In the evolving landscape of organizational development, the language we use acts as a bedrock for our culture. Yet, we are often guilty of clinging to terminology that no longer serves our mission, or worse, actively undermines it.
To build organizations defined by The Guidant Path, we must be willing to strip away the “noise” in our vocabulary. The failure of the Tower of Babel of Biblical fame was not merely one of architectural ambition, but of linguistic confusion; once the common language was shattered, the objective became impossible.
If we are to stop managing the noise and focus on results, we must recognize that common language is the critical infrastructure upon which all high-functioning teams are built. If our language is polluted with archaic relics, we effectively build our own organizational Babels, towers of confusion that collapse under the weight of miscommunication.
The language we use in our organizations is a blueprint for the culture we build. When we hold onto words that imply mastery, manipulation, or top-down surveillance – terms born in an era when employees were treated as chattel by the captains of industry, we are walking on a foundation of sand. To achieve the clarity of The Guidant Path, we must retire these ghosts of the industrial past.
“Boss”: The term “boss,” tracing its lineage back to the Dutch baas, carries the root definition of “master.” Using this title invokes a master-servant dynamic that is fundamentally incompatible with a modern, collaborative organization, creating a hierarchy that stifles autonomy. Employees are not victims; they do not need “masters.” We must abandon status-based titles in favor of those that define function, such as Lead, Facilitator, or Guidant.
“Manager”: Similarly, the term “manager,” with its Latin root manus meaning “hand,” implies the manipulation of people as if they were components on an assembly line. This “manual fallacy” is a destructive relic of the industrial age. “Managing” is not about handling people; it is the design and execution of four objective functions: Planning, Organizing, Leading, and Controlling. Keep in mind: we “manage” stuff and things; we “lead” people; there is a difference. We cannot “manage” people … we “manage” processes.
“Supervisor”: I propose we eliminate the word “supervisor,” a term rooted in the concept of an overseer, or super-videre. This title frames the relationship around top-down judgment and surveillance, suggesting that performance occurs only when someone is being watched. Real performance is driven by individual agency, not by being “overseen.” I prefer the terms “Team Guidant” as a replacement for “First Line Supervisor,” “Systems Guidant” for those holding the stature of “Mid-Level Managers,” and Strategic Guidant for senior decision makers.
“Human Resources”: As I begin this, please know that I have many friends who are employee-focused HR professionals – who understand their proper and appropriate role and do it well. I’m not talking about those folks! That noted, decades of observations tell me that too many organizations are structured … as evidenced by their charts of organization and the spirit and tone with which policies and procedures are crafted … in a way that telegraphs they are afraid of their own employees. More than a few HR departments have evolved into self-appointed, risk-averse regulatory entities, spending more time protecting the organization from employees than providing services and removing obstacles that obstruct employee success. Too often, when things go wrong, rather than dealing with the known, documented offender, too many HR departments have become masters of writing and distributing the reactionary “blanket policy” or “blanket email.” That choice has the net effect of punishing everyone. (Many of these are the same organizations that tell me they have recruiting and retention problems. Coincidence? Perhaps not.) I have long lobbied for retiring the term “Human Resources.” It is a linguistic relic that can, in the wrong hands, treat people as commodities to be extracted, utilized, and depleted, the same mindset that reduced workers to chattel in centuries past. In a culture of self-actualized, purposeful adulthood, I propose we view our teammates as sovereign professional partners.
To reflect this, I prefer the term Team Services. The distinction is a fundamental refocus of energy: “resources” are things you use, whereas “services” are things you provide to others. Team Services exists to support the internal team by providing the structures, clarity, and certain tools required for peak performance. Furthermore, I believe that the true role of this function is not to regulate or to be wielded as an instrument of punishment, but to remove as many obstacles and bureaucratic noise, if you will, so that employees can flourish. The role is not to enable poor performance or organizational toxicity; the role is to help the line effectively deal with those issues. For example, in a properly structured, rational organization, it is not the role of HR to tell the line whether they cannot fire an employee who is repeatedly and documentably undermining the team and the organization; their role is to educate the line on the conditions of “how” and support them in the process.
(This is important: Failure to do so shifts accountability for any negative impact of the repeat offender’s choices onto the HR team, and away from the line leader. One cannot have “authority” over an issue without “accountability” for the results. Likewise, one cannot have accountability for an outcome without the authority to do something about it. Both of those are “double binds,” and double binds are violations of the emotional safety of employees.)
This shift replaces the reductive question of “what is wrong with this resource?” with the service-oriented inquiry of “what structure can we provide to help line leaders and their teams achieve the required results?” Let us cease viewing our teammates as an expense to be managed, a mob to be feared, or errant children who need collective punishment; rather, let us invest in them as partners so that the organization can thrive on behalf of customers.
“Subordinate”: The word “subordinate” suggests a lower order of human value, creating a hierarchy that damages collaboration. In a modern organization, we are professional partners; by replacing “subordinate” with “teammate” or “associate,” we acknowledge the equal agency of every person.
“Empowerment”: We must also be wary of “empowerment.” This term carries the patronizing fallacy that leadership has the “power” to grant permission to others. In a culture of self-actualized adulthood, this is insulting because adults are already empowered by their own capabilities and do not need permission. When we focus on “accountability” or “autonomy,” we move away from the myth of permission and toward the reality of ownership among purposeful adults.
“Feedback”: I am convinced that it is time to eliminate the confusion of “feedback,” often a synonym for corrective criticism or interpersonal “noise.” In a result-focused culture, we engage in “joint planning,” “course correction,” or even “courageous conversations.” These terms transform the exchange from a subjective critique into an objective alignment of effort, adjusting the process to ensure we hit the target.
When we use outdated terms like boss, manager, or supervisor, we recreate the archaic structures of the industrial age. Like the builders of the Tower of Babel, if our language is fragmented and loaded with historical baggage, we will never achieve the unity of purpose required to reach our objectives. The task is simple but demanding: audit your own internal documentation. When you see a word that implies mastery, manipulation, or hierarchy, replace it with a word that respects the sovereignty of individuals and that points toward the result. By scrubbing our lexicon of these fallacies, we ensure our language reflects a partnership of equals, all moving with clarity toward a common outcome, so our work stands rather than collapses in confusion.
If you have a problem you’d like to discuss, click the button to self-schedule a confidential, no-obligation Zoom visit:
Author’s Note: The content provided in this article is designed exclusively for educational and informational purposes, reflecting opinions shaped by decades of leadership training and organizational consulting experience. It should never be interpreted as formal professional advice. By reading or engaging with this material, you acknowledge that no professional-client relationship is established and that these insights do not substitute for tailored guidance from a qualified professional familiar with your specific circumstances. Consequently, readers are strongly advised to seek independent counsel from licensed legal, financial, medical, or other appropriate advisors before implementing any strategies or making decisions based on these perspectives. Ultimately, you assume full personal responsibility for any actions you choose to take or omit as a result of reading this material, releasing the author and publisher from any liability for outcomes arising from your reliance on the text.
