I’ve banned the e-word from my vocabulary
Late one evening about 8 years ago, a Blizzard Entertainment colleague and I were at work, talking about how great it was to work at a place where our colleagues enthusiastically dedicated the best hours and years of their lives to helping Blizzard create “the most epic entertainment experiences… ever.” It felt great to be surrounded by colleagues who were energized by shared passions and values.
But my colleague and I were stuck in our effort to write an important note from the company to roughly a thousand people without using language that would undermine or weaken the deep bond between the company’s creatives and their work. Specifically, there was one vexing word we were trying to write around, and we were stuck because that word is so damned common. The problem word: “employee.”
To describe people who are some of the world’s top experts in their fields as mere “employees” would be a big fail because the word is completely inconsistent with the professional identities of writers, artists, and top technical people. What’s more, many at Blizzard describe their shared zeal for the company’s mission as “Bleeding Blizzard blue,” a metaphor that explicitly suggests that this mission comes from the heart, and extends from toes to fingertips.
Unfortunately, most companies (especially those who follow traditional HR) don’t understand why this word could be offensive. This post is an attempt to explain why I differ, and to offer some better language for the rare companies who, like Blizzard, are full of engaged people who do this work by choice and by calling.
Here’s why I bristle at the word “employee,” and why enlightened companies should avoid it (even if it’s legally true that someone is an “employee”):
- The word is loaded with baggage. Its mere use evokes the “at will employment” concept (in a nutshell: employees can quit or be fired at any time with or without cause).
- When leaders use the word, the word takes on darker connotations. Because of the asymmetry of power in the modern corporation, the word becomes a form of violent communication because it invokes the threat of being fired (at will) by the leader.
- The word implies mercenary motivations. Employees work nine to five to make a living. They punch in, watch the clock, and punch out. Their rallying cry is “TGIF!” Research shows they’re more likely to take sick days on Mondays and Fridays because they’re disengaged. The label employee suggests someone who works to get paid (rather than works to make a dent in the universe). (The entire movie, Office Space, is about the feeling and culture of employee-hood.)
- The word is never applied to elite teams. The first man on the moon didn’t say, “One small step for an employee of NASA, one giant leap for mankind.” Navy SEALs aren’t proud to be “employees” of the US government. Instead, they’re proud to serve their country as Navy SEALs. Making a living is secondary to their deep sense of mission.
- When I enjoy work most, it’s because I’m treated more like a SEAL or an astronaut than a corporate cog. I’m respected for my expertise and contributions, and I’m held to a high standard by peers who, like me, are deeply committed to a shared sense of mission and purpose. I have never enjoyed moments where language from a CEO or other leader makes me feel like a small, for-hire peon in a massive corporate machine.
- Finally, the word offends my belief that work is an essential and important part of life — a path to achieving my personal potential. Work can be fulfilling and fun. It isn’t something I grin and bear, it’s part of my life and I choose to work. I never want to work at a place calls me employee. In a tight labor market (and it’s always tight at the upper echelons of the talent pool), everyone’s got options, and should be treated more like a volunteer. When a leader calls me employee, they’re only reminding me that our value systems are at odds, and that they see work as a transaction, rather than as something I’m called to do.
These aren’t radical thoughts. There are many organizations that embrace this philosophy. Mars, Inc. doesn’t use the word. At Plante Moran, you’ll never hear the e-word. Starbucks avoids it. (By the way, Starbucks addresses this issue direction on their careers site, noting that “Being a Starbucks partner means having the opportunity to be something more than an employee.” Quicken Loans also avoids the word in their internal and external communications. Funny enough, all of these companies (Mars, Starbucks, Plante Moran, and Quicken) have success at being recognized as “Great Places to Work” by Fortune Magazine and other publications.
I brought this topic up a couple weeks ago in a conversation with Boris Groysberg, a Harvard Business School professor and expert on Organizational Behavior. I expressed disappointment that he was using the e-word liberally in his lecture, even when referring to people who work at organizations that are more purpose driven than money driven. He said he’d do some thinking on the topic. I was surprised at his reluctance to admit that the word was loaded. That’s how deep this word is ingrained into our culture — the fact that one of the nation’s leading thinkers on topics of engagement at work hasn’t cracked this nut leads me to believe that the culture underpinning most organizations is in need of a much deeper overhaul.
While we wait for those big changes, here are some easy ways to address this issue. Try calling people “people,” and treating them that way. Addressing colleagues or teammates? Call them colleagues or teammates. If you’re lucky, your brand name lets you coin a new term. Rioters work at Riot. Googlers work at Google.
Words have tremendous power, and leaders who make an effort to be respectful with their language win more gratitude, more respect, and more engagement from the teams that they support.
