You may – and most likely do – use it unthinkingly. It is such a little
word; seemingly innocent, innocuous and insignificant. Just three letters long!
Yet, it can be profoundly significant.
In fact, if you were to think about it more deeply you might recognise the
intention behind the word as a primary cause of conflict: for toddlers and
tyrants alike, every race and culture and possibly every species of creation
from aardvark to zebra. At all levels:
individual, family and community; personal and organisational; micro and macro.
So can you guess what the word is?
Let me help you. It is buried in this statement that I came across recently.
“In these straitened economic times,
every business owner wants to get the most out of their employees.” (Hint:
it isn’t ‘the’.)
Yes, I am talking about the word “get”. And maybe now having seen both the
word and the context in which it was used you can also begin to sense why I am
raising the issue and where I am heading. How do you feel when you think
someone is trying to “get the most out of you”? So how do you think it makes
your employees feel? Almost certainly Bolshie, otherwise and disengaged!
Now take the statement, “In these
straitened economic times, every business owner wants to make the most of
their employees.” You have only changed two words but what a world of
difference. Not only is it less abrasive but it has a nuance that changes the
whole dynamic of the relationship.
Historically, with employment’s evolution from slavery and serfdom, it is
quite natural for both parties to implicitly understand it entails getting the most from employees. And changing
the words will do nothing to change that. However, both sides also understand
that the contract entails giving and receiving value.
“Making the most of
employees” recognises this. It is more benign because it implies a partnership.
It suggests the need for employees to fulfil their potential and hints at an
enabling obligation on the part of employers as well as a delivery obligation
on the part of employees to achieve this. To optimise the capabilities of the
employee so they fulfil their potential both parties need to work together.
Isn’t this the true role of Personnel or HR? What a pity then that they have
never seen or expressed this and made it their role to facilitate it. In fact
it is doubtful whether they see it even now. If they had surely they would have
made it an essential element of employee engagement. After all, you cannot
expect people to be engaged if they feel – even at a sub-conscious level – that
they are being exploited, can you?