What’s in a Name?

A quest to move beyond outdated work language

I am sharing an updated version of this post in hopes of getting more input on the topic.

As 2024 comes to a close, the need for new language to describe our relationship to work becomes more pressing. The old owner/worker dichotomy that defined capitalism no longer necessarily applies, because the very structure of how we contribute to the world has grown ever-more multifaceted.

• A dermatologist joins a practice affiliated with a healthcare system that handles billing and assigns PAs, nurses, and admin staff. Meanwhile, insurance companies have the final word on what procedures a specific condition warrants. Given this limited autonomy, how should we describe the doctor? As an employee? Not really. An affiliate? That makes it sound as if the doctor is paid on commission. An independent contractor? Too vague, not to mention strange, as it leaves the doctor’s main work— seeing patients— out of the picture.

• A skilled engineer accepts a position with a start up where her responsibilities bear little relation to her pay, though she’ll enjoy a big payout if the company goes public. She’s investing a huge amount of time and effort, and taking a financial risk if things don’t turn out, but can’t really call herself an investor. So what is she? Just an overworked employee? No. A “stakeholder?” This all-purpose word means nothing in this context especially as it can include people outside the organization. And she’s hardly an executive, given that the founder, despite a laid-back demeanor, retains practically all decision-making power.

It’s clear that the language we've developed over the years doesn’t reflect the complexity of how organizations today actually work in an era defined by both independence and collaboration, as well as evolving notions of who-owns-what.

Even those who have formal contracts in place and issue W9’s at the end of the year do not typically think of their web of collaborators as employees. That word smacks of having an HR department, managing payroll, and other corporate tasks. Nor does it reflect the day-to-day reality or nature of relationships for many entrepreneurs, independent consultants, coaches, producers, technicians, writers or designers.

These people do see themselves as part of a team, though. As do many people running or working in a small businesses. So having a team identity seems to offer a us clue as to what language we might use, though “team member” sounds a bit bloodless.

I've been wrestling for a while with how to refer to people who produce things of value for society in concert with others but whose relationships with their organizations are informal. Such people often bring specialized skills and insights to collaborative projects that words like employer and worker don’t reflect.

How do we move beyond the old modes of expressing the relationship between people and their organizations?

All I want for Christmas are your observations and insights in the comments section below! Most people email me their responses, but I’d really like to build a conversation on this platform around this topic.

Like what you’re reading? Click here to order my most recent book Rising Together, or How Women Rise, both are available from Amazon or from your favorite bookseller.