Do HR and Recruiting Have a Language Problem

Do HR and Recruiting Have a Language Problem Do HR and Recruiting Have a Language Problem Really, the language problem Im talking about isnt one specific problem. Its mora of a general trend, comprising a constellation of different linguistic issues, and all of these somewhat separate problems overlap. To start, they all stem from the way we use language when it comes to talking or thinking about talent. More importantly, all of these problems lead to the same result critical misunderstandings between employers and employees.The point of language (for the most part) is to communicate - to transfer some piece of information from one rolle to another. But there seems to be a general trend in HR and recruiting towards using language to do the exact opposite to obscure valuable information instead of share it.As I said above, there are a few different iterations of the overarching trend, and in this post Ill address the three types of language misuse that Ive seen most recently. That being said, Im aya these arent the only ways we mess up. We is the keyword in that sentence - we all make these mistakes, and youll see that the three examples Im writing about are pretty widespread. Also note that, because the language problem is so pervasive, it affects pretty much everyone who takes part in the hiring process HR, employees, recruiters, candidates, etc.1. Talking About the Big Picture, but Rarely Mentioning the BrushstrokesAs Great Place to Work CEO China Gorman pointed out over at TLNT, the American Psychological Associations (APA) 2014 Work and Well-Being Survey brought the disheartening news that only 52 percent of employees trust their employer - or, to use the surveys exact words, believe their employers are open and upfront with them.And it turns out that trust is tied to employee engagement, the feverishly pursued dream of (nearly) every company. To quote the APA study, Employees experienced higher engagement when they had more positive perceptions of the ir employers involvement, growth and development, and health and safety practices, and you cant have positive perceptions of an organization you dont trust, can you?Gorman rightfully points out that we we should focus on trust before we worry about engagement, and what surprised me most about this suggestion was that it was news to me - and Im sure it was news to a lot of people. But shouldnt I have already known that trust was a building gruppierung of engagement? Why did that never occur to me?I think its because, in HR and recruiting, we have this tendency to talk in terms of the big picture while glossing over the brushstrokes - the little components that actually build the picture, without which we cant even have a picture. We talk a lot about engagement, but thats an immense concept. The APA survey operates on the following definition of engagement a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption. There are a lot of moving parts in such a comprehensive state of mind, but we rarely take the time to talk about those parts.And, when someone asks, Well, how do I achieve employee engagement? the answer is almost always Culture But thats an even bigger concept than engagement - culture is the sum total of all the people in your office, who are themselves the sum totals of everything in their lives, and so on, and so forth. Thats a lot to deal with, but we arent dealing with it. Were trying to build houses without buying bricks (or whatever material you want to make your metaphorical house out of).If we want to do more than bang our heads against walls, we need to follow Gormans lead in breaking down these bigger pictures into their smaller concepts. Engagement is a massive and intimidating concept trust is something we pretty much all understand. Lets work with the things we know now to build the things we dont know yet.2. Our Specialized Terms Can Be BafflingEvery industry has its jargon, and that jargon can be difficult for outsiders to understand drop me off in a biotech lab, and Ill spend the day slack-jawed and utterly numbed by the sheer weight of specialized language.But the HR and recruiting industries are different from biotech whereas an employee in a biotech setting is going to be dealing with other biotech employees who speak the language, HR professionals and recruiters often work with people who are not part of the industry. Therefore, these people dont quite speak the language.So maybe youre an HR person charged with onboarding the new accountant. Maybe youre a recruiter looking to source a Web developer. Whatever the case, youre regularly interacting with people from outside the profession. Whats more, youre using very different language to talk about the same experiences. What you see as dispositioning, for example, the candidate sees as not getting a job.I understand the draw of jargon - it can be useful to have a shared code - but jargon isnt always neces sary, and Im not certain its a good choice when your industrys whole purpose is working with outsiders. Plus, using terminology like disposition moves us away from the human beings we work with and into the realm of corporate abstraction. Not to say that you should tell candidates you are no longer considering them for a job by shooting them a sorry, bro email. But alienating, disorienting corporate speak is little better than the black hole of the ATS.3. Disconnecting Words from the Real WorldMuch has been made about whether or not paper resums are obsolete - Ive made some of the commotion myself, with HireArts help - but Im sure there is one thing we can all agree on resums never tell the whole story. Thats why interviews exist.Despite this being nearly universal knowledge, we still rely on ATSs that filter candidates according to keywords. We make lists of words that hiring managers want to see on resums. Its kind of insane, because its like we have so much faith in the power o f language that weve taken it to a terrible extreme privileging language over the actual information it represents.Eventually, the connection between language and fact is totally severed. The Careerealism post I linked to above was based on a survey conducted by the Harris Poll. That survey asked hiring managers and HR professionals to rank the best and worst words for job seekers to use on their resums. Not skills. Not experiences. Words.Will the words someone uses on a resum prove their worth as a potenzial employee? Absolutely not, but weve gotten to a place where we confuse the words with the skills theyre meant to represent - the old map/territory fallacy. Yes, language is an awesome tool for communication, but its supposed to be just that - a tool. A means, and not an end.So What?Language problems are potent they create misunderstandings they spread misinformation they lead to inaction or actively detrimental actions. As HR and recruiting professionals, we either dont pay en ough attention to language, or we pay too much attention to it. We need to strike the right balances. We need to break concepts down into manageable, actionable pieces. Our language needs to be human and humane.Of course, we cant just rewrite the HR/recruiting script and start anew tomorrow. These language problems are ingrained in us. What we can do, however, is take a more careful, considerate, and critical approach to the words we use as well as the words people around us are using.