How To Refer To Employees – What You Can Learn from Zuckerberg and Metamates

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently referred to Meta employees in a new way:?Metamates. This piqued a range of responses and raises the question if other companies should follow suit and adopt novel ways to refer to their employees.?A poll I fielded on LinkedIn and the comments that it generated provide valuable perspectives on how to reinforce brand-culture alignment (what I call Fusion .)

First, some clarification is needed.?Although Zuckerberg used the term Metamates, he did so in the context of introducing new values to support the overall culture change he is trying to achieve at Meta.?He didn’t declare that employees should be referred to as Metamates – it seems media such as New York Times and Fortune drew that conclusion on their own.

Nonetheless, the news sparks a debate about how to refer to employees.?Some companies call their employees “teammates,” “associates,” or even “family members.”?Some companies use coined names: ?Amazon employees are called Amazonians; Pinterest’s are called Pinployees; Pyxis’s are Pyxites.?In my poll , 28% supported the practice of made-up names for employees; 32% voted against it; and 40% said “maybe.”

Those who recommend a unique workforce name say it can foster a sense of belonging, help to differentiate the culture, and cultivate brand-culture alignment and integration.?Plus, they say, any term other than “employee” helps to humanize people.?

But arguments against the practice are that it can seem contrived and inauthentic if chosen by leaders and forced on people. ?It can also make the company seem exclusionary. ?And the actual name choice can be polarizing – what one person finds clever, another finds corny.

The poll’s mixed results make an important point – there is no single right approach to culture-building. ?And this is because there is no single right culture (a point that I often make).?Every organization’s culture is different; so, it’s culture should be too.?As such, some companies might use a coined name for employees quite successfully while others would do well to stick to a generic term.

A unique name seems to make sense when:

• It arises organically – or at least is developed collaboratively with employees.? Company leaders should not force the term as a tool for changing the culture.? As with all aspects of culture-building, it’s best to develop a workforce name with employee input and to encourage but not force usage. Ideally, the name would be used from the very beginning of the company.? The name “Googler” seems to have referred to people who worked for Google since the very beginning (Google employee #13 refers to himself as a “Googler”).?As such, it seems to be not only authentic, but also well-accepted.?
• It fosters employee pride.?Just like physical labels on logoed swag, a name needs to be something people feel proud to adopt. ?Delta Professionals, as Delta Airlines employees have been called, is an excellent example.?But we need to remember that pride can be subjective.?I can’t imagine that employees at Yahoo enjoyed being called “Yahoos,” but perhaps they did because it seemed to be a term of endearment used by leaders when delivering difficult news.
• It is part of a positive employee experience (EX).?What a company calls employees should be symbolic of how it engages them throughout the EX.?For example, Starbucks refers to employees as “partners,” and explains the use of the term “because we are all partners in shared success.” It seems to fit with the stock grants and other benefits the company offers to its workers.?

Based on these criteria, Metamates seems to be a poor choice. ?And with Meta being the kind of company that most people love to hate, the backlash should not be a surprise.?

But the more important question is whether or not the culture at Meta lives up to the intention behind the reference.?When Zuckerberg used the term, which was inspired by the Navy maxim “ship, shipmates, self," he said it is “about the sense of responsibility we have for our collective success and to each other as teammates. It's about taking care of our company and each other.” ?If he and other Meta leaders want to foster this kind of culture, they need to do more than update their values and refer to employees differently.

Because, ultimately, an employee by any other name is still an employee. ?It matters less what you call people and more how you treat them.

***

Thanks to all who voted in the poll and contributed to the conversation!

Related:

• Facebook’s Rebrand Has a Fundamental Problem
• Should Company Culture Be Like a Cult?
• Stop Saying Your Company Is Like A Family