The linguistic evolution of the terms, as well as their meaning, has allowed the word to be, by essence, the manifestation of thought. This applies to many words that over time have been gaining in content or at least are a reference of the time that marked the history of man.
In the organizational world, it is worth highlighting the evolution that, after the industrial revolution, was given to the term " worker " that constituted the condition of action at work. The workforce was made up of all those who did their "work" and therefore their "work" was the result of delivering their ability to do a certain task in accordance with the expectations.
With the passing of the years and the evolution of the production processes, the implementation of technological developments and with the diversification of organizational productivity, the company is primarily oriented by manufacturing, that is, by results obtained thanks to manual input. and to the muscle in the execution of the tasks, to a new way of contributing such as the mind; the organization begins to recognize that qualified labor is related to the knowledge that every day allows the company to be more competitive in increasingly segmented markets. In fact, in recent times there is talk of knowledge management and the importance of recognizing that wealth is also associated with the ability to generate and imagine new possible futures for society and organizations.
The term worker understood as "Paid manual worker" (DRAE) begins to be displaced by that of worker that means in the DRAE "Human effort applied to the production of wealth" that allows recognizing that it is people who have the capacity to transform the raw material in new realities.
It is also evident that in organizations the term to designate the areas of people's management has been changing and evolving significantly, from "industrial relations", "human resources", "human management" to "human talent", "capital management human ”and many others not exempt from creativity, however this will be the subject of another reflection since the main interest in this text is to recognize that the semantic evolution on how to designate the person who works in an organization does not necessarily mean a change in attitude or way of relating to it.
Un término que se usó y aún se usa con frecuencia es el de empleado, el cual a primera vista es una buena manera de “ocupar a alguien, encargándole un negocio, comisión o puesto” (DRAE), sin embargo puede tener varias interpretaciones contradictorias y por eso quizá se dejó de utilizar y se convirtió en una manera peyorativa de referirse a quien labora en una organización.
Friends and defenders of the term say that employee is an expression that shows the importance of being and feeling useful in a given situation since the only thing we have to offer in the job market is the ability we promise to "use" our strength or thought In achieving a certain result, therefore being an employee should be a source of pride since we can show that we have the option of delivering a result through the use of our thoughts or actions.
Now, the detractors of the term take refuge in a semiotic use that indicates that employee refers to "used" in this sense, whoever develops a job within the organization is a subject that is not necessarily worth by himself but by reason of that that can give or produce (which may not lack reality), in this sense the contribution of people goes much further than the simple recognition of a temporary contribution of human capacity.
As we can see, this same discussion can be applied to the terms through which the contribution that people make to the organization transits, for example, in service companies the term "official" began to be used, which in principle was used to those who work in public entities (DRAE), however it has been extended to all those who are not "workers, workers, or employees" simply officials because they are the ones who make things "work", this approach I think it makes some sense and is worth discussing.
Because times evolve and the great management gurus have prophesied about the impact and role of people in organizational results and their leading role in the new generation of business, a concept associated with business action was generated. that supports the conception of talent as a differentiator in business management.
The term "collaborator" begins to make a career in companies, is strengthened and the flag is raised that finally people have a human dimension beyond the simple use of their physical and mental capacities, now the issue is also attitudinal and The relational component is included in the competencies model in order to understand that it is finally about people who give their contribution in an integral way, as the DRAE says it is about "Working with another or other people in the realization of a work".
As we can see, the term collaborator then transcends the individual frontier and incorporates others into the work, understands that the result is not the product of isolated efforts and that the only way to be productive and improve performance has to be through recognition that others can also contribute to the result. Collaborator is a friendly term that invites us to build together to value the efforts of others and to improve communication, to work as a team and to generate confidence in the common task that is carried out.
So far my reflections on the different terms that have served and still serve to name the person who develops a job in the company, however, before concluding I want to briefly reflect on the way in which the use of the finished.
I think it is important that we have recognized that it is not about the term itself, nor its meaning, but rather that it is necessary to evaluate the use that is given to it in everyday business, I am referring specifically to the way some bosses, managers and Business owners treat or mistreat those who are their "collaborators" better, we find evidence of people who come to their jobs with great fear, not only of being fired, which in some cases would be a relief, but they find hostile and aggressive environments that, despite being protected by law, prefer to hide in silence and fear than to express the impact caused by the behavior of their bosses and colleagues.
Being a "collaborator" then also has dimensions that must be recognized and applied in the relationship, not only against the current, but also in daily communication between those who make up the different work teams. It is clear that no matter how the person is “named”, the important thing is that some key elements in the relationship with the collaborator are not lost sight of, such as:
to. Value their contribution by recognizing their best performance and teamwork. In many cases we find that only the error and the mistake are highlighted and the culprit is not sought when things are done well (K. Blanchard).
b. Respect the difference, the way of thinking, religion, sexual condition, social situation, etc… Establish the ethical minimums in the organizational coexistence that allows building pleasant climates and cultures oriented to productivity.
c. Encourage the entire team to be proactive in generating new and better ways of doing things, inviting them to break the routines that stagnate and stagnate management, making it repetitive and monotonous.
d. Provide the necessary resources so that each one can carry out their task adequately and in the required times.
and. Favor spaces for interaction with the working group that allows creating and strengthening the synergies required to expand the commitment as a collective responsibility and not an individual one.
F. Etc.
Being a "collaborator" is more than a generic expression whose meaning ends up alienating itself and becoming a word that means nothing but which is used to recriminate when the person does not provide the services or does not perform the expected tasks.
Finally, I invite you to participate in this debate that still continues, because in the end I believe that what is called a position or a function in the company is not so important but what it means. A new term is useless if it is not accompanied by new meanings, behaviors and scope that clearly make a difference.
