in the organisation - and has been since its inception in the 1900's - I would advise against being too generalist. We have a fully involved culture reflected not only in our ways of working but our pay and rewards practises (putting our money where our mouth is) and a doctrine of an "associate concept" that underpins the core values of the company - including our Internal Comms! We take pride at being "associates" and not employees and believe it sets us apart - but I'll admit that the thought that other companies use this term without the intention of backing it up in practise is not comfortable!

[Annie Waite]

Thanks for your comments. It's interesting to hear of your experience with the term associate. Regarding future names for employees (who DO play a proactive role in their organization) have you come across any other suggestions or examples? I'm sure I've heard more examples than stakeholders, associates and cast members but can't remember them off hand.

[T.S.K. Raman]

In this age of increased corporate transparency, why aren't companies changing their attitudes towards those who work for their prosperity.
Why do they not trust those who work with them as people who help the business grow with their individual contributions.
In that case why should they be called employee or by other softer names, such as "associates" or "cast members"?
They should be called partners. That's going to help everyone.
Raman

[Miles Dempsey_BT plc]

It's interesting how the US and UK can use language and mean different things. "Cast members" seems clear to me, having undertaken the US inspired AIM (Accelerated Implementation Methodology) accreditation. Given that CAST stands for; Sponsors (those with the authority and financial authorising capability to sanction work), Agents (of change - the PM and techical people), Champions (those with an interest in the project but with no financial authority - seeking Sponsors) and Targets (the people who experience and benefit from the desired state change. Hope this fills a gap and makes more sense.

[Annie Waite]

Valid points. Raman, am just playing 'Devil's Advocate' here - if the people who were traditionally called 'employees' would then be called 'partners' - what would the people who were called 'partners' now be called?

[T.S.K. Raman]

Annie Waite
It's not so mysterious that we have to invite Dr. Sherlock Holmes..
Elemetray Mr. Watson, "partner" would be elevated in status either to be called "collaborators" or "entrepreneurs."
TSK. Raman

[Dave Duschene]

Brilliantly stated, Amy! I've often wondered when the term "employee" became a dirty word. This concept of calling employees "associates" or "cast members" or, gasp, "individual contributors" has got to stop. Unless you can find one employee out there who will give your organization more discretionary effort because you call then "associate" then what's the point?

The idea is so silly, in fact, that it was poked fun of in a Seinfeld episode:

ELAINE: (Gives Jerry a look) Do you know how embarrassing this is to someone in my position?
JERRY: (Confused) What's your position?
ELAINE: I am an associate.
GEORGE: Hey, me too.
(A waitress, passing their table, speaks up)
WAITRESS: Yeah, me too.

[Beth Miller]

I'm making a greater effort to simply refer to "people." That's what we all are, after all. Sometimes "employees" is appropriate, but "people" ALWAYS is.

When referring to individuals and their contributions to our business, I use the person's name and functional title. The goal is to help build relationships and an understanding of how each person fits in with the whole business.