Does it matter what we call things? Much more than you think

On By Yukito

In almost every discussion I have with HR teams about an important issue they are working on, there comes a point where I start to panic. I just can’t stand it anymore. Why? Because I feel like I have to ask, “What do you mean by X?” Where X is something like culture, performance, talent, stress, motivation, EDI, well-being or engagement.

There are usually two completely different responses to this question. The first is to stop, look thoughtful, and then engage with the question by actually trying to answer it. Sometimes there is even acknowledgment that these types of questions are useful and that perhaps the team has not provided as clear a definition of this important idea as they could or should have. The second, more common reaction also begins with a pause, but is quickly followed not by a thoughtful look but by an expression of irritation. The question is dismissed rather than taken seriously. The question “what do you mean by X?” seems insulting – as if asking this was truly absurd and almost offensive. The question is treated as not requiring an answer.

Why the difference? I suppose it’s possible that the initial reaction is because people haven’t defined the ideas they’re working on, so they welcome the opportunity to do so. The second reaction occurs because these teams are crystal clear about the meaning of the terms they use. It is possible, but unlikely.

In my experience, HR teams that take definition questions seriously have actually thought a lot about it compared to teams that dismiss such questions. Teams that dismiss questions like this usually do so precisely because they haven’t given it much thought, and at least on one level they know they haven’t and probably should have.

Sometimes it seems that there are two kinds of HR functions: those that think that being able to define the terms they use to refer to ideas or phenomena is actually very important in practice – and those that just don’t think so. There are those who believe that without a clear and shared definition it is very difficult to take effective action that will make a difference, and those who believe that spending time trying to understand what something means is, for the most part, an annoying distraction from doing ” ‘.

I have often been accused of being pedantic. I always defend myself by saying that “pedant” is not quite the right word to describe what I do. This isn’t just a funny retort. It’s real is not what I’m doing. A pedant is someone who worries unnecessarily about the meaning of words. Someone who wants to split hairs, nitpick, or make ultimately meaningless distinctions between words. In contrast, I’m only interested in precisely defining the meaning of the words we use when failure to do so has real-world consequences. And it really can.

As an example, let’s take one of the most popular, yet seemingly disappearing, HR ideas: employee engagement. Organizations spend a lot of time, effort and money measuring and monitoring engagement. KPIs are set and line manager rewards can be set based on engagement levels.

Leaving aside the all-important question of whether level of engagement matters that much, what does commitment mean? Definitions and meanings vary greatly. It is sometimes used to refer to employees’ feelings about their job or employer. Sometimes to their behavioral intentions. Sometimes to actual behavior. Sometimes to their perception of working conditions. Sometimes to a combination of some or all of them. A causal relationship between the two is sometimes assumed. This vagueness and diversity of definitions is, of course, reflected in employee engagement surveys, which typically contain a bewildering mix of elements.

So how can we reasonably discuss “engagement” as if it were a thing when it means completely different and multiple things? Are these feelings? Is it behavior? Are these observations? All these? How effective can we be if we literally don’t know what we’re talking about?

Imprecise and broad definitions also lead to closed circular logic that cannot be examined or refuted and is therefore virtually useless.

When it comes to engagement, definitions sometimes take employee performance into account, so the term “engagement” doesn’t make sense causes performance, as we have already defined it, which includes efficiency. If the engagement means performance cannot also be the cause of performance.

We also see this in definitions of culture. This is often defined as “the way people here do things.” The claim that it is culture is therefore not surprising, unhelpful and trivial causes employee behavior, if we have already defined it How behavior. This definition leads to the numbing conclusion that the way we act here (culture) causes the way we act here (behavior), so if we want to change the way we act here (behavior), we must change the way we act here we do things (culture).

What about terms like performance, talent, stress, motivation, EDI and well-being? It seems to me that they are potentially equally vague and have similar implications. Do you have reasonably accurate and common definitions of these terms?

I’ve never been a big fan of the idea that you can’t manage what you can’t measure. But I’m pretty sure it’s hard to deal with things you can’t (or don’t want to) define.

Rob Briner is Professor of Organizational Psychology at Queen Mary University of London and Deputy Director of Research at the Corporate Research Forum