What We Know and What We Don't: When Words Construct (or Destroy) Reality
By: Brandon Rodríguez
Head of Services | Horizonte Migratorio
"Words have power," my mother used to tell me every time I cursed or said something negative about myself. Paradoxically, I always believed her. That is why, from a young age, I tried to be careful with what I said. But the truth is that this is much more complicated when what you say is not produced by you, but rather reproduced by society, the environment, institutions, and even the forms we fill out daily.
I do not intend to minimize the fact that some emotions force us to say out loud what we feel. Nor do I ignore that there are things that must be called by their name. But what happens when that "name" or that label we assign to something is more the product of an offense, a grievance, or a stigma that puts the individual in a degrading position and, at the same time, turns out to be harmful to others?
From "Human Resource" to "Human Talent": A Change of Word That Changed the World
Shortly after 1998, David Watkins popularized the change from the term "human resource" to "human talent." His argument was clear: any practice that, in theory, has to do with the management of people cannot be treated as part of a company's inventory. People are not resources; they cannot be stored, depreciated, or replaced like a machine.
It seems that the Anglo-Saxon world and the Spanish-speaking world understood this. From academia, progress has been made in the humanization of language within the area we previously called "Human Resources." Programs were modernized, specializations were created, and today it is common to hear "talent management," "employee experience," or "organizational culture."
However, when observing the severe migratory changes in Poland's labor and migration policy, I have noticed that this humanization does not reach real practice. Although academia has made efforts to modernize its programs, on the ground this makes no sense when the standard becomes a simple student objective to obtain a grade and graduate. The complication for Slavic-origin languages may derive from a series of differences in the language that do not allow this to be a standard fact in practice and in the legal context. Nevertheless, it is worth reminding Polish entrepreneurs and the State that every subject contemplated within the economic branches has, by origin, humanistic roots, and as such, a word can threaten this humanity. Several employers have understood this; those who abide by regulations and legal norms and do not hire personnel by violating the law or employing informally out of greed, making this situation an echo that reaches the media, finally being produced from the mouths of people who often do not understand these facts and only see the panorama from what the press tells them.
The Word That Should Not Exist: "Illegal Worker" or "Black Market Work"
With this introduction, which shows how the world modernized from the simple change of a word, there are several terms that I am interested in analyzing. One of them has a structural complexity so delicate that, if that thread were broken, it would no longer be a simple analysis or opinion article, but would become the first attack on humanity itself:
The word "illegal worker."
This term is popularly used within the labor sphere where workers of foreign origin are employed. It means: "has not resolved their migration situation to be able to work 'legally'." From my point of view, this term seeks to differentiate between local workers, workers with documentation in order, and workers who do not meet this requirement.
But the word is not only denigrating on a personal level; it is also psychologically suffocating for people who seek to improve their living conditions in another country. People who, for whatever reason, left their environment and their circle to achieve bringing food to their home. A very human and even altruistic thought in communities where people lack goods and services that in Europe are obtained just by going to a store or opening a tap to obtain water.
The so-called "black market work" —that colloquial denomination that in many Latin American countries and, in general, in the world, is used to refer to informal or unregistered employment— is, in essence, the crudest manifestation of a system that prioritizes flexibility over dignity. Behind that term, which sounds almost innocent in everyday language, there are people who work without a contract, without social security, without vacations, without sick leave, and, many times, without any recognition of their contribution. In Poland and in much of Europe, this phenomenon is replicated under other labels: "illegal work," "illegal migrant," "black market work." But the bottom line is the same: human beings who, pushed by necessity, accept precarious conditions because the system does not offer them another route. As long as we continue using terms that normalize exclusion instead of naming injustice, we will continue building economies that benefit from the silence of those who most need to be heard.
Seen in this way, high institutions in some countries already want to replace these terms with phrases such as:
"Worker in irregular administrative situation"
"Undocumented foreigner"
"Worker without employment authorization"
In Spain, for example, regulations and jurisprudence already speak of "person in irregular administrative situation," recognizing that the lack of authorization does not invalidate the employment contract with respect to the rights of the foreign worker. In Poland, border authorities and the media use terms such as "undocumented workers" or "foreigners without permits," although in everyday language and in raids the stigma of the "illegal" continues to appear.
Why Is It So Difficult to Change Language in Practice?
However, for this to reach the people who are working directly in talent acquisition will be very complicated. Even more so when, in a market like Poland's, people are hired for this position without any experience, without studies related to human talent, without an analysis of soft, technical, or labor competencies, and, many times, because the market demands it this way.
I remember once I went to apply for a job at a company and they sent me to pay for their welding course, which cost more than 3,000 PLN, not to mention that my wife is Polish. Later, my wife called the same company and the same lady confessed to her that they did not hire people of Colombian nationality, and even less if they were married to Polish people, because "they did not know how to do it."
This is not an isolated case. Many more cases like this are heard in conversations among foreigners, where those in charge of carrying out labor processes involving this type of worker do not know the law. And if a law deserves interpretation, they do not have adequate legal support to interpret it; on the contrary, they take it literally and affect the work of these people.
Poland is considered an industrial and corporate hub to which companies come primarily to benefit from accessible labor, competent professionals, and flexible contracts (although currently it seeks to improve its value chain). This, in my opinion, completes the engine so that outsourcing and the few Human Talent departments that exist do not have control over their real focus, which is talent.
When the recruiter does not understand that they are managing lives, stories, and family projects, the language becomes cold, dehumanizing, and, ultimately, violent.
Who Has Joined the Change?
On the internet and in the work environment, some organizations have begun to adopt this approach. To name a few, the employment agency EWL and the corporate group Infosys have demonstrated, to varying degrees, a more person-centered language within their internal and external communications: in the case of Infosys, through its inclusion policy as part of the work culture; in the case of EWL, on its candidate portal, where they mention that they operate "respecting the dignity and needs of each employee" and describe their selection process based on competencies and analysis of client needs.
These are just two examples within an ecosystem that still has much to advance. But when organizations like these reform their language to eradicate dehumanizing terms, a profound transformation is triggered that redefines daily operations and psychology within the labor ecosystem. This evolution drives competency-based selection processes and fosters the creation of internal support networks that prioritize human dignity over the simple management of resources.
Humanizing language is humanizing practice, but it is not enough to change a work ecosystem when this language is also directly related to daily life. It is easy to maintain composure in the office, but what happens when the same language we use at work is replicated in the media, in laws, and in street conversations?
If in 1998 a change of word was enough to begin transforming the management of people in organizations, imagine what we could achieve if we eliminated terms like "illegal worker" from our daily vocabulary, from our forms, from our policies, from our hallway conversations, and from our own homes.
Words have power. And if we want to build more just, more human, and more sustainable organizations, we must start by choosing better the words with which we name people.
Because in the end, it is not just about what we know. It is about what we decide to do with what we know.
And you, what words do you choose to name the people in your organization?